The Manifestation of God's Merciful Justice: A Theocentric Reading of Romans 3:21-26 (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology) 9789042936485, 9789042937079, 9042936487

Citation preview

C O N T R I BU T I O N S TO

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS & THEOLOGY

91

Varghese P. Chiraparamban

The Manifestation of God’s Merciful Justice A Theocentric Reading of Romans 3:21-26

PEETERS

THE MANIFESTATION OF GOD’S MERCIFUL JUSTICE ATheocentricReadingofRomans3:21-26

CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

SERIES EDITORS K. De Troyer (St Andrews) G. van Oyen (Louvain-la-Neuve)

ADVISORY BOARD Reimund Bieringer (Leuven) Lutz Doering (Münster) Mark Goodacre (Duke) Bas ter Haar Romeny (Amsterdam) Annette Merz (Groningen) Madhavi Nevader (St Andrews) Thomas Römer (Lausanne) Jack Sasson (Nashville) Tammi Schneider (Claremont)

Varghese P. CHIRAPARAMBAN

THE MANIFESTATION OF GOD’S MERCIFUL JUSTICE ATheocentricReadingofRomans3:21-26

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, 2018

CT

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2018 — Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven ISBN 978-90-429-3648-5 eISBN 978-90-429-3707-9 D/2018/0602/79 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

FOREWORD This book has grown out of my doctoral dissertation at KU Leuven where I carried out my research. It is the fruit of my effort to explore and understand a compact Bible passage that deals with God’s mercy and justice. As I recollect at the completion of this book, I wish to express my gratitude to all those who have helped me in accomplishing this task. First and foremost, I acknowledge the power of the spirit of God that enabled me to complete this work. Gratefully do I recall my Doktorvater, Prof. Dr. Reimund Bieringer who has been an immense source of inspiration to me. His scholarly guidance, valuable suggestions, corrections and encouragement enabled me to bring this work to timely completion. I have greatly benefited from his combination of expert Pauline scholarship, penetrating criticism and caring patience in reading this book at various stages of its preparation. My gratitude also goes to the members of the jury for the original dissertation: Prof. Dr. Ekaterini Tsalampouni, Prof. Dr. Peter Schmidt, Prof. Dr. Gilbert Van Belle and Prof. Dr. Mathijs Lamberichts, the chair of the jury; to the professors of the Faculty of Theology at KU Leuven, who have enlightened and broadened my vision throughout my time in Leuven; and to all the officials and staff of the secretariat and the library of the Faculty. I also acknowledge the invaluable assistance of David White in carefully proof reading this book. It was his grammatical corrections and timely assistance that have helped me to complete this task. I express my sincere gratitude to Very Rev. Dr. George Arackal, the provincial superior of St. Joseph’s province of Vincentian Congregation, for his kind permission to publish this book. This manuscript was conceived during my stay with the Lazarist Fathers in Leuven, who have welcomed me to their house. I remember Daniela Föhrenbach for proof reading my German quotes and Veenus Karamullil and Soeng Yu Li for their technical assistance. For the publication of this work I am indebted to Peeters Publishers, Leuven for their readiness to publish it in this format. For the work in its present form, I am most grateful to Prof. Geert Van Oyen and Kristin De Troyer, who gave me guidelines to publish this book in the series CBET.

VI

FOREWORD

I remember my parents and family members, confreres and friends, whose selfless and affectionate support bring joy to my life. Above all, I thank God who works in my life, especially through the precious gift of the persons mentioned here. Alwaye, India Easter, 2018

Varghese P. Chiraparamban

TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword . . . . . . . . Table of contents . . . Abbreviations . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . A. Tools and texts B. Commentaries . C. Studies . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

XXV

GENERAL INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1. 2. 3. 4.

. . . .

2 3 4 5

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26: ISSUES OF EXEGESIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

V

. . . . . . .

The problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why the Issue of a Theocentric Reading Arises? Research Method and Tools . . . . . . . . . . . Outline of the Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

VII XV XIX XIX XXII

CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ: The History Of Interpretation . . 1.1.1 Anthropocentric Readings . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 Theocentric Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 Christocentric Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.4 Concluding Remarks Concerning the Debate . 1.2 The Debate on πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Subjective Genitive Readings . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Objective Genitive Readings. . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Other Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.4 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The Question of the Pre-Pauline Material in 3:24-26 1.3.1 Arguments for the Pre-Pauline Material . . . . 1.3.2 Arguments against the Pre-Pauline Material . 1.4 A Brief Survey of Research on ἀπολύτρωσις . . . . 1.4.1 The Greco-Roman Background . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 9 11 18 19 20 21 24 27 29 29 30 33 35 35

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.4.2 The Scriptural Background. . . . . 1.4.3 Need for Further Research . . . . . 1.5 The Debate over ἱλαστήριον . . . . . . . 1.5.1 The Question of the Background . 1.5.2 Mercy Seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.3 Propitiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.4 Expiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.5 Critical Remarks . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 The Dispute over πάρεσις . . . . . . . . 1.6.1 Πάρεσις in Relation to παρίημι . . 1.6.2 Πάρεσις as a Synonym of ἄφεσις 1.6.3 Πάρεσις as Incapacitation . . . . . Chapter Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 41 41 42 44 47 50 52 53 53 55 58 59

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3 . . . . . . . . . . .

61

CHAPTER TWO

2.1 Previous Research on Paul’s Understanding of God . . . . . . 62 2.1.1 A Neglected Area of Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 2.1.2 Recent Research in Paul’s Understanding of God. . . . 65 2.2 The Theocentricity of the Letter to the Romans . . . . . . . . 70 2.2.1 Purpose of Romans and the Question of God . . . . . . 70 2.2.2 A Survey of Data in Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 2.2.3 The Relationship between God and Christ . . . . . . . 73 2.2.4 The Monotheistic Perspective and the Impartiality of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 2.2.5 References to the Death of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.2.6 Arguments Based on Scripture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 2.3 Paul’s Theocentric Argument in Romans 1-3 . . . . . . . . . 82 2.3.1 The Theme of Romans 1-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 86 2.3.1.1 The Problem of Anthropocentricity of Romans 2 2.3.1.2 The Function of Rom 3:1-8 . . . . . . . . . . . 88 2.3.1.3 God’s Justice as the Central Theme . . . . . . . 90 2.3.2 The Characterisation of God in Romans 1-3 . . . . . . 92 2.3.2.1 Narrative Analysis of God’s Characterisation in Romans 1-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 2.3.2.2 Relational Understanding of God . . . . . . . . 100 2.3.2.3 Paul’s God-Centred Argument in Romans 1-3 . 101 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IX

CHAPTER THREE ISSUES CONCERNING THE TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 3.1 Delimiting the Pericope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Text-Critical Issues of Rom 3:21-26 and the Theological Significance of the Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Textual Variants in 3:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1.1 Variant Readings of Ιησου Χριστου . . . . . . 3.2.1.2 Alternate Readings of εις παντας . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Textual Variants in 3:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2.1 The Article της: Omission or Addition? . . . . 3.2.2.2 Variant Readings of δια την παρεσιν . . . . . . 3.2.3 Textual Variants in 3:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3.1 Absence of και . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3.2 Ιησου, Ιησου Χριστου or Ιησουν? . . . . . . . 3.2.4 The Text in a Sense-Line Presentation . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Source-Critical Analysis of Rom 3:24-26 . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 The Probability of Pre-Pauline Material in 3:24 . . . . 3.3.2 The Probability of Pre-Pauline Material in 3:25-26. . . 3.4 Issues of Syntax in Rom 3:21-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 The Relation of 3:22 to 3:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Redundancy in 3:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 A Parenthesis in 3:22d-3:24a? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4 Πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον in the Syntax of 3:23 . . . . . . 3.4.5 The Complex Syntax of 3:24-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.5.1 Considerations Concerning δικαιούμενοι in 3:24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.5.2 Issues with διὰ πίστεως and ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι in 3:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.5.3 The Preposition διά with Accusative in 3:25 . . 3.4.5.4 The String of Prepositional Phrases in 3:25-26 3.4.5.5 Function of the Conjunction καί in 3:26 . . . . 3.5 The Argumentative Structure of Rom 3:21-26 . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 The Main Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 The Central Theme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.3 The Line of Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Our Translation of Rom 3:21-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105 110 111 111 113 116 116 119 120 120 121 123 124 125 127 131 131 133 134 136 137 138 140 142 145 148 149 149 151 153 158 159

X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER FOUR A THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ IN ROM 3:21-22 AND 3: 25-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 4.1 The LXX Background of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Δικαιοσύνη as an Attribute of God in the Psalms . . . . 4.1.2 Δικαιοσύνη in God’s Relation to Humanity in the Psalms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3 Δικαιοσύνη as an Attribute of God in Isaiah . . . . . . 4.1.4 All-Inclusive Dimension and the Coming of δικαιοσύνη in Isaiah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Considerations regarding God’s δικαιοσύνη in Pauline Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 God’s δικαιοσύνη Outside Romans . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ: The Question of the Type of the Genitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Impact of Ps 142 [LXX] on the Pauline Understanding of δικαιοσύνη . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Theocentric Reading of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Romans . . . . . 4.3.1 Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as God’s Merciful Justice . . . . . . . 4.3.2 God’s Merciful Justice in Romans 1-3 . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2.1 Significance of Rom 1:16-18 . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2.2 Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 3:5 and Paul’s Argument in Romans 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 God’s Merciful Justice in Romans 9-10 . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Has δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ Distinct Denotations in 3:21-22 and 3:25-26? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4.1 The Correlation between 3:21-22 and 3:25-26 . 4.3.4.2 Manifestation of God’s Merciful Justice in 3:21-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4.2.1 Significance of νυνὶ δέ and ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4.2.2 God’s Merciful Justice Manifested in Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4.3 Demonstration of God’s Merciful Justice in 3:25-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4.4 Support from the verb δικαιόω in 3:24, 26 . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

162 165 169 170 171 174 174 176 178 183 183 187 188 191 193 198 199 200 201 202 202 204 206

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XI

CHAPTER FIVE THE ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND THE ΠΙΣΤΙΣ (ΙΗΣΟΥ) ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ DEBATE IN ROM 3:22, 25, 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 5.1 Understanding πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ in Rom 3:22, 26 . . 5.1.1 Challenges from the Christological Reading . . . . . . 5.1.1.1 Redundancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1.2 The Manifestation of God’s δικαιοσύνη through πίστις . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1.3 Opposition between ἔργα νόμου and πίστις Χριστοῦ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 An Anthropological Reading of the πίστις Phrases in 3:22, 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2.1 The Importance of the Definite Article . . . . . 5.1.2.2 Scripture as the Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2.2.1 Habakkuk Quote in Rom 1:17 . . . . . 5.1.2.2.2 The Parallel between Abraham and the Believers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2.3 Supporting Evidence from the Context . . . . . 5.2 The Meaning of πίστις . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Lexical Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 The Relation of πίστις to πιστεύω . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 The Root and the Source of Pauline πιστ- words . . . . 5.2.3.1 The Influence of Classical Usage on the LXX . 5.2.3.2 The Hebrew Root ‫ אמן‬and the LXX Translation 5.2.3.3 The LXX Uses of πιστ- Words for the Hiphil Form of ‫ אמן‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3.4 The Use of πιστ- Words in Hellenistic Jewish Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3.5 Implications for Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 Terminological Clarifications and Issues of Translation of πιστ- Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Πίστις in Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

210 211 211 212 215 215 216 217 218 220 222 223 223 225 225 227 229 230 236 238 241 245 252

XII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER SIX ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST IN ROM 3:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 6.1 The Use of ἀπολύτρωσις outside Rom 3:24 . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 The Use of ἀπολύτρωσις in the LXX . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2 Ἀπολύτρωσις in Greco-Roman Writings . . . . . . . . 6.1.2.1 Uses with Ransom Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2.2 Uses without Ransom Nuance . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3 The Usage in the Pauline Homologoumena . . . . . . . 6.1.4 The Usage in the Pauline Antilegomena. . . . . . . . . 6.1.5 Other NT Usages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 A Theocentric Reading of ἀπολύτρωσις Metaphor in Rom 3:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Rom 3:24 in its Immediate Context . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 God’s χάρις and Unconditionality. . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Syntactical Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4 Theocentric Thrust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.5 Significance of Understanding ἀπολύτρωσις as a Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.6 The Question of Ransom and the Importance of δωρεάν . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

256 256 260 260 262 264 267 269 272 273 275 278 281 283 285 288

CHAPTER SEVEN A THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ IN ROM 3:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 7.1 An Exegetical Study of ἱλαστήριον . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.1 A Survey of Variations in Translations . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2 The Meaning of ἱλαστήριον Outside Rom 3:25 . . . . 7.1.2.1 The Use of ἱλαστήριον in Extra-Biblical Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2.2 Comparing 4 Macc 17:21-22 to Rom 3:25 . . . 7.1.2.3 The Meaning and Translation of ‫ כפרת‬in the LXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2.4 The Sense of the Noun ἱλασμός in 1 Jn 2:2 and 4:10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2.5 The Use of ἱλαστήριον in Heb 9:5 . . . . . . .

291 292 294 294 297 299 302 304

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.1.3 The Meaning of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 . . . . . . . 7.1.3.1 The Grammar of ἱλαστήριον . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.3.2 The Probability of an Allusion to ‫ כפרת‬. . . . . 7.1.3.3 The Connotation of the Verb προέθετο . . . . . 7.1.3.4 Christ the ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως . . . . . . . 7.1.3.5 The Association of ἱλαστήριον with ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 An Exegetical Study of πάρεσις . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Πάρεσις in Extra-Biblical Literature . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1.1 Occurrences of the Noun πάρεσις. . . . . . . . 7.2.1.2 Occurrences of the Verb παρίημι Together with ‘Sins’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Supporting Evidence from the Biblical Uses of παρίημι . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3 The Meaning of πάρεσις in the Context of Rom 3:25 . 7.2.3.1 The Exegetical Significance of πάρεσις in Rom 3:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3.2 Πάρεσις in Relation to ἔνδειξις . . . . . . . . 7.2.3.3 Πάρεσις in God’s ἀνοχή . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3.4 What does προγεγονότα ἁμαρτήματα Refer to? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Theological Implications of Rom 3:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 The Neglected Theology of the Passing over of Former Sins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 The Question of the Justice of God . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.3 Re-Visiting the Theology of the Cross and Theories of the Atonement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XIII 306 306 308 312 314 315 318 319 319 323 325 328 328 329 332 333 336 337 340 342 347

GENERAL CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD ACNT AGJU AnBib ANL ANTC Anton ANTF ATR AusBR BBB BBET BDAG BDF BECNT BETL BFCT BHS Bib BibInt BK BLG BNTC BT BZ BZNW CBET CBR CBQ CNT CNTC DBY EDNT EIN EKK NT ESV ETL

Anchor Bible TheAnchorBibleDictionary Augsburg Commentaries on the New Testament Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Analecta Biblica Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Antonianum Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung AnglicanTheologicalReview AustralianBiblicalReview Bonner Biblische Beiträge Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Bauer, Walter. AGreek-EnglishLexiconoftheNewTestament andOtherEarlyChristianLiterature (see bibliography). Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of theNewTestament(see bibliography) Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica BiblicalInterpretation BibelundKirche Biblical Languages. Greek Black’s New Testament Commentaries TheBibleTranslator BiblischeZeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CurrentsinBiblicalResearch CatholicBiblicalQuarterly Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries The Darby Bible ExegeticalDictionaryoftheNewTestament Einheitsübersetzung Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament English Standard Version EphemeridesTheologicaeLouvanienses

XVI EvQ ExpT FB FRLANT GTA HBT HNT HTKAT HTKNT HTS ICC IDB Int IJST ISV ITQ JB JBL JSNT JSNT SS JSPL JTI JTS KEK KJV LBS LCL L-N LNTS LS LSJ NA27 & NA28 NAB NEB NICNT NIGTC NIDB NIDNTT NIV NJB NKJ NKZ NLT NovT NovTSup

ABBREVIATIONS

Evangelical Quarterly ExpositoryTimes Forschung zur Bibel Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Göttinger theologische Arbeiten HorizonsinBiblicalTheology Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harward Theological Studies International Critical Commentary TheInterpreter’sDictionaryoftheBible Interpretation InternationalJournalofSystematicTheology International Standard Version IrishTheologicalQuarterly Jerusalem Bible JournalofBiblicalLiterature JournalfortheStudyoftheNewTestament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JournalfortheStudyofPaulandHisLetters JournalofTheologicalInterpretations JournalofTheologicalStudies Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament King James Version Linguistic Biblical Studies The Loeb Classical Library Louw and Nide (see details in the bibliography). Library of New Testament Studies Louvain Studies Liddell, Henry George & Robert Scott. AGreek-EnglishLexicon (see bibliography). NovumTestamentumGraece, Nestle-Aland (see bibliography). New American Bible New English Bible The New International Commentary on the New Testament The New International Greek Testament Commentary TheNewInterpreter’sDictionaryoftheBible TheNewInternationalDictionaryofNewTestamentTheology The New International Version New Jerusalem Bible New King James Version NeuekirchlicheZeitschift New Living Translation NovumTestamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum

ABBREVIATIONS

NRSV NTAbh NF NTM NTS PAST PBM PTR REB RelSRev ResQ RNT RSV RTR SB SBL SBL DS SBLRBS SBS SBT SCE SJT SNS SNT SNTS MS SP SSEJC SubBi TDNT THKNT ThPh TNT TS TynBul TZ  WBC WMANT WUNT YLT ZNW ZST ZThK

XVII

New Revised Standard Version Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Neue Folge New Testament Monographs NewTestamentStudies Pauline Studies Paternoster Biblical Monographs PrincetonTheologicalReview Revised English Bible ReligiousStudiesReview RestorationQuarterly Regensburger Neues Testament Revised Standard Version ReformedTheologicalReview Subsidia Biblica Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology StudiesinChristianEthics ScottishJournalofTheology Studia Neotestamentica Studia Studien zum Neuen Testament Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra Pagina Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity Subsidia Biblica TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament TheologieundPhilosophie Tyndale’s New Testament Theological Studies Tyndale Bulletin TheologischeZeitschrift Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Young‘s Literal Translation Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche ZeitschriftfürsystematischeTheologie ZeitschriftfürTheologieundKirche

BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Tools and Texts Aland, Kurt, ed. Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments:DiepaulinischenBriefe, ANTF 16. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991. —, ed. Vollständige Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament unter Zugrundelegung aller modernen kritischen Textausgaben und des Textus Receptus. 2 Vols. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter, 1975-1983. Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. TheTextoftheNewTestament:AnIntroduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern TextualCriticism. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Maria Martini, and Bruce Manning Metzger, eds. The Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 5th revised ed., 2014 (=GNT5). —, eds. NovumTestamentumGraece. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 27th ed., 8th printing, 2001 (=NA27). Revised edition by the Institute for the Textual Research Münster/Westphalia under the direction of Holger Strutwolf, 2012 (=NA28). Alexander, Patrick H., and John F. Kutsko, etal. TheSBLHandbookofStyle: ForAncientnearEastern,Biblical,andEarlyChristianStudies. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999. Bachmann, H., and W. A. Slaby, eds. ConcordancetotheNovumTestamentum GraeceofNestle-Aland,26thedition,andtotheGreekNewTestament, 3rd edition. Berlin: de Gruynter, 1987. Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, eds. ExegeticalDictionaryoftheNewTestament. Translated by J. W. Thomson and J. W. Medendorp. 3 Vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990-1993 (=EDNT). Originally published as Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978-1983 (=EWNT). Barber, E. A., ed. Greek-English Lexicon: A Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Bauer, Walter. AGreek-EnglishLexiconoftheNewTestamentandOtherEarly Christian Literature. Translated and adapted from Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Revised and augmented by Frederick William Danker on the basis of 6th German ed., Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1979, 3rd ed., 2000 (=BDAG). BibleWorks9:SoftwareforBiblicalExegesis&Research. [DVD], Norfolk, VA, SBL. 2011. Bieringer, Reimund, and Mary Elsbernd. “The ‘Normativity of the Future’ Approach: Its Roots, Development, Current State and Challenges.” In NormativityoftheFuture:ReadingBiblicalandOtherAuthoritativeTextsin

XX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

anEschatologicalPerspective, ANL 61, Reimund Bieringer and Mary Elsbernd, 3-26. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner and Friedrich Rehkopf. Grammatikdesneutestamentlichen Griechisch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 18th ed., 2001 (BDR). Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. AGreekGrammaroftheNewTestament andOtherEarlyChristianLiterature. Translated and adapted from GrammatikdesneutestamentlichenGriechisch, 9th ed. Robert W. Funk. Chicago, IL-London: The University of Chicago Press, 1961 (=BDF). Brown, Colin, ed. TheNewInternationalDictionaryofNewTestamentTheology. 4 Vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975-1979 (=NIDNTT). Brown, Francis. AHebrewandEnglishLexiconoftheOldTestament.Translated by Edward Robinson. Oxford: Clarendon, 1952. Buttrick, George Arthur, ed. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962 (=IDB). Chaeronensis, Plutarchus. PlutarqueVie. Translated by Robert Flacelière. Vol. 8. Paris: Belles Letters, 1973. Dio Chrysostom. 5 vols. Vol. 1: Orations 1-11. Trans. J. W. Cohoon. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1932. Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. BibliaHebraicaStuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997 (=BHS). Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Halicarnassus, Dionysius. TheRomanAntiquitiesofDionysiusofHalicarnassus, LCL. Vol. 4, ed. Earnest Cary. London: William Heinemann, 1950. Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath. AConcordancetotheSeptuagintandthe Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987, 5th printing: 1991. Holmes, Michael W, ed. TheGreekNewTestament, SBL Edition. Atlanta: GA: SBL, 2010. Josephus, Flavius. Complete Works. Translated by William Whinston. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1960, 12th pr. 1974. Josephus, Flavius. JudeanAntiquities15:TranslationandCommentary. Flavius Josephus 7b, ed. Steve Mason. Translated by Jan Willem van Henten, Leiden. Boston: Brill, 2014. Kittel, Gerhard, and Geoffrey Friedrich, eds. TheologicalDictionaryoftheNew Testament. Translated by W. G. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-1976. Originally published as Theologisches Wörterbuch zumNeuenTestament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933-1979 (=TDNT). Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. TheHebrewandAramaicLexicon oftheOldTestament. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. AGreek-EnglishLexicon. Revised and augmented by Henry Stuart Jones & Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940, 9th ed. repr., 1994 (=LSJ). Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida. AGreek-EnglishLexiconoftheNew Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989 (=L-N). Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel and Katrin Haupie. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

XXI

Marshall, I. Howard. ed. MoultonandGeden:AConcordancetotheGreekNew Testament. London-New York: T&T Clark, 2002. Meecham, Henry G. TheLetterofAristeas:ALinguisticStudywithSpecialReferencetotheGreekBible. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Metzger, Bruce M., and B. D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969, 4th ed., 2005. Moule, Charles F. D. AnIdiomBookofNewTestamentGreek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd ed., 1963. Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol.1: Prolegomena. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908. Moulton, James Hope, and Nigel Turner. AGrammarofNewTestamentGreek. Vol. 3. Edinburgh: Clarke, 1963. Muraoka, Takamitsu. AGreek-EnglishLexiconoftheSeptuagint:Chieflyofthe PentateuchandtheTwelveProphets. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. Newman, Barclay M. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971. OxfordShorterEnglishDictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3rd ed. 1993. Paton, William R., and E. L. Hicks. TheInscriptionsofCos. Oxford: Clarendon, 1891. Philo. Trans. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker and Ralph Markus. LCL. 12 vols. London: Heinemann, 1929-53. Perschbacher, Wesley J., ed. TheNewAnalyticalGreekLexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989. Porter, Stanley E. IdiomsoftheGreekNewTestament, BLG 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2nd ed., 1999. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta: id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935, 7th ed. repr. 1979. Robertson, Archibald Thomas. AGrammaroftheGreekNewTestamentinthe LightofHistoricalResearch. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 4th ed., 1934. Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob, ed. TheNewInterpreters’DictionaryoftheBible. 5 vols. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2006-2009 (=NIDB). Siculus, Diodorus. Diodorus Siculus Fragments, LCL. Vol. 12. Translated by Francis R. Walton. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983. Smyth, Herbert Weir. GreekGrammar. Revised ed., edited and revised by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984. Spicq, Ceslas. TheologicalLexiconoftheNewTestament. 3 Vols. Translated by J. D. Ernest. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Spitz, Lewis William, and Helmut T. Lehman, eds. Luther’s Works. Vol. 34. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1960. Swanson, Reuben, ed. New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Romans. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001. TheHolyBibleContainingtheOldandNewTestaments.Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1993 (=NRSV).

XXII

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Digital Library of Greek Literature. (=TLG). Awailable on http://www.tlg.uci.edu/ Trenchard, W. C. A Concise Dictionary of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Turner, Nigel, and James Hope Moulton. The Grammar of New Testament Greek,Syntax. Vol. 3. Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1963. Vermes, Geza. TheDeadSeaScrollsinEnglish. Sheffield: JSOT, 3rd ed. 1987. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax oftheNewTestament. Grand Rapids, MN: Zondervan, 1996. Wevers, John William, Robert Hanhart, Joseph Ziegler, Udo Quast, Wener Kappler, and Alfred Ralphs, eds. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate Academiae scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974-Present. Yonge, C. D. TheWorksofPhilo:CompletedandUnabridged. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993. Zerwick, Maximilian. BiblicalGreek:IllustratedbyExamples, SubBi 42. Translated by Joseph Smith Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 1963, revised edition in one volume in 2001, repr. 9, 2011. B. Commentaries Abbott, T. K. ACriticalandExegeticalCommentaryontheEpistletotheEphesiansandtotheColossians, ICC. Edinburgh: Clark, 1968. Achtemeier, Paul J. Romans, Int. Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1985. Agamben, Giorgio. TheTimeThatRemains:ACommentaryontheLettertothe Romans. Translated by Patricia Dailey. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005. Allen, Leslie C. Psalms101-150, WBC 21. Waco: Word, 1983. Barrett, Charles Kingsley. ACommentaryontheEpistletotheRomans, BNTC. London: Black, 1957. —. A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC. London: Black, 1973. Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. Trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns. London: Oxford University, 1965. Best, Ernest. ACriticalandExegeticalCommentaryonEphesians, ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Black, Matthew. Romans, New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1977. Bock, Darrell L. Luke, BECNT 3B. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996. Boylan, Patrick Canon. St.Paul’sEpistletotheRomans. Dublin: Gill and Son, 1934. Bovon, François. Luke 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9:51-19:27, Hermeneia. Translated by Donald S. Deer. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2013. Bray, Gerald. AncientChristianCommentaryonScripture:Romans. Vol. 6, ed. Thomas Oden. London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1998. Brown, Joanne Carlson, and Rebecca Parker. “For God So Loved the World?” In Christianity, Patriarchy and Abuse: A Feminist Critique, 1-30. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1989.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

XXIII

Brown, Raymond E. TheEpistlesofJohn, AB 30. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982. Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. TheEpistleofPaultotheRomans:AnIntroductionand Commentary, TNTC. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1979. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Trans. Roy A. Harrisville. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1985. Byrne, Brendan. Romans, SP 6. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1996. Calvin, Jean. TheEpistlesofPaultheApostletotheRomansandtotheThessalonians, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980. Cornely, Rudolphus. CommentariusinS.PauliApostoliEpistolas. Vol. 1. Paris: Lethielleux, 1896. Cranfield, C. E. B. ACriticalandExegeticalCommentaryontheEpistletothe Romans, ICC. Vol. I. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975. —. Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985. Denney, James. “St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.” In The Expositor’s Greek Testament.ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, 2, 555-725. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1900. Dodd, Charles Harold. TheEpistleofPaultotheRomans.London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965. Dunn, James D. G. Romans1-8, WBC 38a. Dallas, TX: Word, 1988. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke, AB 28A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1986. —. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. —. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 32. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. Grässer, Erich. AndieHebräer, EKKNT 17. Vol. 2. Zürich: Benziger, 1992. Haacker, Klaus. DerBriefdesPaulusandieRömer, THNT 6. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsstalt, 3rd ed., 2006. Harrisville, Roy A. Romans, ACNT. Minneapolis, MN: Eerdmans, 1980. Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians:AnExegeticalCommentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002. Holland, Tom. Romans: The Divine Marriage, A Biblical Theological Commentary. Eugene: Pickwick, 2011. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalms3:ACommentaryonPsalms 101-150, Hermeneia, ed. Klaus Baltzer. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011. Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. ACommentaryontheEpistletotheHebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977. Hultgren, Arland J. Paul’sLettertotheRomans:ACommentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011. Hunter, Archibald M. TheEpistletotheRomans. London: SCM, 1961. Japhet, Sara. 2Chronik, HTKAT. Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 2003. Jewett, Robert. Romans, Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007. Käsemann, Ernst. AndieRömer, HNT 8a. Tübingen: Mohr, 1980. Keck, Leander E. Romans,ANTC. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2005.

XXIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kirk, Kenneth Escott. TheEpistletotheRomans, The Clarendon Bible. Oxford: Clarendon, 1947. Knox, J. “The Epistle to the Romans.” In The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick, Vol 9, 353-668. New York: Abingdon, 1957. Kühl, Ernst. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. Leipzig: Quelle und Meyer, 1913. Kuss, Otto. DerRömerbrief. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1957. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Saint Paul: Épître aux Romains, Études Bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1950. Lane, William L. Hebrews9-13, WBC 47b. Dallas, TX: Word, 1991. Leenhardt, Franz J. L’épîtredesaintPaulauxRomains. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1957. Lipsius, Richard Adalbert. Briefe an die Galater, Römer, Philipper, HNT 2. Freiburg: Mohr, 1892. Lohse, Eduard. Der Brief an die Römer, KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2003. MacKenzie, Ross. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, CNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973. Martyn, Louis J. Galatians:ANewTranslationwithIntroductionandCommentary, AB 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Matera, Frank J. Romans, Paideïa: Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010. Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. CriticalandExegeticalHandbooktotheEpistle to the Romans. Vol. 1. Translated by J. C. Moore. Edinburgh: Clark, 1876. Meyer, Paul W. “Romans.” In HarperBibleCommentary, ed. J. L. Mays. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Römer, KEK 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 12th ed., 1966. Moo, Douglas J. Romans1-8, The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary, ed. Kenneth Barker. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1991. —. TheEpistletotheRomans, NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Morris, Leon. TheEpistletotheRomans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Murray, John. TheEpistletotheRomans, NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975. Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia, PA: Muhlenberg, 1949. O’Neill, J. C. Paul’sLettertotheRomans. London: Penguin Books, 1975. Parker, T. H. L. CommentariesontheEpistletotheRomans1532-1542. Edinburgh: Clark, 1986. Reasoner, Mark. RomansinFullCircle:AHistoryofInterpretation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Ridderbos, Herman. AandeRomeinen, CNT. Kampen: Kok, 1959. Sanday, William, and Arthur Cayley Headlam. ACriticalandExegeticalCommentaryontheEpistletotheRomans, ICC. Edinburgh: Clark, 1968. Schlatter, Adolf. GottesGerechtigkeit:EinKommentarzumRömerbrief. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1959. Schlier, Heinrich. DerRömerbrief, HTKNT 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1977.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

XXV

Schmidt, Hans Wilhelm. DerBriefdesPaulusandieRömer, THKNT 6. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962. Schmithals, Walter. DerRömerbrief:EinKommentar. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1988. Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans, BECNT 6. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998. Stowers, Stanley K. ARereadingofRomans. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Der Brief an die Römer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1989. Talbert, Charles H. Romans, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. Thielman, Frank. Ephesians, BCNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010. Thiselton, Anthony C. TheFirstEpistletotheCorinthians:ACommentaryon theGreekText, NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Tosolini, Fabrizio. TheLettertotheRomansandSt.Paul’sGraceandApostleship. Taipei: Fu Jen Catholic University Press, 2005. Waetjen, Herman C. The Letter to the Romans: Salvation as Justice and the DeconstructionofLaw, NTM 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011. Wilckens, Ulrich. DerBriefandieRömer, EKK NT 6. Zürich: Benziger, 1987. Witherington III, Ben. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. Wolter, Michael. Der Brief an Die Römer: Teilband 1, Röm 1-8, EKK NT 6. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Theologie, 2014. Zahn, Theodor. DerBriefdesPaulusandieRömer, KNT 6. Leipzig: Deichert, 3rd ed., 1925. Zeller, Dieter. DerBriefandieRömer, RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 1985. Ziesler, John A. T. Paul’sLettertotheRomans. London: SCM, 1989. C. Studies Achtemeier, Paul J. “Apropos the Faith of/in Christ.” In PaulineTheology. Vol. 4, ed. Elizabeth E. Johnson and David M. Hay, 82-92. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1997. Aletti, Jean-Noël. God’sJusticeinRomans:KeysforInterpretingtheEpistleto theRomans, SubBi 37. Translated by Peggy Manning Meyer. Roma: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2010. Aletti, “Rm 1–3: Quelle fonction? Histoire de l’exégèse et nouveau paradigme” In BiblicalExegesisinProgress: OldandNewTestamentEssays, eds. JeanNoël Aletti and Jean-Louis Ska, 469-499. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2009. Allen, E. L. “Representative-Christology in the New Testament.” HTR 46 (1953): 161-169. Antony, Binz. NoOneCanseparateUsfromtheLoveofGodinChristJesus: ATheocentricInterpretationoftheGospelofGodforanEcclesialPurpose inRomans1-8. Leuven: Unpublished Dissertation, KU Leuven, 2011. Aquinas, St. Thomas. SummaTheologica:LiterallyTranslatedbyFathersof theEnglishDominicanProvince. Vol. 2. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947.

XXVI

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aulén, Gustaf. ChristusVictor:AnHistoricalStudyoftheThreeMainTypesof theIdeaoftheAtonement. London: SPCK, 1980. Aune, David E. Jesus,GospelTraditionandPaulintheContextofJewishand Greco-RomanAntiquity, WUNT 303. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Bailey, Daniel P. “Review of Campbell’s The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Rom 3:21-26.” JTS 44 (1993): 279-283. —. Jesus as the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of HilasterioninRomans3:25. Cambridge: Dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1999. Barclay, John M. G. “Constructing a Dialogue: 4Ezra and Paul on the Mercy of God.” In AnthropologieundEthikimFrühjudentumundimNeuenTestament:WechselseitigeWahrnehmungen,WUNT 322, ed. Matthias Konradt and Esther Schläpfer, 3-22. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University Press, 1961. Barth, Gerhard. „Pistis in hellenistischer Religiosität.“ ZNW 73 (1982): 110-126. —. “Πίστις κτλ.” In EDNT 3 (1993): 91-97. Bassler, J. M. “Divine Impartiality in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” NovT 26 (1984): 43-58. Bauckham, Richard. JesusandtheGodofIsrael:GodCrucifiedandOtherStudiesontheNewTestament’sChristologyofDivineIdentity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Beker, Christian J. PaultheApostle:TheTriumphofGodinLifeandThought. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1984. Bell, Richard H. NoOneSeeksforGod:AnExegeticalandTheologicalStudy ofRomans1:18-3:20, WUNT 106. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Bergmeier, Roland. DasGesetzimRömerbriefundandereStudienzumNeuen Testament, WUNT 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Bieringer, Reimund. DialoogEnParticipatie:OverHedendaagseUitdagingen VanHetChristelijkGeloof. Leuven: Acco, 2010. —. “Paul’s Divine Jealousy: The Apostle and his Communities in Relationship.” In Studies on 2 Corinthians, BETL 112, ed. Reimund Bieringer and Jan Lambrecht, 223-253. Leuven: University Press, 1994. —. “Sünde und Gerechtigkeit Gottes in 2 Korinther 5,21.” In Studieson2Corinthians, BETL 112, ed. Reimund Bieringer and Jan Lambrecht, 461-514. Leuven: University Press-Peeters, 1994. —. “Reconciliation to God in the Light of 2 Corinthians 5:14-21.” In ReconciliationinInterfaithPerspective, ed. Reimund Bieringer and David J. Bolton, 39-58. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Bird, Michael F., and Preston M. Sprinkle, eds. TheFaithofJesusChrist:Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. Blackman, Cyril. “Romans 3:26b: A Question of Translation.” JBL 87 (1968): 203-204. Blackwell, Ben C. “Immortal Glory and the Problem of Death in Rom 3.23.” JSNT 32 (2010): 285-308. Boers, Hendrikus. “ἀγάπη and χάρις in Paul’s Thought.” CBQ 59 (1997): 693713.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

XXVII

Bosnakis, D., and K. Hallop. „Alte und neue Inschriften aus Kos III.“ Chiron 38 (2008): 204-242. Brauch, Manfred T. “Perspectives on ‘God’s Righteousness’ in Recent German Discussion.” In PaulandPalestinianJudaism, ed. Ed Parish Sanders, 523542. London: SCM, 1977. Bréhier, Émile. LesidéesphilosophiquesetreligieusesdePhilond’Alexandrie, Études de philosophie médiévale 8. Paris: Vrin, repr. 3, 1950. Bremer, Paul Lowell. Paul’s Understanding of the Death of Christ according to Romans1-8. Ann Arbor, MI: Xerox University Microfilms International, 1978. Breytenbach, Ciliers. “’Charis’ and ‘Eleos’ in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” In TheLettertotheRomans, BETL 226, ed. Udo Schnelle, 247-277. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Brondos, David A. Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle’s Story of Redemption. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006. Bruyn, Theodore De. Pelagius’CommentaryonSt.Paul’sEpistletotheRomans, Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. Bryan, Christopher. APrefacetoRomans:NotesontheEpistleinitsLiterary andCulturalSetting. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Buber, Martin. TwoTypesofFaith. Translated by Norman P. Goldhawk Martin Buber Library. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2003. Büchsel, Friedrich. “ἱλαστήριον κτλ.” In TDNT 3 (1965): 300-323. Bultmann, Rudolf. “πάρεσις.” In TDNT 1 (1963): 509-512. —. “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ.” JBL 83 (1964): 12-16. —. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. Vol. 1. London: SCM, 1965. —. TheologiedesNeuenTestaments. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 6th ed., 1968. —. “Πιστεύω κτλ.” In TDNT 6 (1968): 174-228. Burk, Denny. “The Righteousness of God (Dikaiosunē Theou) and Verbal Genitives: A Grammatical Clarification.” JSNT 34 (2012): 346-359. Burnett, Gary W. Paul&SalvationoftheIndividual. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Calhoun, Robert Matthew. Paul’sDefinitionoftheGospelinRomans1, WUNT 316. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Cambier, Jules. L’évangile de Dieu selon l’èpître aux Romains: Exegèse et ThéologieBiblique, SNS 3. Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1967. Campbell, Douglas A. “Romans 1:17 - A Crux Interpretum for the πίστις Χριστοῦ Debate.” JBL 113 (1994): 265-285. —. “Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans 3:22.” In TheFaithofJesusChrist: Exegetical,BiblicalandTheologicalStudies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, 57-71. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. —. “Participation and Faith in Paul.” In “InChrist”inPaul:Explorationsin Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer Michael J. Thate and Constantine R. Campbell, 37-60. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. —. The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Rom 3:21-26, JSNT SS 65. Sheffield: Academy, 1992. —. “The Story of Jesus in Romans and Galatians.” In Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, 97-125. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2002.

XXVIII

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. TheQuestforPaul’sGospel:ASuggestedStrategy, JSNT SS 274. London: T&T Clark, 2005. —. TheDeliveranceofGod:AnApocalypticRereadingofJustificationinPaul. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Campbell, William S. “No Distinction or no Discrimination?: The Translation of Διαστολή in Romans 3:22 and 10:12.” TZ 69 (2013): 353-371. Capes, David. OldTestamentYahwehTextsinPaul’sChristology, WUNT 2, 47. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Carraway, George. Christ is God Over All: Romans 9:5 in the Context of Romans9-11, LNTS 489. London-New York: Bloomsbury, 2013. Chiraparamban, Varghese P. “The Background and Contextual Meaning of Ἀπολύτρωσις in Rom 3,24.” In Paul’sGraeco-RomanContext, BETL 277, ed. Cilliers Breytenbach, 471-485. Leuven: Peeters-University Press, 2015. —. “The Translation of Πίστις and Its Cognates in the Pauline Epistles.” BT 66 (2015): 176-189. Cho, Jae Hyung. “The Christology of Romans in Light of πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Rom 3:22-26).” ResQ 56 (2014): 41-51. Cirafesi, Wally V. “’To Fall Short’ or ‘to Lack’? Reconsidering the Meaning and Translation of ὑστερέω in Romans 3:23.” ExpT 123 (2012): 429434. Constantineanu, Corneliu. The Social Significance of Reconciliation in Paul’s Theology: Narrative Readings in Romans, LNTS 421. London: Clark, 2010. Conzelmann, Hans. AnOutlineoftheTheologyoftheNewTestament. London: SCM, 1969. Cranfield, C. E. B. “μέτρον πίστεως in Rom 12:3.” NTS 8 (1962): 345-351. —. OnRomansandtheOtherNewTestamentEssays. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Creed, J. M. “ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ in Dionysius of Haricarnassus and in St. Paul.” JTS 41 (1940): 28-30. Cremer, H. Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichenVoraussetzungen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2nd ed., 1900. Cullmann, Oscar. TheChristologyoftheNewTestament. Translated by Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall. London: SCM, 1963. Daalen, D. H. van. “’Faith’ According to Paul “ ExpT 87 (1975): 83-85. Dabourne, Wendy. PurposeandCauseinPaulineExegesis:Romans1.16-4.25 andaNewApproachtotheLetters, SNTS MS 104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Dahl, Nils A. “The Neglected Factor in New Testament Theology.” Reflections 73 (1975): 5-8. Dahl, Nils Alstrup. StudiesinPaul:TheologyfortheEarlyChristianMission. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977. Das, A. Andrew. SolvingtheRomanDebate. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007. Davies, Glenn N. Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1-4, JSNT SS 39. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990. Deissmann, Adolf. DieneutestamentlicheFormel„inChristoJesu“. Marburg: Elwert, 1892.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

XXIX

—. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. Translated by William E. Wilson. New York: George H. Doran, 2nd ed., 1926. Deissmann, Adolf Gustav. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Translated by L. R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 4th ed., 1927. —. Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the HistoryofLanguage,theLiterature,andtheReligionofHellenisticJudaism and Primitive Christianity. Translated by Alexander Grieve. Edinburgh: Hendrickson, repr. of the 1901 ed., 1988. Delobel, J. “Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Siamese Twins?” In NewTestament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History: A Discussion of Methods, ed. B. Aland and J. Delobel, 98-117. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994. DeSilva, David A. “Grace, the Law and Justification in 4 Ezra and the Pauline Letters: A Dialogue.” JSNT 37 (2014): 25-49. Do, Toan. Re-thinkingtheDeathofJesus:AnExegeticalandTheologicalStudy of Hilasmos and Agapē in 1 John 2:1-2 and 4:7-10, CBET 73. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Do, Toan Joseph. “Jesus’ Death as Hilasmos According to 1 John.” In The Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, BETL 200, ed. Gilbert Van Belle, 537-553. Leuven: Peeters–University Press, 2007. —. “The LXX Background of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3,25.” In TheLettertothe Romans, BETL 226, ed. Udo Schnelle, 641-657. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Dobbeler, Axel von. GlaubealsTeilhabe:HistorischeundsemantischeGrundlagenderpaulinischenTheologieundEkklesiologiedesGlaubens, WUNT 2, 22. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Dodd, Charles Harold. “ΙΛΑΣΚΟΜΑΙ Its Cognates, Derivatives, and Synonyms, in the Septuagint.” JTS 32 (1931): 352 - 360. Dodson, Joseph R. The“Powers”ofPersonification:RhetoricalPurposeinthe BookofWisdomandtheLettertotheRomans, BZNW 161. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Driel, Adwin Chr. van. “Climax of the Covenant vs Apocalyptic Invasion: A Theological Analysis of a Contemporary Debate in Pauline Exegesis.” IJST 17 (2015): 6-25. Dulles, Avery. TheAssuranceoftheThingsHopedfor:ATheologyofChristian Faith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Dunn, James D. G. “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology?” In Celebrating Romans, ed. Sheila E. McGinn. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. —. “Faith, Faithfulness.” In NIDB 2 (2007): 407-423. —. “Justice of God.” JTS 43 (1992): 1-22. —. “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ.” In Pauline Theology, ed. Elizabeth E. Johnson and David M. Hay. Vol 4, 61-81. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1997. —. “The Narrative Approach to Paul: Whose Story?” In Narrative Dynamics inPaul:ACriticalAssessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, 217-231. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2002. —. TheTheologyofPaultheApostle. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Dunnill, John. SacrificeandtheBody:BiblicalAnthropologyandChristianSelfUnderstanding. Farnham: Ashgate, 2013.

XXX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dunson, Ben C. “Faith in Romans: The Salvation of the Individual or Life of the Community?” JSNT 34 (2011): 19-46. Easter, Matthew C. “The PistisChristou Debate: Main Arguments and Responses in Summary.” CBR 9 (2010): 33-47 Eberhart, Christian A. “Characteristics of Sacrificial Metaphors in Hebrews.” In Hebrews: Contemporary Methods- New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Elliott, James Keith. “Recent Trends in Textual Criticism: A New Millennium, a New Beginning?” Babelao 1 (2012): 117-136. Ellis, Edward Earle. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957. Elsbernd, Mary, and Reimund Bieringer. “Interpreting the Signs of the Times in the Light of the Gospel Vision and Normativity of the Future.” In NormativityoftheFuture:ReadingBiblicalandOtherAuthoritativeTextsinan EschatologicalPerspective, ANL 61, ed. Reimund Bieringer and Mary Elsbernd, 48-90. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Enderlein, Steven E. “To Fall Short or Lack the Glory of God? The Translation and Implications of Romans 3:23.” JSPL 1 (2011): 213-224. —. “The Faithfulness of the Second Adam in Romans 3:21-26: A Response to Porter and Cirafesi.” JSPL 3 (2013): 11-24. Epp, Eldon Jay. “Textual Criticism.” In ABD 4 (1992): 411-435. —. “Why does New Testament Textual Criticism Matter? Refined Definitions and Fresh Directions.” ExpT 125 (2014): 417-431. Ezra, Daniel Stökl Ben. TheImpactofYomKippuronEarlyChristianity:The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century, WMANT, 163. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Fahy, T. “Exegesis on Rom. 3:25f.” ITQ 23 (1956): 69-73. Fee, Gordon D. “Paul and the Metaphors for Salvation: Some Reflections on Pauline Soteriology.” In TheRedemption:AnInterdisciplinarySymposium onChristasRedeemer, ed. Stephen T. David, Daniel Kendall and Gerald O’Collins, 43-67. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Finegan, Edward. Language:ItsStructureandUse. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/ Cengage learning, 6th ed., 2012. Fisk, Bruce N. “Paul among the Storytellers: Reading Romans 11 in the Context of Rewritten Bible.” In Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation, ed. Christopher D. Stanley. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. PaulandHisTheology:ABriefSketch. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989. Flebbe, Jochen. Solus Deus: Untersuchungen zur Rede von Gott im Brief des PaulusandieRömer, BZNW 158. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Foster, Robert L. “The Justice of the Gentiles: Revisiting the Purpose of Romans.” CBQ 76 (2014): 684-703. Frame, J. E. “Paul’s Idea of Deliverance.” JBL 49 (1930): 1-12. Fryer, Nico S. L. “The Meaning and Translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25.” EvQ 59 (1987): 99-116. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. “The Cosmic Power of Sin in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” Int 58 (2004): 229-240.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

XXXI

—. “The “Glory of God” in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” In Interpretationand the Claims of the Text: Resourcing New Testament Theology, eds. Bruce W. Longenecker, Jason A. Whitlark, et al., 29-40. Waco: Texas Baylor University Press, 2014. Gignac, Alain. “The Enunciative Device of Romans 1:18-4:25: A Succession of Discourses Attempting to Express the Multiple Dimensions of God’s Justice.” CBQ 77 (2015): 481-502. Goodrich, John K. “’Standard of Faith’ or Masure of a Trusteeship’? A Study of Romans 12:3.” CBQ 74 (2012): 753-772. Grayston, K. “‘Ιλάσκεσθαι and Related Words in LXX.” NTS 27 (1981): 640656. Green, Joel B. “Atonement Images in Romans.” In ReadingPaul’sLettertothe Romans, SBLRBS 73, ed. Jerry L. Sumney, 79-92. Atlanda, GA: SBL, 2012. Grieb, Katherine A. TheStoryofRomans:ANarrativeDefenseofGod’sRighteousness. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002. —. “The Righteousness of God in Romans.” In Reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans, SBLRBS 73, ed. Jerry L. Sumney, 65-78. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012. Haddix, James. “Romans 3:21-31.” Int 58 (2004): 227-229. Hall, David. “The Interpretation of πρός in Romans 3:26.” TynBul 65 (2014): 119-123. Hall, David R. “Romans 3. 1-8 Reconsidered.” NTS 29 (1983): 183-197. Harrison, James R. Paul’s Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context, WUNT 2, 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. —. “Paul, Theologian of Grace.” In Paul and His Theology, ed. Stanley E. Porter, 77-108. Leiden - Boston: Brill, 2006. Hatch, William Henry Paine. ThePaulineIdeaofFaithinitsRelationtoJewish and Hellenistic Religion, HTS 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917. Haubeck, Wilfrid. LoskaufdurchChristus:Herkunft,GestaltundBedeutungdes paulinischenLoskaufmotivs. Giessen: Brunnen, 1985. Haussleiter, Johannes. „Der Glaube Jesu Christi und der christliche Glaube: Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung des Römerbriefs.“ NKZ 2 (1891): 109-145. Hay, David M. “Pistis as “Ground for Faith” in Hellenized Judaism and Paul.” JBL 108 (1989): 461-476. —. “Paul’s Understanding of Faith as Participation.” In PaulandHisTheology, PAST 3, ed. Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Hays, Richard B. “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3.” JBL 99 (1980): 107115. —. TheFaithofJesusChrist:AnInvestigationoftheNarrativeSubstructureof Galatians3:1-4:11, SBL DS 56. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983. —. EchoesofScriptureintheLettersofPaul. London: Yale University Press, 1989. —. “Justification.” In ABD 3 (1992): 1129-1133. —. “On the Rebound: A Response to Critiques of Echoes of Scripture in the LettersofPaul.” In PaulandtheScripturesofIsrael,ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, 72-96. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993.

XXXII

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. “Πίστις and Pauline Christology.” In Pauline Theology, SBL SS 4, ed. Elizabeth E. Johnson and David M. Hay, Vol 4, 35-60. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997. —. TheConversionoftheImagination:PaulasInterpreterofIsrael’sScripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. Healey, Joseph P. “Faith.” In ABD 2 (1992): 744-749. Hebert, Gabriel. “Faithfulness and Faith.” Theology 58 (1955): 373-379. Hedquist, Paul Michael. ThePaulineUnderstandingofReconciliationinRomans 5 and II Corinthians 5: An Exegetical and Religio-historical Study. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1982. Heliso, Desta. PistisandtheRighteousOne:AStudyofRomans1:17against theBackgroundofScriptureandSecondTempleJewishLiterature, WUNT 2, 235. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Herrmann, Johannes. “ἱλάσκομαι.” In TDNT 3 (1965): 301-310. Hill, David. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of SoteriologicalTerms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Hill, Wesley. PaulandtheTrinity:Persons,Relations,andthePaulineLetters. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015. Holmes, Christopher T. “Utterly Incapacitated: The Neglected Meaning of ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ in Romans 3:25.” NovT 55 (2013): 349-366. Hooker, Moorna D. “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ.” NTS 35 (1989): 321-345. Hooker, Morna D. “Faith.” In ReligionPast&Present, Vol. 5, ed. Hans Dieter Betz and et al., 10-18. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Hultgren, Arland J. “The PistisChristou Formulations in Paul.” NovT 22 (1980): 248-263. —. Paul’s Gospel and Mission: The Outlook from his Letter to the Romans. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1985. Humprey, Edith M. “Why Bring the Word Down? The Rhetoric of Demonstration and Disclosure in Romans 9:30-10:21.” In Romans and People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. S. K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, 129-148. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Hunn, Debbie. “Debating the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Twentieth-Century Scholarship.” In TheFaithofJesusChrist:Exegetical,BiblicalandTheologicalStudies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, 15-31. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. Hurtado, Larry W. “Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.” In RomansandthePeopleofGod, ed. Sven K. Sonderlund and N. T. Wright, 216-233. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. —. GodinNewTestamentTheology, Library of Biblical Theology. Abingdon: Nashville, TN, 2010. Irons, Charles Lee. The Righteousness of God: A Lexical Examination of the Covenant-FaithfulnessInterpretation, WUNT 2, 386. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Janowski, Bernd. SühnealsHeilsgeschehen, WMANT 55. Düsseldorf: Neukirchener, 2000. Jervis, L. Ann. “Divine Retribution in Romans.” Int 69 (2015): 323-337.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

XXXIII

Jewett, Robert. “The Corruption and Redemption of the Creation: Reading Rom 8.18-23 with the Imperial Context.” In PaulandtheRomanImperialOrder, ed. Richard A. Horsely, 25-46. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2004. Johnson, Elizabeth E. The Function of Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans9-11, SBL DS 109. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1989. Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Rom 3,21-26 and the Faith of Jesus.” CBQ44 (1982): 77-90. Johnston, William J. “Which ‘All’ Sinned? Rom 3:23-24 Reconsidered.” NovT 53 (2011): 153-164. Jonge, Marinus de. Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the TestamentsoftheTwelvePatriarchs, NovTSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Joubert, Stephan J. EchoesofCharis:Paul’sContextualReflectionsonSalvation, Theology in Africa 2. Berlin: Lit, 2014. Jung, N. H. “Did St.Paul Compose Romans III:24f.?” AusBR 22 (1974): 23-34. Käsemann, Ernst. „Zum Verständnis von Römer 3:25-26.“ ZNW 43 (1951): 150-154. —. NewTestamentQuestionsofToday. Translated by W. J. Montague. London: SCM, 1969. Kertelge, Karl. “’Απολύτρωσις.” In EDNT1 (1990): 138-140. —. “Δικαιοσύνη.” In EDNT 1 (1990): 325-330. —. ‚Rechtfertigung‘beiPaulus:StudienzurStrukturundzumBedeutungsgehalt despaulinischenRechtfertigungsbegriffs, NTAbh NF 3. Münster: Aschendorff, 1967. Kim, Yung Suk. A Theological Introduction to Paul’s Letters: Exploring a ThreefoldTheologyofPaul. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011. Kittel, Gerhard. “Πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ bei Paulus.” TSK 79 (1906): 419-436. Klawans, Jonathan. ImpurityandSininAncientJudaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Klumbies, Paul-Gerhard. DieRedevonGottbeiPaulusinihremzeitgeschichtlichen Kontext, FRLANT 155. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Koch, Herbert. Römer3,21-31inderPaulusinterpretationderletzten150Jahre. Göttingen: Unpublished Dissertation, Georg-August-Universität, 1971. Koperski, V. “The Meaning of Pistis Christou in Philippians 3:9.” LS 18 (1993): 198-216. Kraus, Wolfgang. DerTodJesualsHeiligtumsweihe:EineUntersuchungzum UmfeldderSühnevorstellunginRömer3,25-26a, WMANT 66. Düsseldorf: Neukirchener, 1991. —. „Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit Gottes im Tod Jesu nach Rom 3,21-26.“ In JudaistikundneutestamentlicheWissenschaftGottingen, FRLANT 226, ed. Hans-Günther Waubke, Lutz Doering and Florian Wilk, 192-216. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Kugler, Chris. “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ: The Current State of Play and the Key Arguments.” CBR 14 (2016): 244-255.

XXXIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kümmel, W. G. „Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre.“ ZThK 49 (1952): 154-167. —. TheNewTestament:TheHistoryofInvestigationofitsProblems. London: SCM Press, 1973. Lambrecht, Jan. “The Caesura between Romans 9.30-3 and 10.1-4.” NTS 45 (1999): 141-147. —. “Two Brief Notes: Romans 3, 19-20 and 25b-26.” In The Letter to the Romans, BETL 226, ed. Udo Schnelle, 733-737. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Lambrecht, Jan, and Richard W. Thompson. JustificationbyFaith:TheImplicationsofRomans3:27-31, Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989. Lampe, Peter. “The Roman Christians of Romans 16.” In TheRomansDebate: Revised and Expanded Edition, ed. Karl P. Donfried, 216-230. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. Lee, Jae Hyun. Paul’sGospelinRomans:ADiscourseAnalysisofRom1:168:39, LBS 3. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2010. Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta. “Righteousness in Early Jewish Literature.” In NIDB 4 (2009): 807-813. Lietzmann, Hans. Einführung in die Textgeschichte der Paulusbriefe an die Römer, HNT 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933. Lindemann, A. „Die Rede von Gott in der paulinischen Theologie.“ Theologie undGlaube 69 (1979): 357-376. Lindsay, Dennis R. JosephusandFaith:πίστιςandπιστεύεινasFaithTerminologyintheWritingsofFlaviusJosephusandintheNewTestament, AGJU 19. Leiden: Brill, 1993. —. “The Roots and Development of the πιστ- Word Group as Faith Terminology.” JSNT 49 (1993): 103-118. Linebaugh, Jonathan A. “The Christo-Centrism of Faith in Christ: Martin Luther’s Reading of Galatians 2.16, 19-20.” NTS 59 (2013): 535-544. —. God,Grace,andRighteousnessinWisdomofSolomonandPaul’sLetterto theRomans:TextsinConversation, NovTSup 152. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013. Lohse, Eduard. MärtyrerundGottesknecht:Untersuchungenzururchristlichen Verkündigung vom Sühntod Jesus Christi, FRLANT 64. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1955. —. „Glauben im Neuen Testament.“ In Glauben, ed. Hans-Jürgen Hermisson and Eduard Lohse, 79-132. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978. Longenecker, Bruce W. “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ in Romans 3.25: Neglected Evidence for the ‘Faithfulness of Christ’?” NTS 39 (1993): 478-480. —. “Narrative Interest in the Study of Paul.” In NarrativeDynamicsinPaul:A Critical Assessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, 3-16. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2002. —. “Sharing in Their Spiritual Blessings? The Stories of Israel in Galatians and Romans.” In NarrativeDynamicsinPaul:ACriticalAssessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, 58-85. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2002. —. IntroducingRomans:CriticalIssuesinPaul’sMostFamousLetter. Grand Rapids, MN: Eerdmans, 2011.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

XXXV

Louw, Johannes P. ASemanticDiscourseAnalysisofRomans. Vol. 2. Pretoria: University of Pretoria Press, 1979. —. SemanticsofNewTestamentGreek. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1982. Lührmann, Dieter. „Pistis im Judentum.“ ZNW64 (1973): 19-38. —. GlaubeimfrühenChristentum. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1976. —. „Faith.“ In ABD 2 (1992) 749-758. Lyonnet, Stanislas. „Le sens de paresis en Rom 3,25.“ Bib 38 (1957): 40-61. —. “The Notion of Sin.” In Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study, AnBib 48, ed. Stanislas Lyonnet and Leopold Sabourin, 3-186. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970. —. “The Terminology of Redemption.” In Redemption, and Sacrifice, AnBib 48, ed. Stanislas Lyonnet and Leopold Sabourin, 61-118. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970. Manson, Thomas Walter. “ἱλαστήριον.” JTS 46 (1945): 1-10. Marshall, I. Howard. “The Development of the Concept of Redemption in the New Testament.” In ReconciliationandHope:NewTestamentEssayson AtonementandEschatology, ed. Robert Banks, 153-169. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. —. “The Meaning of Reconciliation.” In UnityandDiversityinNewTestament Theology:EssaysinHonorofGeorgeE.Ladd, ed. Robert A. Guelich, 123130. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. Martens, Dominique. LajustificationparlafoidansRomains3,21-26:PasSans Dieu,passansl’homme,passansleChrist, Connaître la Bible 52. Bruxelles: Lumen Vitae, 2008. Matlock, Barry R. “Detheologizing the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate: Cautionary Remarks from a Lexical Semantic Perspective.” NovT42 (2000): 1-23. —. “‘Even the Demons Believe’: Paul and πίστις Χριστοῦ.” CBQ 64 (2002): 300-318. —. “Saving Faith: The Rhetoric and Semantics of πίστις in Paul.” In TheFaith ofJesusChrist:Exegetical,BiblicalandTheologicalStudies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, 73-89. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. McLean, Bradley H. “The Absence of an Atoning Sacrifice in Paul’s Soteriology.” NTS 38 (1992): 531-553. Meyer, Ben F. “The Pre-Pauline Formula in Rom. 3:25-26a.” NTS 29 (1983): 198-207. Michaels, J. Ramsey. “The Redemption of our Body: The Riddle of Romans 8:19-22.” In RomansandthePeopleofGod:EssaysinHonorofGordon D.FeeontheOccasionofhis65thBirthday, ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, 92-114. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Minde, Hans-Jürgen van der. SchriftundTraditionbeiPaulus:IhreBedeutung undFunktionimRömerbrief. München: Schöningh, 1976. Moberly, R. W. L. „‫אמן‬.“ In New International Dictionary of Old Testament TheologyandExegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren, Vol.1, 427-433. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997. Mollaum, Romuald Alphonse. St.Paul’sConceptofHILASTERIONaccording toRom.III,25:AnHistorico-ExegeticalInvestigation, NTS 4. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1923.

XXXVI

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Monserrat, Jean-Louis Roura. LaconceptionpauliniennedelafoienRomains 4, Cerf-α. Paris: Cerf, 2015. Morgen, R. “Tübingen School.” In ADictionaryofBiblicalInterpretation, ed. R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden, 710-713. London: SCM, 1990. Morgan, Teresa. RomanFaithandChristianFaith:PisitsandFidesintheEarly Roman Empire and Early Churches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Morison, James. CriticalExpositionoftheThirdChapterofPaul’sEpistletothe Romans. London: Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1866. Morris, Leon. “The Biblical Use of the Term ‘Blood’.” JTS 53 (1952): 216-227. —. “The Meaning of ἱλαστήριον in Romans III. 25.” NTS 2 (1955): 33-43. —. “The Use of ἱλάσκομαι etc. in Biblical Greek.” ExpT 62 (1962): 227-233. —. “The Theme of Romans.” In ApostolicHistoryandtheGospel:Biblicaland HistoricalEssaysPresentedtoFrederickFyvieBruceonhis60thBirthday, ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin, 249-263. Devon: Paternoster, 1970. —. TheApostolicPreachingoftheCross. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd rev. ed., 1983. Mosis, Rudolf. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament, FB 93. Würzburg: Echter, 1999. Moule, Charles F. D. “The Biblical Conception of ‘Faith’.” ExpT 68 (1957): 157-222. Moxnes, Halvor. TheologyinConflict:StudiesinPaul’sUnderstandingofGod inRomans, NovTSup 53. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Moyise, Steve. PaulandScripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010. Müller, C. GottesGerechtigkeitundGottesVolk:EineUntersuchungzuRömer 9-11, FRLANT 86. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1964. Nes, Jermo van. “’Faith(fullness) of the Son of God’?: Galatians 2:20b Reconsidered.” NovT 55 (2013): 127-139. Neugebauer, Fritz. InChristus:EineUntersuchungzumpaulinischenGlaubensverständnis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961. Neyrey, Jerome H. RendertoGod:NewTestamentUnderstandingoftheDivine. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004. Nicholson, Suzanne. Dynamic Oneness: The Significance and Flexibility of Paul’sOne-GodLanguage. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Nwachukwu, Mary Silvia Chingere. Creation-CovenantSchemeandJustification byFaith. Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2002. O’Brien, P. T. “Justification in Paul and Some Crucial Issues of the Last Two Decades.” In RightwithGod:JustificationintheBibleandtheWorld, ed. Donald A. Carson, 70-78. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992. O’Collins, Gerald. “Some Critical Issues.” In The Redemption: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on Christ as Redeemer, ed. Stephen D. Davis, 1-24. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. O’Collins, Gerald, and Daniel Kendall. TheBibleforTheology:TenPrinciples fortheTheologicalUseofScripture. New York: Paulist, 1997. Oepke, Albrecht. “διά.” In TDNT 2 (1964): 65-70. Omanson, Roger Lee. “Righteousness of God in Paul’s Letters.” BT 55 (2004): 339-348.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

XXXVII

Park, Sung-Ho. StellvertretungJesuChristiimGericht:StudienzumVerhältnis von Stellvertretung und Kreuzestod Jesu bei Paulus, WMANT 143. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 2015. Pax, Elpidius. „Der Loskauf: Zur Geschichte eines neutestamentlichen Begriffes.“ Anton 37 (1962): 239-278. Penna, Romano. “The Meaning of πάρεσις in Romans 3:25c and the Pauline Thought on the Divine Acquittal.” In LutherischeundNeuePaulusperspektive: BeiträgezueinemSchlüsselproblemdergegenwärtigenexegetischen Diskussion, WUNT 182, ed. Michael Bachmann and Johannes Woyke, 251274. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Piper, John. “The Demonstration of the Righteousness of God in Romans 3:25,26.” JSNT 7 (1980): 2-32. Plevnik, Joseph. “The Understanding of God at the Basis of Pauline Theology.” CBQ 65 (2003): 554-567. Pluta, Alfons. GottesBundestreue:einSchlüsselbegriffinRöm3,25a, SBS 34. Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk, 1969. Porter, Stanley E. “The Rhetorical Scribe: Textual Variants in Romans and their Possible Rhetorical Purpose.” In RhetoricalCriticismandtheBible, JSNT SS 195, ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. L. Stamps, 403-419. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Porter, Stanley E., and Andrew W. Pitts. “Πίστις with a Preposition and Genitive Modifier: Lexical, Semantic, and Syntactic Considerations in the πίστις Χριστοῦ Discussion.” In The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, 33-56. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. Porter, Stanley E., and Wally V. Cirafesi. “ὑστερέω and πίστις Χριστοῦ in Romans 3:23: A Response to Stewen Enderlein.” JSPL 3 (2013): 1-9. Prat, Fernand. TheTheologyofSaintPaul. Vol. 2. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1956. Quarles, Charles L. “From Faith to Faith: A Fresh Examination of the Prepositional Series in Romans 1:17.” NovT 45 (2003): 1-21. Raith II, Charles. AquinasandCalvinonRomans:God’sJustificationandOur Participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962. Reumann, John. “Justification and Justice in the New Testament.” HBT 21 (1999): 26-45. —. “Righteousness.” In ABD 5 (1992): 742-745. —. Righteousness in the New Testament: Justification” in the United States Lutheran-RomanCatholicDialogue. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1982. Ribbens, Benjamin J. “Forensic-Retributive Justification in Romans 3:21-26: Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in Dialogue with Hebrews.” CBQ 74 (2012): 548-567. Richardson, Neil. Paul’sLanguageaboutGod, JSNT SS 99. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Ricoeur, Paul. “The Creativity of Language.” In DialogueswithContemporary ContinentalThinkers, ed. Richard Kearney, 17-36. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984.

XXXVIII

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ridderbos, Herman. Paul:AnOutlineofHisTheology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1979. Robert, Louis, and Jeanne Robert. Claros I: Décrets hellénistiques. Paris: Recherche sur les civilisations, 1989. Robinson, D. W. B. “Faith of Jesus Christ-a New Testament Debate.” RTR 29 (1970): 71-81. Robinson, H. W. TheCrossoftheServant. London: SCM, 1926. Rollins, Wayne G. “Greco-Roman Slave Terminology and Pauline Metaphors of Salvation.” In SBLSeminarPapers, 100-110. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987. Roloff, Jürgen. “ἱλαστήριον.” In EDNT 2 (1981): 185-86. Rowe, C. Kavin. “Romans 10:13: What is the Name of the Lord?” HBT 22 (2000): 135-173. Rusam, Dietrich. „Was versteht Paulus unter der πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ?“ ProtokollezurBibel 11 (2002): 47-70. Saeger, Luc De. Watwijbehoren teweten ofhoePauluschristelijke identiteit uitzegt:Galaten2,16en3,1-14incontext. Leuven: Unpublished Dissertation, KU Leuven, 2004. Sanders, E. P. Paul,theLaw,andtheJewishPeople. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1983. Sanders, Ed Parish. PaulandPalestinianJudaism. London: SCM, 1977. Sanders, James A. “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament.” In Paul andtheScriptureofIsrael, JSNT SS, 83, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, 98-117. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. Schlatter, Adolf. DerGlaubeimNeuenTestament. Stuttgart: Carwer, 1885. 5th ed. repr., 1963. Schliesser, Benjamin. Abraham’sFaithinRomans4:Paul’sConceptofFaith inLightoftheHistoryofReceptionofGenesis15:6, WUNT 2, 224. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. —. “Christ-Faith as an Eschatological Event (Galatians 3.23-26): A ‘Third View’ on Πίστις Χριστοῦ.” JSNT 38 (2016): 227-300. Schnelle, Udo. GerechtigkeitundChristusgegenwart:VorpaulinischeundpaulinischeTauftheologie, GTA 24. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1983. —. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005. Schoeps, Hans Joachim. Paul:TheTheologyoftheApostleintheLightofJewish Religious History. Translated by Harold Knight. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1961. Schrage, Wolfgang. „Römer 3:21-26 und die Bedeutung des Todes Jesus Christi bei Paulus.“ In DasKreuzJesu:TheologischeÜberlegungen, ed. Paul Rieger, 65-88. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1969. Schreiber, Stefan. „Das Weihegeschenk Gottes: Eine Deutung des Todes Jesu in Rom 3,25 „ ZNW 97 (2000): 88-110. Schumacher, Thomas. ZurEntstehungchristlicherSprache:EineUntersuchung derpaulinischenIdiomatikundderVerwendungdesBegriffesπίστις, BBB 168. Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2012. Schunack, Gerd. „Glaube in griechischer Religiosität.“ In AntikesJudentumund FrühesChristentum:FestschriftfürHartmutStegemannzum65.Geburts-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

XXXIX

tag, ed. Bernd Kollmann, Wolfgang Reinbold and Annette Steudel, 296326. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Seeley, David. TheNobleDeath:Graeco-RomanMartyrologyandPaul’sConceptofSalvation, JSNT SS 28. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990. Seifrid, Mark A. JustificationbyFaith:TheOriginandDevelopmentofaCentralPaulineTheme, NovTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1992. —. “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism.” In JustificationandVariegatedNomism:TheComplexitiesofsecondTemple Judaism,WUNT 2, 140, ed. P. T. O‘Brien, Donald A. Carson and Mark A. Seifrid. Vol. 1, 415-442. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. —. “Romans.” In CommentaryontheNewTestamentUseoftheOldTestament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 607-692. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008. —. “The Faith of Christ.” In TheFaithofJesusChrist:Exegetical,Biblicaland TheologicalStudies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, 129-146. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. Silva, Moisés. “Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians.” In Justificationand Variegated Nomism (Vol 2): The Paradoxes of Paul, WUNT 2, 181, ed. Donald A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien and M. A. Seifred. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Simpson, J. G. “Atonement.” In A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. James Hastings, 1, 132-138. Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1923. Snodgrass, Klyne R. “Justification by Grace - To the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul.” NTS 32 (1986): 72-93. Song, Changwon. ReadingRomansasaDiatribe. New York: Peter Lang, 2004. Southall, David J. Rediscovering Righteousness in Romans, WMANT 2, 240. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Spitaler, Peter. “An Integrative, Synergistic Reading of Romans 1-3.” BibInt 19(2011): 33-71. —. Universale Sünde von Juden und Heiden?: Eine Untersuchung zu Römer 1,18-3,20, FB 109. Würzburg: Echter, 2006. Sprinkle, Preston M. “Πίστις Χριστοῦ as an Eschatological Event.” In The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, 165-184. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. Stauffer, Ethelbert. New Testament Theology. Translated by John Marsh. London: SCM, 1963. Stegman, Thomas D. “Paul’s Use of Dikaio- Terminology: Moving Beyond N. T. Wright’s Forensic Interpretation.” TS 72 (2011): 496-524. Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1976. Stowers, Stanley Kent. TheDiatribeandPaul’sLettertotheRomans, SBL DS 57. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981. Strarling, David I. “Covenants and Courtrooms, Imputation and Imitation: Righteousness and Justification in Paul and the Faithfulness of God.” JSPL 4 (2014): 37-48. Stubbs, David L. “The State of Theology and the PistisChristou Debate.” SJT 61 (2008): 137-157.

XL

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Stuhlmacher, Peter. Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, FRLANT 87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1966. —. „Zur neueren Exegese von Röm 3,24-26.“ In JesusundPaulus:Festschrift fürWernerGeorgKümmelzum70.Geburtstag, ed. Ellis E. Earle and Erich Grässer, 315-333. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975. —. Versöhnung,GesetzundGerechtigkeit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1981. Talbert, Charles H. “A Non-Pauline Fragment at Romans 3:24-26?” JBL 85 (1966): 287-296. Tamez, Elsa. TheAmnestyofGrace:JustificationfromaLatinAmericanPerspective. Translated by Sharon H. Ringe. Nashville TN: Abingdon, 1993. Tanner, Kathryn. “Incarnation, Cross, and Sacrifice: A Feminist-Inspired Reappraisal.” ATR 86 (2004): 35-56. Theobald, Michael. StudienzumRömerbrief, WUNT 136. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Thiessen, Jacob. Gottes Gerechtigkeit Und Evangelium Im Römerbrief: Die RechtfertigungslehreDesPaulusImVergleichZuAntikenJüdischenAuffassungenUndZurNeuenPaulusperspektive, Edition Israelogie 8. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2014. Thompson, Marianne Meye. “God’s Voice You Have Never Heard, God’s Form You have Never Seen: The Characterization of God in the Gospel of John.” Semeia 63 (1993): 177-204. —. “Mercy upon All: God as Father in Romans.” In RomansandthePeopleof God, ed. Sven K. Sonderlund and N. T. Wright, 203-216. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. —. TheGodoftheGospelofJohn. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Tobin, Thomas H. Paul’s Rhetoric in its Contexts: The Argument of Romans. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. Toit, Andrie B. du. “Forensic Metaphors in Romans and their Soteriological Significance.” In SalvationintheNewTestament:PerspectivesonSoteriology, NovTSup 121, ed. Jan G. van der Watt, 213-246. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005. Tolmie, D. Francois. “Salvation as Redemption: The Use of ‘Redemption’ Metaphors in Pauline Literature.” In SalvationintheNewTestament:PerspectivesonSoteriology, ed. Jan G. van der Watt, 247-269. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005. Torrance, Thomas F. “One Aspect of the Biblical Conception of Faith.” ExpT 68 (1957): 111-114. Tsalampouni, Ekaterini. ΧάριςanditsSemanticField, Guest Lecture, KU Leuven in the Faculty of Theology (March 26), 2014. Turner, Geoffrey. “Righteousness of God in Psalms and Romans.” SJT 63 (2010): 285-301. Ulrichs, Karl Friedrich. Christusglaube:StudienzumSyntagmaπίστιςΧριστοῦ undzumpaulinischenVerständnisvonGlaubeundRechtfertigung, WUNT 2, 227. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Van Belle, Gilbert. “Introduction.” In TheDeathofJesusintheFourthGospel, BETL 200, ed. Gilbert Van Belle, xv-xxxi. Leuven: Peeters-University Press, 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

XLI

Van Henten, Jan Willem. “Jewish Martyrdom and Jesus’ Death.” In Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament, WUNT 181, ed. Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter, 139-168. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. —. “The Tradition-Historical Background of Romans 3:25: A Search for Pagan and Jewish Parallels.” In From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New TestamentChristologyinHonourofMarinusdeJonge, ed. Martinus C. De Boer, 101-128. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. BiblicalNarrativeinthePhilosophyofPaulRicoeur:AStudy inHermeneuticsandTheology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, Frederique. “Dan zijt gij waarlijk mijn leerlingen’ (Joh 8,31). Geloven vandaag in het licht van het Johannesevangelie.“ In De kerkinVlaanderen:avondofdageraad?, ed. Lieven Boeve, 146-163. Leuven: Davidsfonds, 1999. Wagner, J. Ross. HeraldsoftheGoodNews:IsaiahandPaul‘inConcert’inthe LettertotheRomans. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Wallis, Ian G. TheFaithofJesusChristinEarlyChristianTraditions, SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Wanamaker, C. A. “Christ as Divine Agent in Paul.” SJT 39 (1986): 517-529. Wannenwetsch, Bernd. “Sin as Forgetting: Negotiating Divine Presence.” SCE 28 (2015): 3-20. Warfield, Benjamin B. “The New Testament Terminology of ‘Redemption’.” PTR 15 (1917): 201-249. Watson, Francis. Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach, SNTS MS 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. —. “The Triune Divine Identity: Reflections on Pauline God-Language, in Disagreement with J. D. G. Dunn.” JSNT 80 (2000): 99-124. —. PaulandtheHermeneuticsofFaith. London: T & T Clark, 2004. —. “By Faith (of Christ): An Exegetical Dilemma and its Scriptural Solution.” In TheFaithofJesusChrist:Exegetical,BiblicalandTheologicalStudies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, 146-163. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. Weber, Emil. Die Beziehungen von Röm. 1-3 zur Missionspraxis bei Paulus, BFCT 4. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1905. Wedderburn, A. J. M. TheReasonsforRomans. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988. Weiß, Alexander. „Christus Jesus als Weihegeschenk oder Sühnemal?“ ZNW 105 (2014): 294-302. Wengst, Klaus. Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums, SNT 7. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973. Wennemer, Karl. „’ΑΠΟΛΎΤΡΩΣΙΣ Römer 3,24-25a.“ In Studiorum PaulinorumCongressusInternationalisCatholicus1961, 283-288. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963. Whitenton, Michael R. „After πίστις Χριστοῦ: Neglected Evidence from the Apostolic Fathers „ JTS61 (2010): 82-109. Wiencke, Gustav. PaulusüberJesuTod:DieDeutungdesTodesJesubeiPaulusundihreHerkunft. BFCT 2, 42.Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1939. Wildberger, Hans. „‘Glauben‘, Erwägungen zu ‫האמין‬.“ In HebräischeWortforschung:Festschriftzum80.GeburtstagvonWalterBaumgartner, ed. Walter Baumgartner, 372-386. Leiden: Brill, 1967.

XLII

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Williams, Jarvis J. ForWhomDidChristDie?TheExtentoftheAtonementin Paul’sTheology, PBM. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2012. —. MaccabeanMartyrTraditionsinPaul’sTheologyofAtonement:DidMartyr Theology Shape Paul’s Conception of Jesus’s Death? Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2010. Williams, Sam K. “The Righteousness of God in Romans.” JBL 99 (1980): 241-290. —. “Again PistisChristou.” CBQ 49 (1987): 431-447. Wissmann, Erwin. DasVerhältnisvonPistisundChristusfrömmigkeitbeiPaulus, FRLANT 40. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1926. Wonneberger, Reinhard. SyntaxundExegese:EinegenerativeTheoriedergriechischen Syntax und ihr Beitrag zur Auslegung des Neuen Testamentes, dargestelltan2.Korinther5,2fundRömer3,21-26, BBET 13. Frankfurt an Main: Lang, 1979. Woyke, Johannes. „‘Einst‘ und ‚Jetzt‘ in Röm 1-3: Zur Bedeutung von νυνὶ δέ in Röm 3,21.“ ZNW 92 (2001): 185-206. Wright, N. T. Justification:God’sPlanandPaul’sVision. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009. —. “On Becoming the Righteousness of God.” In PaulineTheology,ed. David M. Hay, Vol. 2, 200-208. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993. —. “New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Structure of Romans 3-8.” In RomansandthePeopleofGod:EssaysinHonorofGordonD.Feeon theOccasionofhis65thBirthday, ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, 26-36. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. —. PaulandtheFaithfulnessofGod, Christian Origins and Question of God 4. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2013. Wright, Nicholas Thomas. TheClimaxoftheCovenant:ChristandtheLawin PaulineTheology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992. Wright, W. H. “Romans and the Theology of Paul.” In Pauline Theology, ed. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson, Vol. 3, 30-67. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1995. Zeller, Dieter. „Sühne und Langmut. Zur Traditionsgeschichte von Röm 3,2426.“ ThPh 43 (1968): 51-75. Ziesler, J. A. The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. —. “Salvation Proclaimed: Romans 3:21-26.” ExpT 93 (1982): 356-359. Zwaan, J. de. „Persönlicher Glaube bei Paulus.“ ZST 13 (1936): 114-149.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION Although it has been studied very intensively, Paul’s Letter to the Romans continues to attract vigorous debate. Of itself, this need hardly surprise us. Were the meaning of Romans unambiguously plain and univocal, its depths would have been plumbed long centuries since. It would then have lost its capacity to call anew. It is the complexity of reference, the riches and inexhaustibility of its figurative language, the polysemy of its words and phrases that gives a great text the capacity not just to survive from one age to the next, but to speak afresh in new ages and to new situations. It is those very features of the text of Romans that keep the scholarly debate alive. Romans also sustains debate because it speaks about a God who is concerned with humanity and with meeting their fundamental problems. That is why Karl Barth could write “The righteousness of God is the meaning of all religion, the answer to every human hope and desire and striving and waiting”.1 Romans calls with such forceful appeal, says Barth, because “Paul knows of God what most of us do not know; and his Epistles enable us to know what he knew”.2 If this deep involvement with the human situation calls to us from the full body of his works, is it anywhere stronger and more compelling than in Romans? Within the Letter, Rom 3:21-26 has been described as the focal point, perhaps the turning point of Pauline theology (“Brennpunkt paulinischer Theologie”3), a key text of Romans (“ein Schlüsseltext des Römerbriefs”4). Yet, it is a pericope that is both pregnant with meaning and difficult of understanding. The sense that it is rich in meaning is readily acquired, but to put a finger on that meaning is challenging. The pericope is perplexing as to its construction and syntax, ambiguous or even obscure as to the meaning of many of its key words, complex in its rhetoric and 1

2 3

4

Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns (London: Oxford University, 1965), 95. Barth, EpistletotheRomans, 11. Paul-Gerhard Klumbies, „Der eine Gott des Paulus: Röm 3,21-31 als Brennpunkt paulinischer Theologie,“ ZNW 85 (1994): 192-206, here 192. Thomas Schumacher, Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache: Eine Untersuchung der paulinischenIdiomatikundderVerwendungdesBegriffesπίστις, BBB 168 (Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2012), 327.

2

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

therefore controversial as to its interpretation and theology. That controversy even extends to authorship: are the words all those of Paul himself, or does he quote and expand traditional material, specifically in 3:24-26? Exegesis is confronted by statements that are evidently intended to be of profound theological significance. But of course to address the significance of the death of Jesus and God’s dealing with humanity is no trivial task. The exegesis of a text that raises so many difficulties, while disclosing powerful theological argument, could hardly help raising controversy. 1. The Problem For many interpreters, Rom 3:21-26 is about how a human being can be justified before God. For others it is about how Christ’s faithful death justifies and redeems humanity. The first interpretation focuses on a perceived human need, the second on the action of Christ. The one is anthropocentric, the other christocentric. Which of these more correctly, or perhaps more helpfully, captures the sense of Romans? To address this question, we need to look at its context. In particular we must ask who is the central character in Romans 1-3 and how these chapters prepare the reader to grasp the main theme and meaning of 3:21-26 and to discern its meaning. Our contention is that God is the central character in these chapters and that it is the same God whose concern, plan and action is further explicated in 3:21-26. Our proposal is that the most adequate reading of our pericope is neither anthropocentric nor christocentric. It is theocentric. The best reading is the one which can make the best sense of all the different elements that makes up the text. We are convinced that a theocentric reading makes the best sense of all the different threads that form the tapestry of the text. Such a position immediately comes up against a difficulty. Even a superficial reading quickly shows that the pericope, and indeed the whole of the letter leading up to that point, is concerned with God, humanity and Christ. It is also clear that each set of relationships within this triangle plays an important role. Further, the letter is obviously written and read in a Christian context which gives to the person and work of Christ a particular role towards both God and humanity. Anthropology, christology and theology are each deeply embedded in the pericope. The aim cannot be, therefore, to read the pericope from one viewpoint to the denial and exclusion of the other two. Rather it is to ask, given that the reader must always assume a certain stance in approaching the text,

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

3

which of the three possible approaches is the most fruitful in making the best sense of the text. We believe that to read from a theocentric viewpoint makes the best sense of the text. Then its pitch is most pure. This reading does best justice to the construction and context of the text. This book explains why we hold this position. The first main clause of Rom 3:21-26 is Νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται. The first issues are to know what Paul means by God’s δικαιοσύνη and why it is manifested.Where can we find a key to unlock them? What is Paul’s world view? What is the setting of the pericope? As we answer these questions, a host of others follows, some exegetical, some theological. Would God still be just and righteous if he were to neglect sin? Does being a righteous God require action against sins and offences? Does Rom 3:25 point to another possibility than the punishment of sinners and the merciful forgiveness of sinners and, if so, what is it? Our pericope appears to unfold Paul’s understanding of the significance of the death of Christ. Can we find a viable atonement model with which to represent fairly Paul’s understanding of the death of Christ? There are great theological consequences in the way in which we understand Paul’s association of Christ Jesus with ἀπολύτρωσις and with ἱλαστήριον. If ἀπολύτρωσις implies that a ransom is needed, what does this imply about God? If Jesus’ death on the cross is salvific, how is the role of Christ to be read over and against the role of God? In 3:25, we read that God put forward Christ as ἱλαστήριον and that by so doing Godrevealed his plan to offer unconditional redemption to the whole of humanity. This takes us beyond exegesis into profound theological questions. 2. Why the Issue of a Theocentric Reading Arises? A theocentric reading of the pericope is not new. Many earlier readings – whether of Romans in general, or of 3:21-26 in particular – have been theocentric, even if it was not felt necessary to label them as such. It is the challenge of christocentric and anthropocentric readings that leads us to insist on the reasons that make a theocentric reading appropriate. Our central message is that a theocentric reading of the pericope does more justice to the text and makes its meaning clearer. It also gives us a key with which to understand Romans. While christocentric and anthropocentric readings can be helpful, they are only partial. We see more through a theocentric reading. That is what’s we want to demonstrate.

4

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

In categorising most contemporary readings as either christocentric or anthropocentric, our aim is not to caricature. All readings are more or less mixed. But they necessarily have a focus, a dominant standpoint. The theocentric reading puts God at the centre, but it still has a view of Christ and of humanity. We propose this theocentric reading because we believe that other readings, for all their many virtues, tend to overlook the overwhelming centrality and activity of God. Expressed so starkly, such a defect can be seen to be far from trivial. 3. Research Method and Tools Our study will employ the historical-critical method, in particular grammatical-philological analysis, textual criticism and source criticism, with support from literary criticism and narrative criticism and an opening to the normativity of the future. These are tools to help us better understand the text. They are not aims in themselves. We will employ textual criticism to assess the witnesses, to establish the text and to assess how far any variant readings might influence our theocentric reading. Source criticism will help us address the issue of pre-Pauline material. Literary criticism will help to situate the pericope in its literary context. In addition, we employ narrative criticism to examine the world of Romans 1-3 and to see how Paul characterizes God. Normativity of the future will help us discern the vision inherent in the passage and to perceive its present and future theological implications. In this book we use the following reference sources and tools: Hebrew OT citations are from BibliaHebraicaStuttgartensia; Greek OT (LXX) citations are, whenever possible, from the Göttingen edition of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum and the other cases from Alfred Rahlfs’ edition; New Testament Greek quotes are from Nestle-Aland (NA28) Novum Testamentum Graece; English quotations follow the NRSV, unless otherwise stated. Abbreviations and style follow the SBL HandbookofStyle with necessary adaptations. The details of the abbreviations that we use for classical and Hellenistic literature can be found in this handbook. We have used digital tools: Bible Works 9.0 [CDROM] and the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Details of these and other sources, including literature on current biblical studies, commentaries, grammars, Greek lexica and other dictionaries, are to be found in the bibliography, which is divided into three parts: (1) Tools and Texts (2) Commentaries, and (3) Studies.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

5

4. Outline of the Argument The argument is set out across seven chapters. Chapter one reviews previous scholarship on our pericope. It identifies exegetical issues connected to particular words and phrases and, by confronting differing positions, highlights the issues at stake. This chapter shows how the positions scholars have taken on these issues have determined the thrust of their readings. It enables us to categorise them as anthropocentric, christocentric and theocentric. It also enables us to point to some difficulties that arise from christocentric and anthropocentric readings, difficulties overcome by our theocentric reading. Chapter two situates our pericope within Romans 1-3. It looks to the wider context to help us establish the theme of these chapters and to disclose who (or what) is at the centre of Paul’s narrative. Narrativecritical examination shows how they prepare the reader for a theocentric reading of 3:21-26. Chapter three delimits our pericope, analyses its text-critical problems and examines the source-critical issues it raises, in particular the possibility that it includes pre-Pauline material. We will also address the issues of syntax that cloud the structure of the argument. In this way, we aim to clarify the argument and the line of thought of the pericope. By thus stabilising the text, we will lay the foundations for sound theological interpretation. From this critical examination of the text we will go on to address the issues of the pericope. Chapter four investigates the uses of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, looking to its background, meaning and translation. It pays particular attention to the usages of the Psalms and Isaiah, often quoted in Romans and shows how this OT usage might have influenced Paul. Our analysis leads us to challenge the common translations and to suggest a more adequate translation. Chapter five explores the use of πίστις and πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ and the growing tendency to a christocentric reading that emphasises participation in the faithfulness of Christ as the key to salvation. While a large body of research has grown up around the use of the genitive in Paul and other writings, relatively little has been written about the meaning of πίστις itself. The key is to be found in the source of Paul’s use of πίστις and in Rom 3:21 itself, unlocking some problems in current translations. In doing so, we will do away with excessive rationalisation and overburdening of the πιστ- words, and will clarify both πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ and Paul’s theology.

6

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Chapter six engages ἀπολύτρωσις in Rom 3:24. It asks in particular whether it carries the idea of ransom or whether it reflects rather the broader biblical notion of deliverance. The chapter identifies at least two starnds of meaning of ἀπολύτρωσις in Greco-Roman writings and shows that, in using ἀπολύτρωσις in Rom 3:24 as a theocentric metaphor, Paul is swimming with the mainstream of its development. Taking up the immediate context, syntax and its association with δωρεάν and χάριτι, the chapter argues for a theocentric reading that emphasizes the unconditionality of God’s redemption. The final chapter examines ἱλαστήριον and πάρεσις in Rom 3:25. After an exegetical study to establish their meaning and to engender a theological evaluation of the text, it points to some of the problems associated with the propitiatory, sacrificial and expiatory renderings of ἱλαστήριον, which stress the work of Christ in averting the wrath of God, and to the advantages of a theocentric reading. This will lead on to scrutiny of the use of πάρεσις, particularly in διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων, which is particularly rich in its theological implications as part of God’s plan to establish a system of atonement in Christ. In conclusion, the chapter shows how a theocentric approach makes for a smooth reading that maintains the balance of the rich theology, christology and anthropology present in the pericope.

CHAPTER ONE

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26: ISSUES OF EXEGESIS In spite of the general agreement among scholars that Rom 3:21-26 is crucial to reading Romans as a whole, there is widespread disagreement as to how it should be understood. The object of this book is to clarify the issues raised by this pericope, which is the subject of a wide literature, of controversy and of debate to which very many scholars have contributed. This chapter presents and evaluates the history of interpretation of the pericope, including the meaning of many of the words used, not least the hapaxlegomena which it contains. It only considers those issues that make a substantial difference to its interpretation. This shows scholarship’s perception of the main exegetical issues, theological motifs and theological issues raised. The aim is not to exhaustively present the views of every scholar who has contributed to the discussion, but to draw attention to the main differences of interpretation and to evaluate these, highlighting issues that call for further examination and studying them in detail in the following chapters. We will, in particular, focus on six issues, five of which concern individual words or short phrases, important for the pericope, but whose interpretation has proven controversial. The six issues are: δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ; πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ; the possibility of pre-Pauline material in 3:24-26; ἀπολύτρωσις; ἱλαστήριον; and πάρεσις. Our approach to these issues affects our understanding of the main thrust of 3:21-26, in particular whether we read it as anthropocentric, christocentric or theocentric. 1.1 Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ: THE HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION Paul’s understanding of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ has been the subject of heated and enduring debate. The reason for this controversy is not hard to seek, for δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, says Fitzmyer, is “the phrase that Paul

8

CHAPTER ONE

uses to sum up the theme of Romans.”1 The debate is focused around three issues: (1) how to interpret the genitive construction; (2) the meaning of δικαιοσύνη; and (3) the background against which the phrase is to be understood.2 Differences on these issues lead to competing accounts of Paul’s theology, in particular justification by faith. Those differences are sometimes put down to different emphases, in particular between Protestants, with a forensic understanding and Catholics, with an ethical understanding.3 As Reimund Bieringer has put it, δικαιοσύνη is “understood either in the forensic sense that the sinner stands acquitted, or in the ethical-moral sense of the renewal, the transformation of people that enables new life.”4 It may be helpful to recognise three different approaches to reading, that can be classified as anthropocentric, theocentric and christocentric. It will also be helpful to clarify a distinction that will appear repeatedly in what follows. This concerns the understanding of the genitive construction, in this case of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. The subjectivegenitive reading takes God to be the subject, the one who is righteous and can be read 1

2

3

4

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans:ANewTranslationwithIntroductionandCommentary, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 254. For an earlier view against it, see Udo Schnelle, GerechtigkeitundChristusgegenwart:VorpaulinischeundpaulinischeTauftheologie, GTA 24 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1983), 47, 72. Recent commentaries do not discuss these issues in detail. Hence, in this brief history of interpretation, we highlight those aspects of the phrase that are relevant for our discussion of Rom 3:21-26. Although we draw attention to various aspects of the phrase, our ultimate aim is to study it from the perspective of Romans. See the discussion on the issue by Douglas A. Campbell, TheRhetoricofRighteousness inRom3:21-26, JSNT SS 65 (Sheffield: Academy, 1992), 139-141. For detailed history of the interpretation of the phrase, see Peter Stuhlmacher, GerechtigkeitGottesbeiPaulus, FRLANT 87 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1966), 11-70; Manfred T. Brauch, “Perspectives on ‘God’s Righteousness’ in Recent German Discussion,” in PaulandPalestinianJudaism, ed. Ed Parish Sanders (London: SCM, 1977), 523-542; Charles Lee Irons, TheRighteousnessofGod:ALexicalExaminationoftheCovenantFaithfulnessInterpretation, WUNT 2, 386 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 9-60. For a detailed history of research over 150 years, see Herbert Koch, Römer3,21-31inder Paulusinterpretation der letzten 150 Jahre (Göttingen: Dessertation, Georg-AugustUniversität, 1971), 135-148. A history of interpretation of ‘Justification by faith’ in Pauline writings is presented by Mark A. Seifrid, JustificationbyFaith:TheOriginand Development of a Central Pauline Theme, NovTSup 68 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1-75. Roger Lee Omanson, “Righteousness of God in Paul’s Letters,” BT 55 (2004): 339-347, critically evaluates the various translations of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in the Pauline letters. Reimund Bieringer, „Sünde und Gerechtigkeit Gottes in 2 Korinther 5,21,“ in Studies on2Corinthians, ed. Reimund Bieringer and Jan Lambrecht, BETL 112 (Leuven: University Press, 1994), 497, (our translation).

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

9

as ‘the righteousness of God’; the objective genitive reading takes humans as those who have righteousness as a gift from God and can be read as ‘righteousness from God’ and christocentricreading takes δικαιοσύνη as a metaphor for Christ. 1.1.1 Anthropocentric Readings Anthropocentric readings understand δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ from the viewpoint of the people redeemed by God. This emphasises the gift-character of the righteousness, which they see as from God, an attribute of the people redeemed. Their emphasis is on understanding how human beings can become righteous in the sight of God. Many earlier commentaries have favoured this approach, which flows from the objective genitive reading of the phrase. As Sanday and Headmann note, “[f]or some time past it has seemed to be almost an accepted exegetical tradition that the ‘righteousness of God’ means here ‘a righteousness of which God is the author and man the recipient,’ a righteousness not so much ‘of God’ as from God’, i.e. a state or condition of righteousness bestowed by God upon [the hu]man.”5 This reading has been very influential because Romans has often been read from the perspective of how human beings can be justified before God. A number of scholars have presented arguments in its favour. Rudolf Bultmann was a persuasive proponent of the anthropocentric reading.6 His interpretation is governed by an individualized existentialist anthropological view that is directed to the human. He sees the phrase as a genitive of origin: righteousness comes from God and is received by the human. According to him, “[i]ts one and only foundation is God’s grace–it is God-given, God adjudicated righteousness.”7 Paul is therefore saying that forensic-eschatological righteousness is already credited to the human being, who can lay hold of the benefits of that situation by faith alone. In that sense, Paul is not simply continuing the OT sense of righteousness, much more it is “Paul’s new creation,” “eine Neuschöpfung des Paulus.”8 It is the gift of a new way of life, whichisGod’s good news in Christ. 5

6

7 8

William Sanday and Arthur Cayley Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary ontheEpistletotheRomans, ICC (Edinburgh: Clark, 1968), 24 (italics original). Rudolf Bultmann, TheologyoftheNewTestament, trans. Kendrick Grobel, vol. 1 (London: SCM, 1965), 270-285. Bultmann, TheologyoftheNewTestament, 285. Rudolf Bultmann, “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ,” JBL 83 (1964): 12-16, here 16.

10

CHAPTER ONE

Bultmann’s reading was followed by a number of other commentators.9 Hans Conzelmann affirms that “alien righteousness” is bestowed upon human beings.10 According to Anders Nygren, it is a “righteousness originating in God, purposed by God, revealed in the gospel and therein offered to us.”11 Hermann Ridderbos likewise holds that the righteousness of God is necessary if humans are “to go free in the divine judgement.”12 Similarly, C. E. B. Cranfield argues that it is “a status of righteousness before God which is God’s gift.”13 God is revealing and making available to all, through the preaching of the gospel, a status of righteousness before him.14 Accordingly, it can be thought of as a quality that God has passed on or bestowed upon humans, or as a new status before God. The understanding of this new status before God is essentially forensic,15 putting the emphasis on how human beings, standing before God, are declared righteous. Charles Lee Irons has recently called into question the New Perspective’s relational interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as God’s covenantfaithfulness. In doing so, he tries to establish that for Paul it means a righteous status that comes from God as a gift. He argues that it has to be taken as a “divinely-approved righteousness” and that the seven usages in Paul are employed in a “soteriological sense to refer to the righteousness of God as a gift.”16 He bases his argument on his claim that the semantic range of δικαιοσύνη is juridical and ethical, it remains Normbegriff in Jewish literature, the norm is God’s own moral law and justification is God’s juridical verdict on humans. In this reading, “justification is a once-for-all juridical verdict of ‘righteousness’ based upon

9

10

11

12

13

14 15

16

Among those who follow this view are, J. Knox, “The Epistle to the Romans,” in The Interpreter’sBible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon, 1957), 428-429; Matthew Black, Romans, New Century Bible (London: Oliphants, 1977), 45, 66; J. C. O’Neill, Paul’sLettertotheRomans (London: Penguin Books, 1975), 72-72. Hans Conzelmann, AnOutlineoftheTheologyoftheNewTestament (London: SCM, 1969), 220. Anders Nygren, CommentaryonRomans, trans. Carl C. Rasmussen (Philadelphia, PA: Muhlenberg, 1949), 76. Herman Ridderbos, Paul:AnOutlineofHisTheology, 3 ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 163. C. E. B. Cranfield, ACriticalandExegeticalCommentaryontheEpistletotheRomans, ICC, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 202. Cf. Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 825. BDAG, 247; Nygren, CommentaryonRomans, 175-77; John Murray, TheEpistleto theRomans, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 30-31; Eduard Lohse, Der BriefandieRömer, KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2003), 78-81. Irons, RighteousnessofGod, 336.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

11

the ἱλαστήριον or propitiatory sacrifice of Christ.”17 We have not been able to re-examine all the texts that Irons cited in support of his forensic understanding of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. The conclusions of our research go against an understanding of justification as the verdict of a divine tribunal, as also they go against and the propitiatory understanding of the death of Christ. Behind this line of thinking lies the problem of the law of the Sinai Covenant. Obedience to the law is undermined by the power of sin, leaving humanity helpless until a new paradigm is presented by God himself. Under this new paradigm, righteousness is credited freely to them. To lay hold of that righteousness, all that is needed is faith in the gospel.18 Within this general anthropocentric reading two different positions remain. Accordingly, δικαιοσύνη is understood either in the forensic sense that the sinner stands acquitted, or in the ethical-moral sense of the renewal, the transformation of people that enables new life. An anthropocentric reading of Rom 3:21-26 asks, then, how human beings who, fall short of the glory of God (3:23), can be restored to the status of children of God. The answer is that this is done by the gift, through God’s grace, of his δικαιοσύνη. When understood in these terms, Bultmann’s approach touches important elements of human redemption. Nevertheless, his argument and methodology has been criticized at a number of points. Bultmann’s claim that Paul is not in agreement with Judaism is problematic. He is widely seen as playing down Paul’s understanding of Torah19 in order to emphasize faith, thereby setting Paul in opposition to Judaism. A theocentric reading tries to overcome this apparently one-sided understanding. 1.1.2 Theocentric Readings Theocentric readings of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ shift the focus to God’s own righteousness or justice. There are many possible meanings in theocentric readings: God’s attribute in the sense of his just judgement, his distributive justice, or his activity.20 In addition, some scholars have pointed to

17 18

19 20

Irons, RighteousnessofGod, 341. Cf. Herman C. Waetjen, TheLettertotheRomans:SalvationasJusticeandtheDeconstructionofLaw, NTM 32 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011), 51. Cf. Seifrid, JustificationbyFaith, 35. See Ernst Käsemann, NewTestamentQuestionsofToday, trans. W. J. Montague (London: SCM, 1969), 168-182.

12

CHAPTER ONE

it as his attribute of faithfulness.21 Thus, theocentric readings see δικαιοσύνη either as a divine quality or as an activity of God, proper to his nature. The most significant contribution to the theocentric reading comes from Ernst Käsemann. He reads δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as a subjective genitive, thus referring to the righteousness that is properly God’s. He points to the OT, especially the Jewish apocalyptic literature, as the locus for understanding what Paul has in mind.22 Viewing δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in an apocalyptic framework, Käsemann reads it as depicting God’s saving activity in salvation. From this he argues that the forensic understanding is too limited, for it is one-sided and robs the gift of its particularity. Rather, it has to be understood in terms of an OT God-oriented concept of redemptive action. In his view, Paul’s uniqueness is that he combines the gift-character with the power of God, the “power that brings salvation to pass.”23 The gift is not to be separated from the giver, for its content is none other than God’s revelation in Christ. δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is for Paul God’s sovereignty over the world revealing itself eschatologically in Jesus. And, remembering the Greek root, we may also say that it is the rightful power with which God makes his cause to triumph in the world which has fallen away from him, and which yet, as creation, is his inviolable possession.24

This is Käsemann’s way of overcoming what he sees as the anthropocentric interpretation’s overemphasis on the gift dimension, enabling the theocentric reading to avoid one-sidedness and pointing to a dynamic, relational encounter between God and humanity. However, the historical background in apocalyptic Judaism against which he understands the phrase has been challenged.25 If we are to follow this line, we need to look for other possible backgrounds. Käsemann’s proposal gave birth to a generation of supporters. Käsemann’s student C. Müller adds that the Pauline understanding of 21

22

23 24 25

Sam K. Williams, “The Righteousness of God in Romans,” JBL 99 (1980): 241-290; Glenn N. Davies, FaithandObedienceinRomans:AStudyinRomans1-4, JSNT SS 39 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 36-37; P. T. O’Brien, “Justification in Paul and Some Crucial Issues of the Last Two Decades,” in RightwithGod:JustificationintheBible andtheWorld, ed. Donald A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI : Eerdmans, 1992), 70-78. Käsemann spelled out his argument in a paper presented at an Oxford Congress on ‘New Testament Today’ in 1961, which he published with the title “The Righteousness of God in Paul” in Käsemann, Questions, 168-193. Käsemann, Questions, 181. Käsemann, Questions, 180. Cf. Seifrid, JustificationbyFaith, 41.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

13

δικαιοσύνη as the sovereign power of God-as-creator is connected to God’s right to use this power as he wills.26 Peter Stuhlmacher goes farther, affirming that the righteousness of God refers to the power through which God as the Creator expresses his right over the creation.27 He highlights the soteriological characteristic of δικαιοσύνη in the context of God’s faithfulness to creation. To substantiate this thesis, he examines all the relevant passages in the Pauline corpus. Regarding Rom 3:21-26 he concludes that “δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ bezeichnet also in dem ganzen Abschnitt Röm. 3,21-26 wieder nur Gottes eigenes, heilstiftendes Recht, Gottes weltweite Schöpfertreue.”28 Through Christ, God as creator reestablishes right order in the world. A parallel work from the catholic side is by Karl Kertelge, who views it as an “Aussage über das eschatologische Heilshandeln Gottes und die daraus erfolgende Heilssituation des Menschen auf Grund ihres Glaubens an Jesus Christus.”29 For him, the phrase refers to God’s redemptive activity on account of ‘faith in Christ.’ He understands it from the perspective of how God deals with humankind, especially from the perspective of new creation. Recently, Denny Burk has argued for a theocentric interpretation from a totally different perspective. He argues that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ cannot be either an objective genitive or a subjective genitive,30 but should be understood as a possessive genitive that stands metonymically for God’s work in Christ. He builds his argument on the observation that the “question of a subjective versus an objective genitive relies entirely on the supposition that the head noun δικαιοσύνη implies a verbal idea.”31 Having taken a close look at how verbal genitives work in Greek, he observes 26

27

28

29

30

31

C. Müller, GottesGerechtigkeitundGottesVolk:EineUntersuchungzuRömer9-11, FRLANT 86 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1964), 30. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 27. Wolfgang Schrage, „Römer 3:21-26 und die Bedeutung des Todes Jesus Christi bei Paulus,“ in DasKreuzJesu:TheologischeÜberlegungen, ed. Paul Rieger (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1969), 86, too views it similarly as the faithfulness of creator to his creation. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 91. See also Peter Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1989), 57. In his reading it refers to God’s own determined purpose of healing, God’s loyalty as creator to his whole creation. Karl Kertelge, ‚Rechtfertigung‘beiPaulus:StudienzurStrukturundzumBedeutungsgehaltdesPaulinischenRechtfertigungsbegriffs, NTAbh NF 3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1967), 107. To put it another words, it is a statement about God’s saving act of salvation and the resulting situation of people subsequently being saved by their faith in Jesus Christ. Denny Burk, “The Righteousness of God (Dikaiosunē Theou) and Verbal Genitives: A Grammatical Clarification,” JSNT 34 (2012): 346-359. Burk, “Righteousness of God,” 349.

14

CHAPTER ONE

that the possibility of a subjective or objective genitive arises “only when it modifies a noun that implies a verbal idea.”32 Now the nominalised form of the verb δικαιόω is not δικαιοσύνη, but δικαίωσις. The nouns with the –σύνη suffix are neither derived from the verb, nor do they indicate verbal action. Accordingly, δικαιοσύνη is a noun derived from the adjective, resulting in the nominalization of an attribute or quality. For Burk, Käsemann’s interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as ‘God’s saving activity’ is still possible, provided it is taken as metonymy. Righteousness here is an attribute of God that stands metonymically for God’s salvation. It is God’s righteous nature that motivates his salvific and redemptive acts. The presence of a metonym means that we do not have to pick between righteousness as an attribute and righteousness as a saving activity. The former grounds and motivates the latter.33

This suggestion is helpful in solving the confusion of the two distinct understandings in Rom 3:21, 22 and 25, 26. It serves to remedy the reading of the former occurrences as ‘God’s activity’ and the latter as ‘God’s integrity.’34 In Burk’s reading, while metonymy is present in 3:21, 22, it is absent in 3:25, 26.35 Although this reading helps to emphasise the consistency of the pericope, the question of whether the text provides any hint to read 3:21, 22 as metonymy needs further study. Thus according to the theocentric perspective, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is a terminus technicus that Paul adopts from the OT and Jewish apocalyptic. The positive aspect of this perspective is that it has placed the term in the relational framework of the OT. Indeed, in his ground-breaking study in 1899, Herbert Cremer had asserted that righteousness was to be understood as a relational concept within the cultural and religious framework of the OT.36 However, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ does not appear as such in the 32

33 34

35 36

Burk, “Righteousness of God,” 349. He is arguing against Omanson, “Righteousness,” 345, who, taking δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as the subjective genitive, argues that θεοῦ functions as the subject of δικαιοσύνη. Burk, “Righteousness of God,” 356-357 (italics original). Cf. Douglas J. Moo, Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 219. Burk, „Righteousness of God,“ 357. H. Cremer, DiepaulinischeRechtfertigungslehreimZusammenhangeihrergeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen, 2 ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1900). For a brief summary of Cremer’s arguments, see E. J. Achtemeier, “Righteousness in the Old Testament,” in IDB 4 (1962), 80-85. David Hill, GreekWordsandHebrewMeanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 82-109, shows δικαιοσύνη inherits this relational meaning by standing for the Hebrew root ‫ קדצ‬and ‫דֶסֶח‬.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

15

OT. Moreover, God’s δικαιοσύνη in the OT means more than retributive justice, because it also embraces God’s mercy. Käsemann has gone to the other end of the spectrum in presenting the phrase as God’s power grasping the world. But in Rom 1:16, it is the Gospel that is described as the power, not δικαιοσύνη. The understanding that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ embraces God’s power-as-creator over creation will also be complicated when Paul emphasizes the ‘new creation’ (Rom 6:4; 7:6; 8:21-23; 2Cor 5:17). Some of the above drawbacks are addressed by New Perspective scholars, who favour a theocentric reading. E. P. Sanders’ “Paul and Palestinian Judaism” paved the way for the New Perspective on Paul and for a fresh assessment of Romans.37 The New Perspective basically views Romans not as a doctrinal discourse on justification by faith, but as speaking about the God who is faithful to Israel and impartial to all. The New Perspective insists on the continuity between Paul and Judaism in the context of Second Temple Judaism. It suggests that Paul, in using δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, was not answering the question of universal sinfulness and how humanity can find acceptance by faith alone, but rather the question of gentile acceptance before God. In general, the New Perspective views δικαιοσύνη as a relational and covenantal term. The literature on the New Perspective is very large.38 We will only look at those few authors who have contributed to the discussion of δικαιοσύνη. Sanders specific contribution on δικ- words is that ‘righteousness by faith’ is not a doctrine, but a “heuristic category” in Pauline writings, used in the context of the need for obedience to the law.39 He has taken on a detailed analysis of the Qumran texts containing ‫צ ָד ָקה‬, ְ to which Käsemann had alluded. His study concludes that this is neither a technical 37

38

39

Ed Parish Sanders, PaulandPalestinianJudaism(London: SCM, 1977). See also the discussion on James D. G. Dunn, Romans1-8, WBC 38a (Dallas, TX: Word, 1988), Ixiv-Ixxii. A very recent summary and assessment of various scholarly views can be seen in Jacob Thiessen, Gottes Gerechtigkeit Und Evangelium Im Römerbrief: Die RechtfertigungslehreDesPaulusImVergleichZuAntikenJüdischenAuffassungenUnd Zur Neuen Paulusperspektive, Edition Israelogie 8 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2014), 13-42. The participatory aspect of salvation was further developed by Axel von Dobbeler, GlaubealsTeilhabe:HistorischeundsemantischeGrundlagenderpaulinischenTheologieundEkklesiologiedesGlaubens, WUNT 2, 22 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 166-170 and the issue of the inclusion of Gentiles along with its social implications were raised by Krister Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1976), 3-5; 23-28; Nils Alstrup Dahl, StudiesinPaul:TheologyfortheEarly ChristianMission (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977), 107-112. Sanders, PaulandPalestinianJudaism, 492.

16

CHAPTER ONE

term nor does it connote an active salvation-creating power, but is simply an equivalent of ‘mercy.’40 He further develops participatory aspects of justification by believer’s incorporation in Christ. James D. G. Dunn treats δικαιοσύνη in the relational view of the New Perspective. His main argument is that Paul’s use of the term must be understood from the covenantal and relational background of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is then viewed as belonging to God’s covenantal faithfulness. He insisted that “δικαιοσύνη is a good example of the need to penetrate through Paul’s Greek language in order to understand it in the light of his Jewish background and training.”41 He differentiates it from the Greek world view where δικαιοσύνη is an ideal against which an individual action can be measured. This mind-set is reflected in such expressions as “justice must be satisfied.”42 Over against this background, he argues that Paul’s usage stems directly from the OT. He understands it as “God’s activity in drawing individuals into and sustaining them within the relationship.”43 In Rom 3:22, Dunn maintains, it is “God’s actions on behalf of those to whom he has committed himself.”44 And in 3:26 God is righteous because he fulfils his obligations as a covenant God. Ultimately, he goes with the relational aspect of δικαιοσύνη, highlighting God’s covenantal faithfulness. N. T. Wright, another notable New Perspective scholar, develops the covenantal conception of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. He asserts categorically: “This term is, and remains, based firmly in the covenant.”45 He takes it “to mean essentially the covenant faithfulness, the covenant justice, of the God who made promises to Abraham, promises of a worldwide family characterised by faith, in and through whom the evil of the world could be undone.”46 In his view, covenant categories are central to

40

41 42

43 44 45

46

Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 307, see his analysis of Qumran passages in 305-312. Dunn, Romans1-8, 40. James D. G. Dunn, TheTheologyofPaultheApostle (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 341. Dunn, TheologyofPaul, 344. Dunn, Romans1-8, 166. W. H. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” in PaulineTheology,vol. 3, ed. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1995), 65. Nicholas Thomas Wright, TheClimaxoftheCovenant:ChristandtheLawinPauline Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992), 234. An advanced study on the topic is taken up in the article by Adwin Chr. van Driel, “Climax of the Covenant vs Apocalyptic Invasion: A Theological Analysis of a Contemporary Debate in Pauline Exegesis,” IJST 17 (2015), 6-25. He argues that the theological dispute between covenantal

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

17

Pauline letters because of δικαιοσύνη and δικ- words.47 In his recent works, he argues that covenant, the law court, eschatology and christology are the four dimensions of Paul’s teaching about justification.48 Mary Silvia Chingere Nwachukwu has recently argued that since in Rom 3:2126 “covenant terms (ἀπολύτρωσις, ἱλαστήριον, αἷμα) are used to express the meaning of the death of Jesus, the text confirms the link between the ideas of God’s covenant and righteousness.”49 This has led to the argument that Rom 3:21-26 contains covenant theology, despite the absence of any explicit mention of διαθήκη in the pericope. The New Perspective’s dynamic, relational and covenantal conception of δικαιοσύνη is generally well received. However, Dunn is methodologically criticized for reducing δικ- words to a particular strand whereas there is a diversity of usage and meanings in the Hebrew Scriptures.50 He is also criticized for too easily discarding the Greek sense of ‘norm.’ As Campbell notes, “while the Hebrew provenance for the terminology must certainly be given priority, the Greek sense of ‘norm’ should not be abandoned in a flush of semantic enthusiasm.”51 Some scholars have argued that the difference between relational and norm views is “not great for it is generally agreed that righteousness is behaviour proper to some relationship.”52 Moreover, the covenantal conception of δικαιοσύνη is criticized for being too specific.53 Many of the OT occurrences of the term do not suggest a covenantal presupposition.54 More to the point, the centrality of covenant in the OT writings is also questioned. Seifrid demonstrates that ‘God’s righteousness’ is not simply equated with God’s covenant faithfulness. “All ‘covenant-keeping’ is righteous behaviour, but not all righteous behaviour is ‘covenant-keeping.’ It is

47 48

49

50

51 52 53

54

reading and the apocalyptic reading of Paul’s christology is deficient. He shows that both are similar in many ways. Cf. Wright, ClimaxoftheCovenant, 203. See N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009), 86-108; N. T. Wright, PaulandtheFaithfulnessofGod, Christian Origins and Question of God 4 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2013), 795-804. In his opinion, God’s covenantal faithfulness brings together various attributes of God. Mary Silvia Chingere Nwachukwu, Creation-Covenant Scheme and Justification by Faith (Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2002), 274. For the various accounts of the meanings, see J. A. Ziesler, TheMeaningofRighteousness in Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 17-46; Achtemeier, “Righteousness in the Old Testament,” 80-85. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 148 note 1. Ziesler, MeaningofRighteousnessinPaul, 38. See also Hill, GreekWords,96-97. See David J. Southall, Rediscovering Righteousness in Romans, WMANT 2, 240 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 18-19. Cf. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 149.

18

CHAPTER ONE

misleading, therefore, to speak of ‘God’s righteousness’ as his ‘covenantfaithfulness.’”55 In addition, covenant interpretation is delicate because it can lead to supersessionist theology. 1.1.3 Christocentric Readings David J. Southall advocates a christocentric reading of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. He considers that the New Perspective readers, especially Dunn, take an overly static view of language, failing to take into account “the poetic, connotative, and metaphoric nature of Paul’s language.”56 This leads him to argue that “the presence of personified Δικαιοσύνη embedded within a highly developed metaphor will allow righteousness to function metaphorically for Christ himself.”57 He argues for metaphoric and narrational modes of operation of the personified δικαιοσύνη based a study of its use in the two sections: 6:15-23 and 9:30-10:21. For him, “[p]ersonified Δικαιοσύνη occurs within metaphorsystems”58 and only such a view can explain Paul’s use of δικαιοσύνη elsewhere in the letter. Accordingly, δικαιοσύνη must be understood as the personification of Christ himself. Despite all these arguments, Southall has not been able to establish his strongly christocentric reading of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as an equivalent term for Christ in Rom 3:21-26. Although he asserts that “the Christocentricity of Rom 3:21-26 is clear,”59 initially he seems to see it working more through the christocentric reading of the πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases. Nevertheless, he maintains that a christocentric understanding of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is possible, because of the occurrence of πεφανέρωται in 3:21 which, in its only other NT occurrence, in Heb 9:26, speaks of the appearance of Christ. He therefore holds that it is not impossible that φανερόω in 3:21 indicates the personification of God’s righteousness.60 55

56 57

58 59 60

Mark A. Seifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of second Temple Judaism,WUNT 2, 140, vol. 1,ed. P. T. O‘Brien, Donald A. Carson and Mark A. Seifrid (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 424. Southall, RediscoveringRighteousness, 3. Southall, Rediscovering Righteousness, 4. Although there is no scholar who has responded positively to this suggestion, a partial support to this view is found Geoffrey Turner, “Righteousness of God in Psalms and Romans,” SJT 63 (2010), 297: “Paul has kept the framework of the doctrine of righteousness that he found in Psalms but everything is now christologised.” Southall, RediscoveringRighteousness, 70 (italics original). Southall, RediscoveringRighteousness, 287. Southall, RediscoveringRighteousness, 288.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

19

He turns to the reference to ‘law and prophets’ in 3:21, arguing that it supports a messianic expectation. All in all, we find that Southall’s reading is rather strained, suggesting more than his limited textual support can reasonably sustain. Further, a christocentric reading of both δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ and πίστις Χριστοῦ would make Rom 3:21-22 not just unnecessarily difficult, but redundant. 1.1.4 Concluding Remarks Concerning the Debate This brief history of the interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ leads us to a number of observations. First, it is clear that several meanings are possible. This leads us to ask whether Paul’s usage is fully consistent. Only careful study of the term in its specific context can decide which meaning is appropriate. Studies have tended to be polarized towards either an anthropocentric or a theocentric reading. Yet Rom 3:21-26 may well embrace both the human and the divine. This dual purpose is to be seen in 3:26: ‘to prove that he is just and that he justifies.’ In this sense, δικαιοσύνη is more flexible than each of the paradigms above. Second, we must ask whether there are two distinct discussions of the righteousness of God within Rom 3:21-26. It has been argued that the connotation of the phase is not the same in 3:25, 26 as in 3:21, 22.61 Such a view is reflected in Moo as he writes, “we are presuming that “righteousness of God,” which refers in vv. 21-22 to the justifying act of God, refers in vv. 25-26 to the “integrity” of God, his always acting in complete accordance with his own character.”62 The issue is associated with the possibility that there is a pre-Pauline fragment in Rom 3:24-26. This would increase the possibility that there are different senses in different verses. Third, the background and the apocalyptic nuance of the phrase need to be further examined. As we have seen, many commentators limited their understanding of the phrase to an exclusively forensic or ethical one, because they used the Roman legal model. Paul’s constant quoting of the OT and his development of the argument depending on the OT 61

62

Cf. Ernst Käsemann, „Zum Verständnis von Römer 3:25-26,“ ZNW 43 (1951): 150154. Otto Kuss, DerRömerbrief(Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1957), 117; John Piper, „The Demonstration of the Righteousness of God in Romans 3:25,26,“ JSNT 7 (1980): 3-10; W. G. Kümmel, „Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre,“ ZThK 49 (1952): 160. Moo, EpistletotheRomans, 219.

20

CHAPTER ONE

may suggest that he understands the term against that background. This has increasingly led scholars to assert that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ connotes God’s restoration of a right relationship with his people.63 That ‫ ְבּ ִרית‬and ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬never occur in close association in the Hebrew Bible is used as an argument against the covenantal interpretation.64 Yet the question still remains whether it stands uniformly for salvation. The question of whether it can stand for God’s distributive justice needs further analysis. Finally, the specific context of Rom 3:21-26 raises some questions. How is δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ associated to the ‘glory of God’ in 3:23? How is it connected to the πίστις Χριστοῦ phases in the pericope? Campbell and Southall favour a christocentric reading, arguing that “righteousness of God” is here the moral integrity of God demonstrated in his saving activity through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. In our discussion, we will critically examine this position, which clearly differs from our working hypothesis. In Rom 3:21-26 δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is closely associated with πίστις Χριστοῦ. In what follows, this will turn out to be decisive for whether a christocentric or a theocentric reading of the pericope is to be preferred. 1.2 THE DEBATE ON πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ The long dormant debate about how to understand the ten occurrences of πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ65 in the Pauline corpus has recently resurfaced. Although relatively few, the phrases occur in central sections of Romans and Galatians, giving their interpretation a particular importance in Pauline studies. The primary question is whether πίστις is here to be understood as referring to the ‘faith(fullness) of Christ’ or to ‘believers’ faith in Christ.’ This is significant for our understanding of Paul’s soteriology, in particular how he construes justification and faith. Our view is not just to be determined as a matter of theological emphasis, but through our

63

64 65

Cf. Tom Holland, Romans:TheDivineMarriage, A Biblical Theological Commentary (Eugene: Pickwick, 2011), 84. See the discussion on this point in Seifrid, “Righteousness Language,” 415-442. In the Pauline corpus, this phrase occurs in Gal 2:16 (twice), 20; 3:22; Phil 3:9; Rom 3:22, 26; Col 2:12; Eph 3:12; 2 Thess 2:13. Outside Pauline letters, it is found in Mk 11:22 Acts 3:16, 20 and Rev 14:12. Interestingly, with two exceptions (Gal 2:20 and 3:22) all other Pauline uses are relating this phrase to God’s δικαιοσύνη.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

21

understanding of Paul’s syntax and arguments and so the translation of the phrase. The history of this debate has been described elsewhere66 and we need not repeat it. Rather, we will highlight the most recent developments as they affect our understanding of Rom 3:21-26 and its theocentricity. To this end we will consider two main categories of readings: first, “subjective genitive readings,” which take Christ to be the subject, the one who holds the faith and can be read christologically as referring to “the faith of Christ”; then “objective genitive readings”, which take humans as those who hold the faith and can be read anthropologically as referring to “faith in Christ.” This will be followed by a short review of other mediating views. 1.2.1 Subjective Genitive Readings The twentieth century debate seems to have been started by German scholars. Johannes Haussleiter pointed out the significance of the issue in 1891.67 Because Paul does not here add the title ‘Christ,’ Haussleiter’s view was that ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ in Rom 3:26 must refer to Jesus’ own faith. He argues that whereas διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ would have allowed a translation “through faith in Christ Jesus,” the use of διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Rom 3:22 has to be understood as “through the faith of Jesus Christ.”68 He therefore concludes that these expressions involve the faith(fullness) unto death that Christ expressed to God. Gerhard Kittel takes up this argument, maintaining that “Nirgends hat er [Paulus] in dem ganzen Briefe in unmissverständlicher Weise

66

67

68

See Debbie Hunn, “Debating the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Twentieth-Century Scholarship,” in TheFaithofJesusChrist:Exegetical,BiblicalandTheologicalStudies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 15-31; Matthew C. Easter, “The Pistis Christou Debate: Main Arguments and Responses in Summary,” CBR 9 (2010): 33-47. For an assessment of the debate from the theological perspective, see also David L. Stubbs, “The State of Theology and the PistisChristou Debate,” SJT 61 (2008): 137-157; Chris Kugler, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ: The Current State of Play and the Key Arguments,” CBR 14 (2016): 244-255. For a detailed history of research on Paul’s concept of ‘faith’ and various landmark works, see Benjamin Schliesser, Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4: Paul’s Concept of Faith in Light of the History of Reception of Genesis 15:6, WUNT 2, 224 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 7-77. Johannes Haussleiter, „Der Glaube Jesu Christi und der christliche Glaube: Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung des Römerbriefs,“ NKZ 2 (1891): 109-145. Haussleiter, „Der Glaube Jesu,“ 127.

22

CHAPTER ONE

ausgesprochen, dass man an Jesum glauben müsse, um gerecht zu werden.”69 In addition, he argues that since πίστις θεοῦ (Rom 3:3) and πίστις Ἀβραάμ (Rom 4:12) are clearly subjective genitives, πίστις Χριστοῦ must therefore also refer to Christ’s own faith. Gabriel Hebert and Thomas Torrance raised the issue among Englishspeakers. Unlike the German scholars their main argument was lexical: “whether,” as Hebert puts it, “the word ‘faith,’ as St. Paul uses it, carried a Hebrew rather than a Greek meaning.”70 They pointed to the Hebrew background, where πίστις stands in the LXX for the Hebrew ‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬and should be understood as faithfulness, rather than faith or believing. Hebert translates Rom 3:22 as “God’s righteousness, through the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ, to all who believe.” Torrance notes that πίστις “is never used in the LXX to signify faith or belief,”71 and sees it as carrying Jesus’ human response of obedience and faithfulness. Richard Hays reopened the recent debate in English-speaking scholarship in his doctoral dissertation.72 His main point is that the phrase has to be understood in the context of the narrative elements in Paul’s thought, and not in isolation. He argues that “πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ may be understood as a reference to the faithfulness of ‘the one man Jesus Christ’ whose act of obedient self-giving on the cross became the means by which ‘the promise’ of God was fulfilled.”73 Emphasizing Paul’s quotation of Hab 2:4 in Galatians and Romans, he argues that Paul has a messianic understanding of ἐκ πίστεως, referring to Christ. He suggests that in these quotations ἐκ πίστεως “carries not primarily the connotation of ‘those who have faith’ but rather the connotation of ‘those who are given life on the basis of (Christ’s) faith,’”74 pointing to the efficacy of Jesus Christ’s faithfulness for salvation.75

69

70 71

72

73 74 75

Gerhard Kittel, „Πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ bei Paulus,“ TSK 79 (1906): 419-436, esp. 424. Gabriel Hebert, “Faithfulness and Faith,” Theology 58 (1955): 373-379, esp. 373. Thomas F. Torrance, “One Aspect of the Biblical Conception of Faith,” ExpT 68 (1957): 11-114, esp. 111. Richard B. Hays, TheFaithofJesusChrist:AnInvestigationoftheNarrativeSubstructureofGalatians3:1-4:11, SBL DS 56 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983). Hays, FaithofJesusChrist, 175. Hays, FaithofJesusChrist, 201. Richard B. Hays, “Πίστις and Pauline Christology,” in PaulineTheology, vol. 4, ed. Elizabeth E. Johnson and David M. Hay, SBL SS 44 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1997), 35-60.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

23

Campbell considers that all three occurrences of πίστις in Rom 3:2126 refer to Christ’s faithfulness.76 He claims that “a christological [subjective genitive] reading makes the best sense of an otherwise very awkward πίστις phrase in v.25b.”77 The problem as he perceives it is that Rom 3:21-22 speak of the revelation of God’s righteousness by means of πίστις. Human ‘faith’ cannot function instrumentally within a process of divine disclosure. This is semantically impossible. ‘Faith’ does not function actually to disclose information; it does not make something that is invisible visible. This is not what it means or denotes. Yet these texts speak of disclosure, and from the divine realm to the human. Something is progressing from God to the world, and this is by means of ‘faith’. Hence Christ, again, is the most obvious reading of this data.78

The strong point of Campbell’s argument is that the source of Paul’s use of ἐκ πίστεως in 3:26 and elsewhere is Hab 2:4, quoted in both Romans and Galatians. This is the source of Paul’s use of prepositions to qualify πίστις in Romans and Galatians.79 He goes a step further, arguing that Hab 2:4 serves for Paul as a messianic proof-text with a christological meaning. Thus in Rom 3:21-26 it is Christ’s faithfulness (obedience and death) that reveals God’s righteousness, a christocentric position. So many scholars have argued for the subjective genitive interpretation over the last thirty years that there is no space to review them all. Their main arguments have, however, often been repeated. First, that an objective genitive reading creates redundancy in Rom 3:22 because it is followed by the clause εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας.80 Second, that when πίστις is followed by a genitive referring to a person, it does not refer to faith in that person.81 Third, that Paul’s contrast is not between ἔργα 76

77 78

79

80

81

Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 62-69. Another scholar, Bruce W. Longenecker, “ ΠΙΣΤΙΣ in Romans 3.25: Neglected Evidence for the ‘Faithfulness of Christ’?,” NTS 39 (1993): 478-80, reads the word in the similar manner. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 65. Douglas A. Campbell, TheQuestforPaul’sGospel:ASuggestedStrategy, JSNT SS 274 (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 197. Douglas A. Campbell, “Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans 3:22,” in TheFaithof Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 58. This case is advocated by Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 274; Luke Timothy Johnson, “Rom 3,21-26 and the Faith of Jesus,” CBQ44 (1982): 79; Moorna D. Hooker, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” NTS 35 (1989): 322. This argument is promoted by D. W. B. Robinson, “Faith of Jesus Christ-a New Testament Debate,” RTR 29 (1970): 71-80, esp. 78-79; Sam K. Williams, “Again Pistis Christou,” CBQ 49 (1987): 434. Their argument is rejected by many scholars who

24

CHAPTER ONE

νόμου and πίστις Χριστοῦ, but between human activity (law) and Christ’s work.82 Fourth, that the objective genitive reading in Rom 3:22 does not complete the sense of the passage.83 Fifth, that although it has traditionally been held that the Church Fathers understood the phrase as an objective genitive, recent scholarship has challenged this, pointing to instances where they speak of the faithfulness of Christ.84 Last, the subjective genitive interpretation shifts Paul’s soteriology, which goes along with Paul’s uses of ἐν Χριστῷ emphasizing ‘participation in Christ.’85 However, the view that the objective genitive is not tenable is onesided. An obvious drawback of Hays’ and Campbell’s study is that they have not paid much attention to semantics and to the background of the term πίστις. Scholars often switch between Christ’s faith and Christ’s faithfulness. Does ‘Christ’s faith’ mean that Christ is a believer just like any human being? The subjective genitive reading is christological, which favours a christocentric reading of Rom 3:21-26. We shall find counter-arguments for some of the issues raised by this reading in the works of those who favour an objective genitive reading. 1.2.2 Objective Genitive Readings Objective genitive readings were so long prevalent, that they were often taken for granted and it was left to those who wished to disagree to find arguments as to why their view should be taken seriously. It is to the recent literature, following the re-awakening of interest in its rival, that we have to look for considered and well-grounded arguments in its support, rather than to its defenders from the early twentieth century.86

82

83 84

85

86

point to the numerous counter examples in the NT: Mk 11:22; Acts 3:16; Jas 2:1; Rev 2:13, 14:22. Among those who refute this point are: James D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” in PaulineTheology, vol. 4, ed. Elizabeth E. Johnson and David M. Hay (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1997), 63; Moo, EpistletotheRomans, 225. Louis J. Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 270; Campbell, Rhetoric of Righteousness, 61-62. Robinson, “Faith of Jesus Christ,” 80. Ian G. Wallis, TheFaithofJesusChristinEarlyChristianTraditions, SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 193-206; Michael R. Whitenton, “After πίστις Χριστοῦ: Neglected Evidence from the Apostolic Fathers “ JTS 61 (2010): 82-109. Stubbs, “State of Theology,” 155-157; Jae Hyung Cho, “The Christology of Romans in Light of πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Rom 3:22-26),” ResQ 56 (2014): 41-51, esp.48. Erwin Wissmann, Das Verhältnis von Pistis und Christusfrömmigkeit bei Paulus, FRLANT 40 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1926), 69; Fritz Neugebauer, In Christus: Eine Untersuchung zum paulinischen Glaubensverständnis (Göttingen:

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

25

Among the first of these writing in English were James Barr and Charles F. D. Moule. Barr rejected the view that its LXX background requires that πίστις be understood as faithfulness.87 Indeed he accepts that it is the LXX texts having the sense of ‘faith’ or ‘trust’ that predominate in the NT. But he rejects the argument that etymology and root meanings determine later usage, in favour of the view that it is the use made of the word in the sentence that controls its meaning. Moule rejects the subjective genitive reading, because he believes that in placing so much importance on Christ’s own faith it undermines the importance of the human response to God as an act of will.88 He cites Rom 1:5; 8:21 and 2 Thess 2:13 as instances of looser objective genitives, and points to the use of πίστις in Gal 3:2, 5 and Rom 10:17 where it refers to the faith of the believer. A strong point of his argument is that where both πίστις and πιστεύω occur, as in Rom 3:22 and Gal 2:16, it is the use made of the verb πιστεύω that determines the meaning of the noun πίστις. Dunn insists on the force of the genitive construction in favour of the objective genitive reading, warning subjective genitive readers not to be misled by the inflexibility of the literal English translation. He tries to clarify the issue of the article by observing that διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ in Phil 3:8 is adjacent to διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ in Phil 3:9 while ζῆλον θεοῦ is used in Rom 10:2 to mean ‘zeal for God.’89 Moreover, he sees no redundancy in Rom 3:22: for him the allegedly redundant τοὺς πιστεύοντας serves the useful purpose of reinforcing πάντας. Nor does he accept that the parallel here is between Adam’s faithlessness and Christ’s faithfulness, for he maintains that Paul nowhere develops such an antithesis - not even in Rom 5:15ff.90 In his opinion, there is no other clear evidence of Christ’s faithfulness in Paul and the notion of Christ’s own faith(fullness) does not play a significant role in the Pauline Corpus. Barry R. Matlock presents an array of arguments for the objective genitive. Paul never uses Jesus as the subject of the verb πιστεύω and his usual way of “interpreting an instance of the verb in a citation with

87

88 89 90

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), 168; Dieter Lührmann, GlaubeimfrühenChristentum (Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1976), 753. James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 161-205. Charles F. D. Moule, “The Biblical Conception of ‘Faith’,” ExpT 68 (1957): 157, 222. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” 63. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” 77. Contra, Hooker, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” 168-170.

26

CHAPTER ONE

reference to the noun indicates that the meaning of the noun and verb have not drifted apart.”91 This not only helps clarify the meaning of πίστις but also throws light on a wider pattern of repetition of πίστις/ πιστεύω in Galatians and Romans.92 He also claims patristic evidence in support of the objective genitive.93 Replying to Howard’s observation that other uses of πίστις with a genitive of person refer to the faith of that person, he notes that “unless ‘God’ or ‘Christ’ is the object in question, the possibility of the objective genitive typically does not even arise.”94 In doing so he also warns that one should not determine the meaning of πίστις simply by the number of occurrences in literature, rather one should pay attention to the context. Hultgren uses grammatical arguments to defend the objective genitive. He points out that Paul never uses an article before πίστις Χριστοῦ expressions.95 If Paul wanted to speak of ‘the faith of Christ’ he could have written ἡ πίστις τοῦ Χριστοῦ.96 He also points to the clear uses of the article in the subjective genitive phrases ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ (Rom 5:5; 8:39) and ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ χριστοῦ (Rom 8:35). Further, he argues that πίστις ἐν Χριστῷ is not a Pauline idiom; rather, Paul uses genitive constructions for objective relations which, in his view, function in a way similar to πίστις ἐν in other NT writings. In a recent article, Jonathan A. Linebaugh questions the theological perspective. Basing himself on Martin Luther’s exegesis of Gal 2:16, 19-20, he argues that Luther’s objective genitive reading is not anthropocentric, but rather a christocentric account of faith in Christ.97 He regards ‘the faith of Christ’ as a mistranslation of Paul’s πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases and “the theological correlation it claims to offer to betray a 91

92

93 94

95

96 97

Barry R. Matlock, “Detheologizing the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate: Cautionary Remarks from a Lexical Semantic Perspective,” NovT42 (2000): 13-14. Barry R. Matlock, “Saving Faith: The Rhetoric and Semantics of πίστις in Paul,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 89. Matlock, “Saving Faith,” 86-88. Barry R. Matlock, “‘Even the Demons Believe’: Paul and πίστις Χριστοῦ,” CBQ 64 (2002): 304. Arland J. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-263. Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 625. Jonathan A. Linebaugh, “The Christo-Centrism of Faith in Christ: Martin Luther’s Reading of Galatians 2.16, 19-20,” NTS 59 (2013): 535-544. Very recently, Michael Wolter, Der Brief an Die Römer: Teilband 1, Röm 1-8, EKK NT 6/1 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 2014), 25-251, has argued that by this phrase Paul means “den Glauben, der im Christusgeschehen das Handeln Gottes zum Heil der Menschen erkennt.”

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

27

fundamental misunderstanding of the reformational reading of Paul.”98 He goes on further to argue that “justification by faith in Christ is a confession of the soteriological singularity of Jesus: the sola fide is the confession of the solusChristus.”99 Ultimately, he suggests that the phrase must be read not anthropologically, but christologically: this in turn points to Paul’s christocentric soteriology. The recent defenders of the objective genitive have answered many of the challenges raised by subjective genitive readings and have tried to re-establish this traditional reading. It is evident that the objective genitive reading can justly be described as anthropological, because of its emphasis on human faith in Christ. The challenge that still remains, however, is to explain how an anthropological reading can get along with the theocentric thrust of Rom 3:21-26. This aspect has not received much attention. Scholars have been too eager to look for arguments that fit all the instances of πίστις Χριστοῦ, and the specific context of Rom 3:2126 has not received sufficient attention. Whether an anthropological reading can still maintain the theocentricity of the text needs to be further explored, as does the source and meaning of the Pauline πίστις. 1.2.3 Other Readings Not all scholars, looking along different lines, were willing to choose between subjective and objective genitive. Thus Adolf Deissmann has argued that it is a genitiveofmysticus, a faith that one has in fellowship with Christ.100 Morna D. Hooker takes this further, arguing that a neutral translation of ‘Christ-faith’ that combines both subjective and objective genitives understanding will be more appropriate.101 However, her specific study of the issue is more in line with the subjective genitive, underlining that that believers participate in the faith of Christ.102 Dietrich Rusam speaks of the genitiveauctoris, meaning the faith that comes from Christ.103 However, these authors did not fully work out their suggestions in their works. 98 99 100

101

102 103

Linebaugh, “Christo-Centrism of Faith,” 536. Linebaugh, “Christo-Centrism of Faith,” 544 (emphasis original). Adolf Deissmann, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History, trans. William E. Wilson, 2 ed. (New York: George H. Doran, 1926), 161-165. Morna D. Hooker, “Faith,” in ReligionPast&Present, vol. 5, ed. Hans Dieter Betz and et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 17-18. Hooker, „ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,“ 184-186. Dietrich Rusam, „Was versteht Paulus unter der πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ?,“ ProtokollezurBibel 11 (2002): 47-70, esp.70.

28

CHAPTER ONE

We now turn to two recent works. Karl Friedrich Ulrichts’s recent comprehensive study of πίστις Χριστοῦ suggests that the issue goes beyond the alternatives set forth by the subjective–objective debate. Instead of approaching πίστις Χριστοῦ through its two components, he considers it as a single entity, as “Christusglaube.” Pointing to a possible influence of Hebrew syntax, he notes: “So kann auch vom uns interessierenden Genitiv (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ vorderhand nur gesagt werden, dass er die nicht genauer Gemeinschaft mit dem nomenregens bezeichnet, die anders mit einem Adjektiv oder dem ersten Teil eines Kompositum wiedergegeben werden kann. Beide Möglichkeiten werden in der πίστις Χριστοῦ-Debatte vetreten.”104 His main thesis is that 1 Thess 1:3 (which is a complex construction) should be considered as the earliest πίστις Χριστοῦ usage in Paul. He argues that πίστις Χριστοῦ is closely related to the Pauline concept of participatory soteriology.105 It is this “Christusglaube” that is further explicated through the expression ἐν Χριστῷ, so that the compact phrase πίστις Χριστοῦ embraces not only the believer’s participation in Christ but also his justification by faith. At the end, Ulricht’s interpretation becomes a version of the objective genitive reading that incorporates the participationist view of the subjective genitive. Mark A. Seifrid suggests considering πίστις Χριστοῦ as describing Christ as the author and source of faith.106 He questions the common assumption that πίστις must be read in a verbal sense, arguing that “Nominal categories such as quality, possession, and source also must come into view.”107 Thus the nominal genitive references in Rom 3:22, 26 speak of Christ as the source and author of faith, that is, faith that comes from Jesus Christ. Nonetheless salvation ultimately comes not from Christ’s own faithfulness but from God, who justifies the one who has the faith that comes from Jesus Christ. This raises the problem of how Jesus’ faithfulness is thought to work human salvation.

104

105 106

107

Karl Friedrich Ulrichs, Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma πίστις Χριστοῦ und zumpaulinischenVerständnisvonGlaubeundRechtfertigung, WUNT 2, 227 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 13. Ulrichs, Christusglaube, 248-251. Mark A. Seifrid, “The Faith of Christ,” in TheFaithofJesusChrist:Exegetical,BiblicalandTheologicalStudies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 129-146. See also Benjamin Schliesser, “Christ-Faith as an Eschatological Event (Galatians 3.23-26): A ‘Third View’ on Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” JSNT 38 (2016): 227-300. Seifrid, “The Faith of Christ,” 134.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

29

1.2.4 Concluding Remarks Strong arguments have been adduced in favour of both the subjective and objective genitive readings of πίστις Χριστοῦ. The recent trend towards the subjective genitive seriously challenges the traditional objective genitive reading, but the debate cannot be settled by grammar alone. We are confronted by important questions, including the theocentricity of Rom 3:21-26 and the divinity of Christ. While the subjective genitive reading emphasizes his humanity, the objective genitive reading emphasizes his divinity. That is why an examination of the theocentricity of Rom 3:2126 offers some hope. The subjective genitive is christological and leans towards a christocentric reading of the pericope. The objective genitive is anthropological, and in our view supports a theocentric reading of the pericope. It is fascinating that in Rom 3:21-26 πίστις Χριστοῦ is closely associated with δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. This association and the meaning and source of Paul’s use of πίστις will be taken up in the fifth chapter. 1.3 THE QUESTION OF THE PRE-PAULINE MATERIAL IN 3:24-26 It has been suggested that Paul cites pre-Pauline material in our pericope. This is an important issue that will influence our understanding. The possibility that Paul is citing an earlier text cannot be ruled out a priori.As John Piper notes, “it is generally recognized that Paul’s disclaimer in Gal 1:12 does not mean that he rejected all tradition. On the contrary he preserved, handed on, and adapted much early Christian tradition in various forms.”108 Further, Peter Stuhlmacher shows how far the difficulty of understanding Rom 3:24-26 comes from not making clear how far, if at all, Paul is here citing traditional material.109 What is all the more interesting concerning the focus of this book is that the prePauline material is considered to be christocentric highlighting how death of Christ redeems and justifies humanity. If the possibility of a citation is not to be ruled out, then we must consider the arguments for and against such a citation, for clarity about this matter is of the greatest importance. One of the main arguments is the presence of three hapaxlegomena, ἱλαστήριον, πάρεσις and 108 109

Piper, “Righteousness of God,” 2-32, esp. 4. Peter Stuhlmacher, Versöhnung,GesetzundGerechtigkeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1981), 117.

30

CHAPTER ONE

προγεγονότα ἁμαρτημάτα, and of other rare words.110 It was this that first led Bultmann to propose that a pre-Pauline formula was here present, a proposal further developed by Käsemann. Yet although many scholars have followed them in arguing for a pre-Pauline formula, they have found it less easy to agree about its delimitation. Still more, its original meaning, its sitzimLeben and the concrete use that Paul makes of it are contested. Nor should we overlook that by no means all scholars accept the basic proposal that pre-Pauline material is present. 1.3.1 Arguments for the Pre-Pauline Material Bultmann proposed that Paul was citing a pre-Pauline fragment with his own additions. He identifies the pre-Pauline tradition in Rom 3:24-26 as follows, with Pauline additions in parentheses: “…justified (by his grace as a gift) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood (to be received by faith); this was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.”111 Bultmann’s argument based on a careful examination of three aspects of Rom 3:24-26. First, this is the only place in the letters of Paul where the description of Christ as the ἱλαστήριον is to be found. Second, he observes that the other references to ‘the blood’ of Christ, in Rom 5:9 and 1Cor 10:16; 11:25.27, clearly depend on pre-Pauline tradition and therefore doubts that this one can be Pauline. Third, the idea of divine righteousness with the demand for expiation and the passing over of former sins is also new to Paul’s writings. He concludes, therefore, that Paul is here using a traditional statement, which might come from an early Jewish Christian creed.112 Käsemann made an early attempt to improve on Bultmann’s argument.113 Although he translates the text differently from Bultmann, he agrees with him on the delimitation of the pre-Pauline part of the pericope. To Bultmann he adds further arguments. First, the citation must start with δικαιούμενοι in Rom 3:24, because the syntax is otherwise impossible. Second, the theme of ‘forgiveness’ found here, is rare in Paul. The passing over of former sins (διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων) stands as a wedge between the two discussions of 110 111 112 113

Cf. Jewett, Romans, 270. Bultmann, TheologyoftheNewTestament, 46. Cf. Bultmann, TheologyoftheNewTestament, 46. See Ernst Käsemann, AndieRömer, HNT 8a (Tübingen: J.C.B Mohr, 1980), 89-94; Käsemann, „Zum Verständnis,“ 150-151.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

31

righteousness. It does not fit the surrounding statements and context. Paul was not interested in themes of covenant restoration or of atonement after a long period of divine patience. Third, ‘redemption’ is here presented quite differently from Paul’s usage elsewhere, for example in Rom 8:23. Finally, the theme of ‘forbearance’ is non-Pauline, but can be attested in Qumran and the OT pseudepigrapha. In short, Käsemann finds the thought, vocabulary, and style to be very different from the rest of the Pauline writings. This strengthens his support for the hypothesis that Paul is here citing pre-Pauline material. Many scholars have followed Bultmann and Käsemann, sometimes with slight modifications to their arguments. Despite agreeing that prePauline material is present, Eduard Lohse identifies it differently. In his view, in 3:24 only ἀπολύτρωσις comes from pre-Pauline material and the rest is in 3:25-26a.114 Thus, his delimitation of the pre-Pauline formula reads: ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Ben F. Meyer appreciates Lohse’s narrowing down of the pre-Pauline material to 3:25-26.115 With a view to reconstructing the meaning of the pericope, Meyer tries to list the ‘unknowns’ in the pericope and ἱλαστήριον and the phrase διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων comes in the section of the ‘unknowns.’ He takes up, then, the challenge of answering the questions raised by Schlier,116 arguing that “recourse to ‘traditional formula’ as the explanation of a sudden concentration of hapaxlegomenais not a necessity but an explanatory 114

115

116

Eduard Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht: Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen Verkündigung vom Sühntod Jesus Christi, FRLANT 64 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1955), 145-150. See also Lohse, DerBriefandieRömer, 133. Many scholars follow Lohse’s delimitation of the pre-Pauline material. See Klaus Wengst, ChristologischeFormelnundLiederdesUrchristentums, SNT 7 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973), 87-91; Dunn, Romans1-8, 163; Ulrich Wilckens, DerBriefandieRömer, EKK NT 6 (Zürich: Benziger, 1987), 183-184. Some accept this proposal by dropping εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ because they consider it is Pauline addition: Wolfgang Kraus, DerTodJesualsHeiligtumsweihe:EineUntersuchungzumUmfeld der Sühnevorstellung in Römer 3,25-26a, WMANT 66 (Düsseldorf: Neukirchener, 1991), 16-19; Jewett, Romans, 270-271. Cf. Ben F. Meyer, “The Pre-Pauline Formula in Rom. 3:25-26a,” NTS 29 (1983): 198-206. See Schlier’s argument in the following section (1.3.2) p. 32.

32

CHAPTER ONE

convenience, not an apodictic certainty but a more or less plausible way of accounting for what would otherwise appear to be a compact but erratic block solemnly but nonetheless awkwardly weighting the letter’s first climactic passage.”117 As to why Paul would make a citation in mid-sentence, Meyer responds: “And why not? The weighted phrases of the formula served Paul’s rhetorical purposes.”118 Paul does not always introduce the citation of traditional material. Meyer sees its genre as comparable to the confession of Rom 4:25 and concludes that it could be a fragment rather than an integral text, probably from a christological hymn. Udo Schnelle argues that 3:25-26a must belong to a “Jewish Christian baptismal tradition.”119 He observes that traditional baptismal ideas are found here and words and concepts foreign to Paul. “Paul takes up these fundamental ideas from the tradition and extends them through anthropological universality and ecclesiological specificity.”120 The sacrificial and atonement imagery found in 3:25-26 are not usual to Paul’s thought. In his view, the references to the forgiveness of sins, faith and justification are similar to the merits we attain at baptism. Thus, Paul must be contextually strengthening such a baptismal material. Recently, Benjamin J. Ribbens has argued that 3:24-26 must be using traditional material, because Hebrews 9-11 elaborates the same tradition.121 The same terms ἱλαστήριον, αἷμα and ἀπολύτρωσις (and its cognate λύτρωσις) are central to Hebrews 9-11. The texts are conceptually similar, discussing the concept of sin. They are therefore thematically connected. However, for Ribbens, these similarities do not indicate direct literary dependence, but the independent use of common traditional material – material which Ribbens does not further investigate. Overall, the recognition given to the arguments for pre-Pauline material have made it the leading hypothesis, such extent that few recent

117 118 119

120 121

Meyer, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 199. Meyer, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 205. Schnelle, GerechtigkeitundChristusgegenwart, 68-69; Udo Schnelle, ApostlePaul: His Life and Theology, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005), 447-451. Schnelle, ApostlePaul, 449. Benjamin J. Ribbens, “Forensic-Retributive Justification in Romans 3:21-26: Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in Dialogue with Hebrews,” CBQ 74 (2012): 548-567, esp. 555. His aim is to interpret Rom 3:24-26 in the light of Hebrews 9-10. In fact, Stuhlmacher, “Recent Exegese,” 103, has already observed a similarity of the text with Hebrew 9.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

33

commentaries discuss the issue in detail,122 following the hypothesis without even listing their reasons. 1.3.2 Arguments against the Pre-Pauline Material The presence of a pre-Pauline fragment is not unchallenged. Cranfield123 argues that credulity is required to accept Käsemann’s position. Rom 3:21-26 is a vital, central paragraph. Is it likely that Paul would have inserted a formula here? The verses may not be meant the way Käsemann interprets them. Thus Cranfield is of the opinion that “it is very much probable that these verses are Paul’s own independent and careful composition reflecting his own preaching and teaching.”124 In Cranfield’s opinion, the reason for the difference in style is neither the inclusion of a Vorlage, nor the need to provide it with correctives, but the intrinsic difficulty of adequately interpreting the cross and the natural tendency to fall into a more or less liturgical style when speaking of so solemn a matter. Heinrich Schlier, too, challenges those who argue for a pre-Pauline formula. He finds no sufficient grounds for the hypothesis.125 He puts a number of questions to those who argue in its favour. First, to what genre does the formula belong and from what context did it arise? Second, why should Paul lapse into citation in mid-sentence? Finally, why should rare words or ideas be considered sufficient reason for a citation? Schlier’s questions have not elicited sufficient answers. We return to them in chapter three. Piper, who starts by appreciating Bultmann’s judgment,126 comes up with a serious objection after further examining Käsemann’s arguments. He finds the word statistics too naive and ambiguous to settle the issue. He agrees with Schlier, noting that “even if we grant the presence of traditional terms that are not uniquely Pauline, this would not betray the quotation of a pre-Pauline formulation but only the adoption of familiar 122

123 124

125 126

Among those who discuss the issue in detail and favour this hypothesis are: Fitzmyer, Romans, 342-343, 347-353; Thomas H. Tobin, Paul’sRhetoricinitsContexts:The ArgumentofRomans (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 134-142. Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 200, note 1. Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 200, note 1. A similar view that these verses are the fruits of Paul’s own careful reflection and preaching is found in Jules Cambier, L’évangiledeDieuSelonl’èpîtreauxRomains:ExegèseetThéologieBiblique, SNS 3 (Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1967), 78-79. Cf. Heinrich Schlier, DerRömerbrief, HTKNT 6 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 107 note 8. Cf. Piper, “Righteousness of God,” 4-9.

34

CHAPTER ONE

traditional terminology.”127 Further, Käsemann’s observation that there is a different conception of the righteousness of God in 3:24-26a and that in 3:26b Paul corrects the tradition cannot be accepted, for nothing in the context suggests that 3:26b is correcting 3:25-26a. “How,” he asks, “are we to imagine that Paul intended his Roman readers (lacking contemporary form-critical tools, like concordances and other New Testament documents for comparison) to discover that Rom 3:25-26a is corrected in v 26b?”128 According to Piper, Paul should have inserted some kind of adversative particle in 3:26b if he intended his readers to contrast it with the former statements. He concludes that even if Paul was using tradition, in this central text he made his own distinctively theological statement. Advanced study on this matter is taken up by Campbell, with seemingly different conclusions from previous studies.129 He observes that the argument from diction can be reduced to the three Pauline hapaxlegomena in the passage. Moreover the wedge between the two discussions of righteousness disappears if πάρεσις is understood as ‘deliverance’ or ‘remittance.’ This alternative meaning of πάρεσις can yield a smooth reading of the text. Since there is no textual evidence of Paul’s use of ἄφεσις when speaking of forgiveness, πάρεσις can be considered as Paul’s word for forgiveness. “There is simply not enough solid evidence given to support such theories. Some alternative explanation for the section’s difficulties–and its difficulties remain–must be found.”130 He concludes that the hypothesis of a Pauline quotation or interpolation somewhere within 3:24-26 must be abandoned. So we are left with scholarly disagreement. Even those who argue for the pre-Pauline hypothesis cannot agree on where it begins and ends, whether Paul makes changes and if so how far. Almost every word in 3:24-26 has been considered pre-Pauline by one scholar or another.131 All the more, it is argued that the borrowed material is christocentric. The hypothesis of pre-Pauline material has distracted attention from the overall focus of the text. Because borrowed material would influence the line 127 128 129 130

131

Piper, “Righteousness of God,” 8. Piper, “Righteousness of God,” 9. See Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 49-50. Campbell, Rhetoric of Righteousness, 57. His suggestion of a ‘parenthesis’ in this pericope to solve the syntactical issues will be discussed in detail in the third chapter. Cf. Paul Lowell Bremer, Paul’s Understanding of the Death of Christ according to Romans1-8 (Ann Arbor, MI: Xerox University Microfilms International, 1978), 36.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

35

of thought of the whole text and how it is understood, scholars have been more focused on the meaning of such material. It will also influence how many words are understood if they are part of the phrases that Paul took from other sources. The first question, then, is to know the meaning in the original context and how this changed in the new context. We will return to this in chapter three. In the meantime, we will look now into one of the controversial terms in these verses: ἀπολύτρωσις. 1.4 A BRIEF SURVEY OF RESEARCH ON ἀπολύτρωσις We will concentrate on the 20th century dispute over ἀπολύτρωσις. Our aim is to find its meaning in the context of Rom 3:24. We begin with a brief survey of how scholars have understood it, highlighting the consequences of each interpretation for our understanding of Pauline theology. While the origin or background of the term is not in itself enough to convey its meaning in its new context, we can still learn from it how the meaning of ἀπολύτρωσις can vary with the background. 1.4.1 The Greco-Roman Background Since ἀπολύτρωσις is derived from λύτρον, some scholars hold that in Rom 3:24 it carries the Greco-Roman sense of ransoming a victim by payment.132 This traditional reading maintains that Christ’s death is a ransom paid for our redemption. Two leading proponents of this view are Warfield and Morris. Benjamin B. Warfield’s examination of redemption terminology provides an apt starting point. He argues, from analysis of both extra-biblical and biblical literature, that the λυτρ- word group always carries the idea of a ransom payment.133 In his view, the purpose of λυτρ- terminology 132

133

The term λύτρον is used in the extra-biblical literature for setting slaves free by way of ransom. As Stanislas Lyonnet, “The Terminology of Redemption,” in Redemption, andSacrifice, AnBib 48, ed. Stanislas Lyonnet and Leopold Sabourin (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970), 80, notes “the English word ‘ransom’ is derived from the Latin term redemptio, meaning ‘to pay the price of liberation or to exact this price.” I have recently refuted this view on various grounds. See, Varghese P. Chiraparamban, “The Background and Contextual Meaning of Ἀπολύτρωσις in Rom 3,24,” in Paul’s Graeco-Roman Context, ed. Cilliers Breytenbach, BETL 277 (Leuven: PeetersUniversity Press, 2015), 471-485. Benjamin B. Warfield, “The New Testament Terminology of ‘Redemption’,”PTR 15 (1917): 201-249. He was reacting to the line of argument, particularly in the German

36

CHAPTER ONE

was to safeguard the occasional connotation of ransom in the broad verb λύω. The verb λυτρόω is the specific term for ransoming and his opponents cannot show any classical citation without the ransom meaning.134 His argument is that every instance in the NT (ἀπολύτρωσις and λυτρόω) carries an explicit or implicit ransom connotation. Leon Morris follows Warfield’s line and tries further to show that redemption terminology undoubtedly conveys the idea of release on payment of a price or ransom.135 He does so by identifying three more occurrences of ἀπολύτρωσις in the extra-biblical literature and by analysing the underlying Hebrew words of this word-group in the LXX. In addition to showing a consistent meaning of “payment of a ransom price to secure the desired release,”136 he also argues that the word is used in the same sense as the uncompounded λύτρωσις. In his opinion, “the idea of payment as the basis of release… is the reason for the existence of the whole word-group.”137 Thus the choice of this word-group indicates the desire to communicate release by payment. In addition, in his examination of the NT data, he maintains that purchase texts and terminology are closely related to the ‘ransom’ texts. His conclusion is that “the payment of price is a necessary component of redemption idea. When the New Testament speaks of redemption, then, unless our linguistics are at fault, it means that Christ has paid the price of our redemption.”138 A variation of this reading is found in the work of Campbell,139 who finds that the term should be interpreted in the Greco-Roman context of slavery. However, he does not find a particular ransom connotation in Rom 3:24, where he understands Paul to be employing “the rhetorical

134 135

136 137 138 139

scholarship, that insists this word group is synonymous with a general deliverance. Warfield, “Terminology of ‘Redemption’,” 208-209. Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3 rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), 11-64. Many commentaries also follow this line of argument. Sanday and Headlam, EpistletotheRomans, 86, argue: “The emphasis is on the cost of man’s redemption.” See also Charles Kingsley Barrett, ACommentaryontheEpistle totheRomans, BNTC (London: A. & C. Black, 1957), 76; Murray, Romans, 116 and Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 229. I. Howard Marshall, “The Development of the Concept of Redemption in the New Testament,” in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology, ed. Robert Banks (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 169, too comments that “Paul’s choice of ἀπολύτρωσις, a word with no significant precedent in the LXX, and other associated words, suggests that the λύτρον saying lies at the root of the development.” Morris, ApostolicPreaching, 18. Morris, ApostolicPreaching, 12. Morris, ApostolicPreaching, 61. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 102-126.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

37

technique of epanaphora”140 by syntactically arranging three occurrences of διά with the genitive in Rom 3:22-25. By suggesting this structure, he argues for a christological reading of ἀπολύτρωσις, emphasizing redemption from slavery in Christ. He notes in this regard ten possible connotations likely to be carried by ἀπολύτρωσις141 and concludes that the one most fitting to Rom 3:24 is that Christ delivers humans from slavery by his substitutionary act. Thus ἀπολύτρωσις may here imply substitutionary atonement without a sense of payment. However, the traditional line of argument for the ransom meaning is not without difficulties. Thus Ferdinand Prat observes that the NT does not say to whom this payment must be made.142 Patristic writings often allude to the price paid to the devil, or even to God.143 Yet can we compare God to a merchant who will not set a slave free unless a ransom is paid? What image of God is projected by such theology? Moreover, it presents ἀπολύτρωσις, in Rom 3:24, as little more than a business transaction, a payment that results in someone’s release. Ransom interpreters see Christ’s blood in Rom 3:24-25 as the price for human redemption. This calls for more examination. Did Paul really intend to equate Jesus’ death with a ransom paid to grant freedom for humanity? Similarly, Campbell’s christological reading of the term with a meaning of ‘substitutionary atonement’ needs to be further examined. Adolf Gustav Deissmann relates ἀπολύτρωσις to the widespread Greco-Roman practice of manumission, a custom well attested by many inscriptions.144 Based on the papyrological fragments of legal and trade transactions found in Egypt, Deissmann argues that ἀπολύτρωσις, λύτρον and its cognates must be interpreted in the light of this practice, 140 141 142

143

144

Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 116. See Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 120. Cf. Ferdinand Prat, TheTheologyofSaintPaul (Westminster: Newman, 1956), 193. T. K. Abbott, ACriticalandExegeticalCommentaryontheEpistletotheEphesians andtotheColossians, ICC (Edinburgh: Clark, 1968), 13, too challenges ransom idea when he asks: “To whom is the ransom paid? We were not in slavery to God.” Campbell, Rhetoric of Righteousness, 122, adds that nowhere in the extra-biblical literature we find slave owners paying the money to themselves. Thus, these questions of who pays and to whom is the ransom paid touch upon the important drawbacks of ransom interpretation. For a critical summary of the patristic writings, see Lyonnet, “The Terminology of Redemption,” 83-84. See the inscriptions with regard to this common practice in Adolf Gustav Deissmann, LightfromtheAncientEast:TheNewTestamentIllustratedbyRecentlyDiscovered TextsoftheGraeco-RomanWorld, trans. L. R. M. Strachan, 4 ed. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1927), 323-334.

38

CHAPTER ONE

with special emphasis on payment to release the slave.145 In his opinion, “when anybody heard the Greek word λύτρον, ‘ransom,’ in the first century, it was natural for him to think of the purchase-money for manumitting slaves.”146 In particular, he holds that the legal custom of ‘sacred manumission’ provides a model of redemption for Paul. In this, the redemption achieved by Christ is not directly by ransom, but through the common religious practice of fictitious purchase. In this practice, a slave deposits the manumission money in the temple. This money is then given to the owner of the slave and the slave, by becoming the property of the deity, is set free.147 So, it is argued by analogy, Christ paid our redemption to God. Deissmann’s interpretation has been called into question on several grounds. Elpidius Pax observes that the terminology (especially πρίασθαι, used in inscriptions, but never in the NT) and syntax of the inscriptions show no overlap with the NT.148 He observes that in the GrecoRoman practice of manumission, the focus was on the right of the owner whereas “im Neuen Testament liegt der Ton auf Christus als dem Käufer, an den der Mensch sich nunmehr neu bindet.”149 Wilfrid Hausbeck’s research on “Loskauf” as the motive of Paul’s metaphors tries to substantiate Pax’s thesis.150 Fitzmyer, too, observes that Paul’s vocabulary 145 146

147

148

149 150

Deissmann, LightfromtheAncientEast, 322-327. Deissmann, LightfromtheAncientEast, 327. In this regard, he attaches three documents the Oxyrdynchus Papyri, nos. 48, 49, and 722. For a useful summary, see D. Francois Tolmie, “Salvation as Redemption: The Use of ‘Redemption’ Metaphors in Pauline Literature,” in SalvationintheNewTestament: Perspectives on Soteriology, ed. Jan G. van der Watt, NovTSup 121 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 247-248. Elpidius Pax, „Der Loskauf: Zur Geschichte eines neutestamentlichen Begriffes,“ Anton 37 (1962): 239-278. Pax admits the root of the redemption terminology should be traced back to the OT, in particular to the liberation from Egypt. However he claims that Paul changed the notion because of his focus on Christ. Thus he reads it christologically as ‘Christ the buyer. “Zugleich aber tritt Christus als Käufer in den Mittelpunkt und somit verschieben sich alle Perspektiven, die sich bis auf die Einzelheiten erstrecken, die ihrerseits ebenfalls auf jüdische und nicht griechische Traditionen zurückgehen.” The difficulty with his christological reading is that he brings together the purchase terminology and redemption terminology without paying sufficient attention to the contexts.” Pax, „Der Loskauf,“ 256. Wilfrid Haubeck, LoskaufdurchChristus:Herkunft,GestaltundBedeutungdespaulinischenLoskaufmotivs (Giessen: Brunnen, 1985), 292. For his discussions on λύτρον see 361-362. Despite admitting that there is no direct mention of ransom in Rom 3:23, based on the mention of price in 1 Cor 6:20 and 7:23 he deduces that ransom indication must be present here as well (see p. 363). In his commentary, (DerRömerbrief, 115) Kuss also translate the term as “Loskaufung.”

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

39

is quite different from the Delphic inscriptions.151 Studies have shown that ‘slavery’ is a complex phenomenon and cannot be explained in such simple terms. Although arguments can be advanced for each of these views, many scholars rule them out. An important family of arguments which are adduced in refutation concern the ways in which λύτρον and its derivatives are used in the LXX. We now turn to these. 1.4.2 The Scriptural Background Some scholars argue that ἀπολύτρωσις reflects a broader biblical notion of ‘liberation’ or ‘deliverance,’ often expressed with the verb λυτρόω. In particular, they point to the general biblical concept of God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt and Babylon. Given the frequency with which Paul quotes scripture in Romans, an argument from scriptural background cannot be lightly ruled out. David Hill’s comprehensive linguistic survey of the development of λυτρόω in its OT and Qumran background concludes that in many cases the idea of ‘ransom’ is not clearly present.152 [I]f biblical Greek provides a better source from which to investigate the words, then our survey of the LXX and Jewish usage reveals that the interpretation of their meaning is neither so straightforward nor so simple: themes and ideas other than those related to commerce and the slave-market provide the background of meaning, the most important of these being the theme of Israel’s deliverance.153

In Hill’s opinion then, λυτρόω can mean ‘deliver’ or ‘rescue.’ Although a ransom connotation is inevitably present for some of the occurrences of the verb, he points to many instances which carry a more general meaning. In other words, in the biblical uses the emphasis is not on the means of delivery, but on the fact of deliverance.154 Hill notes that some scholars try to link Rom 3:24 to ὥσπερ ἀντίψυχον in 4 Macc 17:21. 151

152

153 154

Fitzmyer, Romans, 122. Lyonnet, “The Terminology of Redemption,” 160, had taken a similar position by pointing out that the essential difference is in the vocabulary itself. “The composite verb exagorazein does not once occur in such inscriptions or in contracts recorded on papyri concerning sacred or profane manumission. The verb, moreover, is rarely found in the Greek literature.” Hill, Greek Words, 53-63. The Hebrew background of the λύτρον- words has been examined by Hill: out of the 99 instances 45 times it stands for ‫ לצנ‬and 43 times for ‫הדפ‬. Hill, GreekWords, 67. Cf. Hill, GreekWords, 49-52.

40

CHAPTER ONE

While some suggest translating ἀντίψυχον here as ‘ransom,’ some others suggest ‘substitute.’155 “If this is the correct interpretation of ἀντίψυχον, then the term ἀπολύτρωσις will connote deliverance through the substitutionary death of Jesus, the emphasis being all the time on liberation.”156 Hill concludes that his “approach to the λύτρον-words suggests that their interpretation should be in terms of ‘deliverance’ or ‘emancipation’, except when the context expresses or implies a payment made to gain freedom.”157 Many commentators have followed Hill’s analysis of the background, although they may differ when it comes to their precise concept of redemption.158 Fitzmyer, for example, follows the LXX background, but nevertheless maintains a ransom meaning. He points to the use of ἀπολυτρόω for the ‘redeeming of a slave’ in Ex 21:8 and ἀπολύτρωσις in Dan 4:34.159 In addition, he argues that behind the abundant use of λύτρον and λυτρόω in the LXX lies the idea of Yahweh as the ‘redeemer’ who buys back the enslaved. Thus, it can refer at first to the freeing of Israel from Egyptian bondage and then to the return of Israel from Babylonian captivity. In the end, Fitzmyer favours a christological sense of ἀπολύτρωσις in Rom 3:24, noting that “it denotes that Christ Jesus by his death on the cross has emancipated or ransomed humanity from its bondage of sin.”160 As we have noted, Paul builds up his argument in Romans based on scripture, so the scriptural background of ἀπολύτρωσις must be taken seriously. Yet the compound noun ἀπολύτρωσις occurs only once in LXX. This is challenging. All the more, λύτρον and its cognates are used both with and without ransom connotation. Could Paul’s audience have 155

156 157 158

159 160

At this point Hill is in dialogue with H. W. Robinson, TheCrossoftheServant (London: SCM, 1926), 58. Hill, GreekWords, 75-76. Hill, GreekWords, 81. Wilckens, Römer, 189; Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 108-109; Black, Romans, 59; Käsemann, An die Römer, 89; Brendan Byrne, Romans, SP 6 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1996), 126. Charles Harold Dodd, TheEpistleofPaultotheRomans(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965), 53-54, reached a similar conclusion as Hill by stating that in Rom 3:24 it is used without reference to any payment of money, but as a general ‘emancipation.’ Karl Kertelge, “’Απολύτρωσις,” in EDNT 1 (1990), 138, who reads it from the same background, considers it as a specific theological concept of “salvation through forgiveness of sins.” Similarly, Lohse, DerBriefandieRömer, 132, sees that “ἀπολύτρωσις in der urchristlichen Verkündingung des öfteren gleichbedeutung mit ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν gebraucht wird.” Fitzmyer, Romans, 122. Fitzmyer, Romans, 348.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

41

understood it from this background?161 A still more serious challenge is how far this background favours a christological interpretation of ἀπολύτρωσις in Rom 3:24. 1.4.3 Need for Further Research A number of points merit serious attention. First, to our knowledge, the specific contexts of the uses of ἀπολύτρωσις in Greco-Roman writings have not been the subject of serious research. It is often simply assumed that, in the extra-biblical literature, ἀπολύτρωσις always implies ‘ransom.’ In chapter six, we will show how our research calls this into question. Second, most of the studies have focused on redemption concepts or terminologies in general. However, it is important to distinguish between concepts and the specific meaning of a term. ἀπολύτρωσις is often considered with other redemption terminology such as ἀγοράζω, ἐξαγοράζω and ἐλευθερία/ἐλευθερόω. Third, insufficient attention has been given to the context of Rom 3:24, especially the clause δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι. Fourth, in Rom 3:24 ἀπολύτρωσις is clearly used as a metaphor. This does not allow literal interpretation. Rather, it calls for serious consideration of any similar metaphorical use in the biblical and extra-biblical literature. Finally, the christological interpretation of Rom 3:24 is strained, as God is the logical subject here. This calls for an analysis of the syntax of Rom 3:24. 1.5 THE DEBATE OVER ἱλαστήριον Another word that is crucial to Paul’s understanding of the death of Christ is ἱλαστήριον. Its meaning in the context of Rom 3:25 has long been debated among NT scholars. In the LXX also it has been led to debate, being understood variously as referring to the mercy seat, to propitiation, or to expiation. Many scholars have read ἱλαστήριον christocentrically, as referring to an act of Christ over against God. This challenges our theocentric reading of the pericope. Does Paul here speak about Christ expiating the sins of humanity? Is Christ propitiating God? 161

Franz J. Leenhardt, L’épître de saint Paul aux Romains (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1957), 60, holds that both the background of slavery and deliverance from Egypt would have been meant by Paul and his readers would have understood it from both these backgrounds.

42

CHAPTER ONE

Not only is the meaning of the word controversial: so is its background. We first examine, therefore, the background against which the word is understood. Then we will look into the controversy surrounding its meaning in Rom 3:25. 1.5.1 The Question of the Background There are two main ways to understand the background of the use of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25. On the one hand, many scholars understand it against the background of the Day of Atonement. On the other, some scholars see it as influenced by Maccabean martyr theology which offered Paul a term to express his understanding of the death of Jesus. Both these texts employ sacrificial imagery to explain the atoning effect achieved.162 But is the background cultic or mrtyrological? Many scholars have then seen ἱλαστήριον as a cultic term drawing on the sacrificial terminology of Leviticus.163 The most decisive parallel is Lev 16:15-22. Studies on this passage reveal that the rituals on the Day of Atonement aimed to remove the sins that polluted the altar, rendering the temple service ineffective. Sins were also laid on the scapegoat, which was to be driven out into the wilderness.164 It is this purificatory function on the Day of Atonement that they believe is in Paul’s mind when he uses ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25. Hans Joachim Schoeps writes: “Contrary to many devious interpretations, this can only have the meaning—to be inferred from the obvious cultic significance and reference to Lev. 16:12-15—that Jesus is typified by the Old Testament institution of expiatory sacrifice and by His sacrifice has been appointed by God to take the place of the lost ‫כפרת‬.”165 When read from this background it is argued that ἱλαστήριον has a cultic function in Rom 3:25.

162

163

164

165

Cf. Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, TheImpactofYomKippuronEarlyChristianity:TheDay of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century, WMANT, 163 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 116. Nygren, CommentaryonRomans, 156; Wilckens, Römer, 90-96; Fitzmyer, Romans, 349-350; Byrne, Romans, 126-127; Charles H. Talbert, Romans, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 110-115; Matera, Romans, 94-95; Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 157. Cf. Kraus, TodJesu, 45-59. Kraus provides also a detailed survey of the investigation of this issue. Hans Joachim Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish ReligiousHistory,trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1961), 132. For a more detailed and systematic presentation of the arguments in favour of such a position see, Paul Michael Hedquist, ThePaulineUnderstandingofReconciliationin

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

43

However some scholars have sought to show that the idea of someone suffering or dying on behalf of others in order to expiate sin is unknown to Jewish sacrificial ideas of the second temple.166 They maintain that the background is primarily to be found in Hellenistic martyr theology. The illuminating parallel in this respect is 4 Macc 17:21-22. It is compared with Rom 3:25 as there is clear reference to the atoning of the national sins of Israel by the death of the martyrs. In this line, Lohse argues for a Jewish martyrology for early Christian and Pauline interpretation of Jesus death. It is in two Hellenistic Jewish texts, namely 2 and 4 Maccabees, that he finds the earliest examples of vicarious death on the part of martyrs.167 Jan Willem van Henten reaches a similar conclusion that Rom 3:25 contains ideas of martyrdom.168 Similarly, Jarvis J. Williams has recently argued in this line: “Jesus’s death in Rom 3:25 should be understood as an atoning sacrifice and as a saving event precisely because Martyr Theology shaped Paul’s conception of Jesus’s death.”169 The reasons as he observes are that ἱλαστήριον occurs both in 4 Macc 17:22 and in Rom 3:25 along with the concepts of sin, blood, and death. In addition, animals (not humans) were offered as atonement in the OT cult in which ἱλαστήριον occurs and these animals did not actually atone for sin nor did they provide salvation.170 In short, by raising objections to the cultic background for the interpretation of ἱλαστήριον and for the death of Jesus, these authors assert a martyrological background to explain the death of Christ. A difficulty for some scholars is that 4 Maccabees assumes that salvation is meant only for Israel, whereas Romans 3 proclaims God as

166

167 168

169

170

Romans 5 and II Corinthians 5: An Exegetical and Religio-historical Study (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1982), 324-328. See Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht, 68-87; David Seeley, The Noble Death: Graeco-RomanMartyrologyandPaul’sConceptofSalvation, JSNT SS 28 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 83-99; Jan Willem van Henten, “The Tradition-Historical Background of Romans 3:25: A Search for Pagan and Jewish Parallels,” in FromJesustoJohn: EssaysonJesusandNewTestamentChristologyinHonourofMarinusdeJonge, ed. Martinus C. De Boer, JSNTSS 84 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 101-128; Marinus de Jonge, Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the TwelvePatriarchs, NovTSup 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 125-134. See Lohse, MärtyrerundGottesknecht, 68-69; Lohse, DerBriefandieRömer, 135. Cf. van Henten, “Tradition-Historical Background,” 116-126. See also, Haacker, Römer, 106. Jarvis J. Williams, MaccabeanMartyrTraditionsinPaul’sTheologyofAtonement: DidMartyrTheologyShapePaul’sConceptionofJesus’sDeath? (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2010), 90; Jarvis J. Williams, For Whom Did Christ Die? The Extent of the AtonementinPaul’sTheology, PBM (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2012), 198-200. Cf. Williams, MaccabeanMartyrTraditions, 94.

44

CHAPTER ONE

providing deliverance for all humans.171 Robert Jewett addresses this by stating: “What 4 Macc 17 offers is a precedent for replacing the Day of Atonement ritual with a martyr’s death, making clear that the hymn proclaims Jesus’ blood as a new institution of atonement.”172 The issue is dealt with by Stuhlmacher. He asks whether Paul would be more likely to appeal to martyr traditions or to the Day of Atonement text in Leviticus 16. He reaches the conclusion that Paul would have meant the latter.173 Against those who argue for this martyrological background for ἱλαστήριον Jewett states: “While some are inclined to view martyrdom as an alternative to mercy seat in assessing the background of ἱλαστήριον, there are sound reasons to view the latter as foundational.”174 There are also scholars who think that ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 could be referring to both these backgrounds. Thus for Thomas R. Schreiner, an either-or answer is unnecessary. In his view, a reference to martyr traditions does not exclude dependence on Leviticus 16.175 We will come back to this issue of background in chapter seven. For now, the issue is the meaning of the word ἱλαστήριον itself. 1.5.2 Mercy Seat Traditionally ἱλαστήριον has been understood as a typological reference to the mercy seat in relation to the Day of Atonement and the ceremonies of that day. This was the approach of early Christian writers from Origen ַ onwards.176 The LXX translators used ἱλαστήριον for the Hebrew ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬, the golden covering of the ark in the temple’s Holy of Holies. In Ex 25:17 Moses is asked to make a ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬, ַ which is translated in the LXX as ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα. Nevertheless, the translation of the word elsewhere is simply ἱλαστήριον (NRSV translation ‘mercy seat’).177 ַ is seen in its The typological significance of the ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬/ἱλαστήριον crucial role on the Day of Atonement, as prescribed in Leviticus 16. The 171 172 173

174 175

176

177

Cf. Jewett, Romans, 286; Schumacher, ZurEntstehung, 336. Jewett, Romans, 286-287. Cf. Peter Stuhlmacher, „Zur neueren Exegese von Röm 3,24-26,“ in JesusundPaulus:FestschriftfürWernerGeorgKümmelzum70.Geburtstag, ed. Ellis E. Earle and Erich Grässer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975), 329. Jewett, Romans, 286. Cf. Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT 6 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 184-185. Cf. Mark Reasoner, RomansinFullCircle:AHistoryofInterpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 24. Ex 25:18-22; 31:7; 35:12; 38:5, 7-8; Lev 16:2, 13-15; Num 7:89.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

45

‘mercy seat’ instituted by God (Ex 25:17) as the place where atonement is made (Lev 16) is seen as the pre-figuration of the death of Christ. Christ is then understood as the new mercy seat, where humans are delivered from sin. Those who favour this interpretation of ἱλαστήριον argue that God put forth Christ as a once-and-for-all place where atonement is made: Christ replaces the temple cult. To clarify this reasoning, we will analyse some representative views. A leading proponent of this position is Thomas Walter Manson.178 He studies what ἱλαστήριον would have meant to Greek-speaking Jews in the first century and then applies his findings to Rom 3:25. On this basis he proposes that Paul wrote Romans under the influence of the festival of YomKippur,179 just as 1 Corinthians was written under the influence of the Passover and 2 Corinthians in the context of the Feast of Tabernacles.180 Regarding the use of ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα in Ex 25:17 he is of the opinion that “here as elsewhere hilasterion is the LXX rendering of kapporeth and that epithema is the translation of a Heb. kothereth, representing either a variant reading in the Hebrew or a misreading of the existing M.T.”181 Finally, Manson suggests that Romans 1-3 is an elaborate confession of sin for all mankind, with its climax at 3:23, and that it is followed immediately by a description of the death of Christ which can be properly understood only by being brought into relation to the ritual acts of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement.182 Douglas J. Moo also favours such an interpretation. This, he believes, is what the word refers to in Heb 9:5 and in 21 of its 27 LXX occurrences. By referring to Christ as this mercy seat then, Paul invites us to view Christ as the New Covenant equivalent, or antitype to this Old Covenant “place of atonement,” and, derivatively to the ritual of 178 179

180

181

182

Thomas Walter Manson, “ἱλαστήριον,” JTS 46 (1945): 1-10. Campbell is a strong proponent of the view that Paul had in mind the feast of Yom Kippur. In his RhetoricofRighteousness, 133, he writes: “Paul’s use of ἱλαστήριον in Rom. 3:25a is neither an explicit reference to the kprt, nor a vague reference to propitiation in general, but a metaphorical description of Christ’s death as the supreme, divinely-ordered sacrifice for sin, in analogy to the great Jewish festival of atonement, YomKippur.” Hill, Greek Words, 43-47, rejects such a festal influence on Romans as he thinks Tabernacles and YomKippur are very close. He favours a celebration of Maccabaean martyrs, probably performed at Hanukkah. Manson, “ἱλαστήριον,” 3. Leon Morris, “The Meaning of ἱλαστήριον in Romans III. 25,” NTS 2 (1955): 35, criticizes this view saying that the evidence adduced is not really strong and there remains the suspicion that not sufficient weight has been attached to the maxim difficiliorlectiopotior. Cf. Manson, “ἱλαστήριον,” 7.

46

CHAPTER ONE

atonement itself. This is all the more attractive to him because it gives ἱλαστήριον a meaning that is derived from its customary biblical usage and creates an analogy between a central OT ritual and Christ’s death.183 In his view, this interpretation is theologically sound and hermeneutically striking. Among the recent proponents of the mercy seat interpretation are Daniel P. Bailey and Wolfgang Kraus. Our study will be in dialogue with these important works. Bailey argues that Paul’s ἱλαστήριον has to be identified with that of the Pentateuch. He rejects the argument that it cannot refer to the mercy seat because the definite article is missing in Rom 3:25.184 In his view, Jesus should be identified metaphorically with the ‘mercy seat.’185 Kraus elaborates this possibility that Paul would not have identified Christ with ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬alone: “ἱλαστήριον bezeichnet in der LXX mehr als nur ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬. ַ Der Bezug allein auf den Begriff ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬und damit eine Übersetzung als Deckplatte/Sühneplatte/Sühnedeckel wäre aufgrund der Stellen bei Ez zu speziell.”186 He observes that in the five occurences of ἱλαστήριον in Ezekiel 43, there is no ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬, ַ and concludes that it can therefore also symbolically stand for ‘eschatological sanctuary.’ In this way he holds that it has to be symbolically identified with functions associated with the mercy seat. Many recent commentaries and studies support this reading of ἱλαστήριον.187 However, the mercy seat interpretation is criticized requiring a typological understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures based on the premise that Christianity supersedes Judaism. It is sometimes argued that the description of Christ as ‘the mercy seat’ would be creating a typological comparison between his death and an item of temple furniture. Campbell and Schnelle argue that such a typological comparison would be unusual for Paul.188 Another objection to this understanding is that the sacrifices 183 184

185 186

187

188

Cf. Moo, EpistletotheRomans, 232-33. Daniel P. Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat:TheSemanticsandTheologyofPaul’sUse of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25 (Cambridge: Dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1999), 161. Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 199-201. Wolfgang Kraus, „Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit Gottes im Tod Jesu nach Rom 3,2126,“ in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Gottingen, ed. Hans-Günther Waubke Lutz Doering and Florian Wilk FRLANT 226 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 192-216, here 215. See also, Kraus, TodJesu, 154. Nygren, CommentaryonRomans, 156; Wilckens, Römer, 90-96; Fitzmyer, Romans, 349-350; Byrne, Romans, 126-127; Talbert, Romans, 110-115; Matera, Romans, 94-95; Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 157; Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 145-172; Kraus, TodJesu, 45-91; Kraus, „Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit,“ 200-207. Cf. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 112; Schnelle, ApostlePaul, 447.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

47

on that day provide a complete purification of the temple, not an atonement or forgiveness of the people’s sins. This difficulty is expressed by Stanley K. Stowers as he writes: “The kapporeth, or mercy seat, is an item of cultic furniture, not a symbol of God’s dealing with the problem of sin, except in later Christian typological imagination.”189 Yet another difficulty with regard to this interpretation is noted by Stanislas Lyonnet: “If the verb proethetomust be translated by ‘he set forth to exhibit publicly,’ then the typology is no longer possible, since the propitiatory of the O.T. was in a most secret place.”190 Thus some scholars are starting to think that Paul might be referring to the associations that surround ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬, rather than to ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬itself. This traditional understanding has faced challenge in the twentieth century. In particular, it has been recognised that the proper meaning of ἱλαστήριον in the context of NT theology in general and Pauline theology in particular has to do with the connotations of ‘propitiation’ or ‘expiation.’ The seriousness of this issue can be observed in the different translations to which it gives rise. For example, ἱλαστήριον is rendered ‘expiation’ in RSV and ‘propitiation’ in King James. We will now examine these positions and the arguments for and against either meaning. 1.5.3 Propitiation The study of the word-group ἱλάσκομαι challenged the traditional understanding in relation to mercy seat. In the extra-biblical sources this wordgroup often means propitiation, the act of appeasing or placating God.191 A propitiatory understanding of the death of Christ based on this understanding of ἱλαστήριον is favoured by some of modern commentaries,192 189

190

191

192

Stanley K. Stowers, ARereadingofRomans (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994), 210. Stanislas Lyonnet, “The Notion of Sin,” in Sin,Redemption,andSacrifice, ed. Stanislas Lyonnet and Leopold Sabourin, AnBib 48 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970), 159. Homer, Il. 1.386; Strabo, Geogr. 4.4.6; Appian, Hannibaike 27.115; Philo, Spec. 1.23 §116; Josephus, Ant. 6.6.5 § 124. See the discussion in Fitzmyer, Romans, 120. Some of these texts would be further examined in the seventh chapter of this study. For the abbreviation of the ancient texts we followSBLhandbookofstyle except when we are referring to a particular abbreviation given by an author. Sanday and Headlam, EpistletotheRomans, 88; Murray, Romans, 116-117; Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 214-218; Witherington, LettertotheRomans, 108-109; Black, Romans, 68; Waetjen, Letter to the Romans, 115-116. A recent study by Jae Hyun Lee, Paul’sGospelinRomans:ADiscourseAnalysisofRom1:16-8:39, LBS 3 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2010), 223, argues that “the concept of propitiation cannot be excluded in Paul’s wording with ἱλαστήριον, because the whole of Rom 1:18-3:20 is

48

CHAPTER ONE

which often see the cross propitiating God, turning away his wrath against sin. In this way they see God graciously providing himself with what his justice demands. Before entering into the problems of this view, let us first review the arguments of its defenders. Leon Morris consistently argues for propitiation, which he sees present in many LXX passages where this word group ἱλάσκομαι is used. The NT follows the same line and ἱλάσκομαι and its cognate ἱλαστήριον have overtones of the same meaning. He sees Rom 3:25 as the climax of an argument that began in Rom 1:15, where the wrath of God is part of Paul’s argument and 1:16-17 to mean that all are under that wrath. Accordingly, he comments: “The context demands that the ἱλαστήριον should include an element of propitiation in its meaning, for St. Paul has brought heavy artillery to bear in demonstrating that God’s wrath and judgment are against the sinner, and while other expressions in vv. 21-26 may be held to deal with the judgment aspect, there is nothing other than this word to express the adverting of the wrath.”193 He rules out any reference to the mercy seat, arguing that Romans does not move in the sphere of Levitical symbolism. Considering the other possibilities he states that “the balance of probability is strongly in the direction of seeing ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3 as a general reference to the removal of the wrath of God, rather than a specific reference either to the mercy-seat, or to the Day of Atonement ceremonies.”194 Hence, for him, “it seems unlikely that a reference should suddenly be introduced to a single article of the tabernacle furnishing without a word of explanation. It seems best, then, to adopt a meaning like ‘means of propitiation.’”195 Cranfield, who also stresses sacrificial significance, follows a similar line of thinking. He admits that the possibility that Paul was thinking of Christ as the anti-type of the OT mercy-seat has to be taken seriously. But Morris has shown that the arguments in support for it are not very strong. Following the same line he argues that, when ἱλαστήριον is used in the LXX, it is attached to a definite article. In his view, there is always something in the context which denotes the things intended by the word. In Romans there is nothing to indicate clearly that the mercy-seat

193 194 195

about the relationship between human sinfulness and God’s wrath against it. Thus, as to the latter question, it is better to say that atonement through Jesus’ sacrifice results in both the removal of human sin and of the wrath of God.” Morris, “Use of ἱλάσκομαι,” 232. Morris, “Meaning of ἱλαστήριον,” 43. Morris, “Use of ἱλάσκομαι,” 227- 233, esp. 232.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

49

is in mind and there is no definite article. Responding to C. H. Dodd,196 Cranfield says that Dodd failed to pay adequate attention to the contexts of word’s occurrences. Supporting Morris he says that the idea of propitiation is not foreign to this word group in the LXX. It is God himself who takes the initiative. He concludes, therefore, that “the most probable suggestion would seem to be ‘a propitiatory sacrifice’.”197 Stefan Schreiber has argued that ἱλαστήριον in 3:25 should be understood as “Weihegeschenk”198 from a different angle. He perceives the theocentricity of the passage and argues that it must mean a ‘Weihe’ that God makes. As a basis for such uses of the term he quotes two InscriptionsofCos (81 and 347), Dio Chrysostom (Orationes 11.121) and Josephus (Ant. 16.182). Contrary to other scholars, in his opinion, “während im bekannten Vollzug es immer der Mensch ist, der etwas gibt, um die Gottheit gnädig zu stimmen, funktioniert das bei Paulus gerade umgekehrt: Gott stellt ein Weihegeschenk für die Menschen hin! Und zwar in aller Öffentlichkeit, für alle sichtbar.”199 The question is whether, apart from the theocentricity of the passage, there is any other supporting evidence in the context for this background. Scripture plays a significant role in Paul’s argument in the immediate context. Moreover, as Kraus notes, “Bei keinem der Belege für Weihegeschenk spielt Blut bzw. Lebenshingabe irgendeine Rolle.”200 Any attempt to follow this line of thinking faces grave difficulties. First, it is strange to speak of God having to satisfy his own justice, as if that were not within his sovereignty.201 The context of Rom 3:25 does not speak of the wrath of God. But if Paul really intended it in the way the above writers suggest, surely he would have mentioned it. Such a propitiatory idea is foreign to the Pauline writings. For that matter, can we consider that wrath and the propitiation of that wrath are the dominant theological issues in the NT? Fitzmyer has rightly noted that “this interpretation of hilasterion finds no support in the OT or Pauline usage elsewhere.”202 Moreover, this approach seems to be more concerned to change the attitude of God than to deal with sin, which is the issue of 196

197 198

199 200 201 202

Dodd’s argument for an expiatory meaning for ἱλαστήριον will be the topic of our study in the following section. Cranfield, Romans, 204-206. Stefan Schreiber, „Das Weihegeschenk Gottes: Eine Deutung des Todes Jesu in Rom 3,25 „ ZNW 97 (2000): 88-110. Schreiber, „Weihegeschenk,“ 105 (emphasis original). Kraus, „Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit,“ 202. Cf. J. A. Ziesler, “Salvation Proclaimed: Romans 3:21-26,” ExpT 93 (1982): 358. Fitzmyer, Romans, 349.

50

CHAPTER ONE

3:21-26. We do not find such a negative attitude of God in the passages referring to the Day of Atonement. On the contrary, we find a positive impression that God will cleanse the people from their sins and reestablish the union. Christocentric readers presuppose that it is Christ who acts in 3:25, but the text speaks about God’s act, through Christ. This suggests that the text should be read theocentrically. A number of scholars argue that the purpose of atonement cannot have been that of making God gracious toward man. Lohse states: “Das heißt aber, dass Christi Sühntod nicht erst den gnädigen Gott schaffen musste… sondern Christi Sühntod setzt die gnädigen Gott voraus.”203 The death of Jesus reveals, rather than creates, a gracious God. 1.5.4 Expiation The difficulties encountered if we translate ἱλαστήριον by propitiation have led many scholars to suggest ‘expiation’ could better meet Paul’s intention. Charles Harold Dodd, in his study of the word group ἱλάσκομαι, contends that practically no trace of the idea of propitiation or appeasement attaches to their use in the LXX, even if it is generally agreed that they express such a meaning in pagan usage. Dodd argues that the thought expressed, when it concerns humans, is expiation of sin and when the subject is God, it is his mercy and forgiveness. ‘Sins,’ not God, are typically the object of the ἱλάσκομαι word group. Thus any conception that God’s wrath needs to be propitiated should be rejected. He concludes: “Here it is unnecessary for our present purpose to decide whether ἱλαστήριον is an adjective in the accusative singular masculine or a neuter substantive. In any case the meaning conveyed (in accordance with LXX usage, which is constantly determinative for Paul), is that of expiation, not of propitiation. Most translators and commentators are wrong.”204 Further, in his commentary on Romans he holds that the appropriate translation could be ‘to make expiation,’ when the subject is man. In the present passage the appropriate translation is ‘a means of expiation.’205 Werner Georg Kümmel also denies that the death of Jesus takes place against the background of ‘mercy seat’ or ‘propitiation.’ In his view, the 203 204

205

Lohse, MärtyrerundGottesknecht, 145. Charles Harold Dodd, “ΙΛΑΣΚΟΜΑΙ Its Cognates, Derivatives, and Synonyms, in the Septuagint,” JTS 32 (1931): 360. Dodd, Romans, 55.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

51

Roman Christians are mainly Gentiles who would not understand an allusion to the ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬. ַ He renders the term, therefore, as Sühnemittel or Mittel des versöhnenden Handeln Gottes.206 Käsemann who follows the same line of thinking adds the difficulty of Jesus being the site of the offering and the offering itself. “Jesus kann schließlich nicht gut die Opferstätte und das Opfer zugleich sein.”207 Accordingly, he too translates the term as Sühnemittel. Strictly speaking, ‘propitiation’ means the appeasement of God, with humankind as the subject. Recognizing this difficulty in Rom 3:25, a number of commentators have opted to join Dodd in rendering the term as expiation.208 Friedrich Büchsel states further the reasons for this meaning: “The ἱλάσκομαι contained in ἱλαστήριον naturally does not mean “to propitiate,” as though God were an object. This is excluded by the fact that it is God who has made the ἱλαστήριον what it is. In this whole context God is subject, not object.”209 In his view Paul spiritualizes the concept of ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬, ַ as he spiritualizes λογικὴ λατρεία in Rom 12:1 and circumcision in Col 2:11. Further he argues that Paul’s letters are saturated with references and allusions to the LXX. Hence it is hard to think that in this case Paul was simply following the general usage of the day. He goes on to point out that ἱλαστήριον serves the revelation of the righteousness of God. Thus, it would be more appropriate to speak of expiation in Christ’s blood.210 According to Paul Michael Hedquist the translation “‘propitiatory sacrifice’ is misleading because if the synergic connotation inherent in the term ‘propitiation.’ The idea of ‘appeasing God’ simply cannot be present in a context that declares that ‘all this is from God,’ and that, in Christ’s death, God was at work.”211 In addition, he draws a connection between the two phrases ‘in his blood’ in 3:25 and 5:9. Thus, Paul has in mind 206 207 208

209

210 211

Kümmel, “Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις,” 160. Käsemann, AndieRömer, 91. Otto Michel, DerBriefandieRömer, KEK 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1966), 92-93; Barrett, EpistletotheRomans, 73-74; Dunn, Romans1-8, 171; Klaus Haacker, DerBriefdesPaulusandieRömer, 3rd ed., THNT 6 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsstalt, 2006), 85, 90-91; Lohse, DerBriefandieRömer, 135; Fabrizio Tosolini, The Letter to the Romans and St. Paul‘s Grace and Apostleship (Taiwan: Fu Jen Catholic University Press, 2005), 304. Friedrich Büchsel, „ἱλαστήριον,“ in TDNT 3 (1965): 300-323, here 320. In a similar line, Dodd, “ΙΛΑΣΚΟΜΑΙ, Its Cognates,” 360-361, points out that God is never the object of the verbs that describe the act of atonement. Linguistically, it is not God who is appeased, nor is his wrath assuaged; on the contrary sin is atoned for. Cf. Büchsel, “ἱλαστήριον,” 321, 322. Hedquist, Reconciliation, 116, note 2.

52

CHAPTER ONE

the idea of expiation. We are reconciled to God by means of the expiatory death of Jesus. Moreover, the idea of substitution is definitely implied in this ‘expiation.’212 More recently, Toan Joseph Do has argued that Paul is greatly influenced by his Jewish religious background as he uses ἱλαστήριον to interpret expiation. Reading ἱλαστήριον as God propitiating himself risks understanding the divine plan as a necessity to which God had to submit. Rather, Rom 3:21-26 stresses the infinite mercy of the God, who takes the initiative to forgive. In that sense, ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 is used to mean expiation.213 1.5.5 Critical Remarks So far, our study reveals three basic lines of understanding of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25: the mercy seat, propitiation and expiation. Arguments can be found to support each of these. ‘Expiation’ is a move away from the ‘mercy seat,’ while rejecting the view that the death of Christ is here ‘propitiating’ the wrath of God. But ‘expiation’ itself is not free of difficulties. One is that “there is no place within our sources (LXX or nonbiblical Greek) at which hilasterion can be translated ‘expiation.’ Rom. 3:25 would be an anomaly at this point.”214 A more serious issue is the shift in emphasis in the latter interpretations that reads the text christocentrically as Christ’s death propitiates or expiates. This shift in understanding demands further exploration of the syntax of the pericope. We will contribute to the debate through an examination of this syntax. This points to the theocentricity of Paul’s understanding of the death of Christ. The issue raised by ἱλαστήριον is not just linguistic. It is also historical and theological. The question is, which of these meanings best fits the context of Rom 3:21-26. That the word occurs within the so-called pre-Pauline formulation adds to the complication. Another issue is how ἱλαστήριον is related to the clause διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων. According to Campbell, “the interpretation of the final

212 213

214

See Hedquist, Reconciliation, 227. Cf. Toan Joseph Do, “The LXX Background of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3,25,” in The Letter to the Romans, ed. Udo Schnelle, BETL 226 (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 641-657. Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Mission: The Outlook from his Letter to the Romans (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1985), 58.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

53

two Semitic units within the passage (3:25c–26d) depends largely on the meaning given to πάρεσις.”215 We therefore turn next to this issue. 1.6 THE DISPUTE OVER Πάρεσις The meaning of πάρεσις is critical for the interpretation of Rom 3:21-26. Occuring in the clause διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων which closes 3:25, our understanding of it will largely determine whether these verses are read as christocentric or theocentric. The difficulty is that πάρεσις does not occur elsewhere in the Bible. There are three main positions in the debate. πάρεσις has been understood to convey: a) provisional passing over or overlooking. b) full remission or forgiveness of sins; or c) ‘incapacitation’: a recent view that challenges the alternatives. From each scholar’s understanding of πάρεσις flows their translation of the pericope and their theological understanding. While ‘forgiveness’ and ‘incapacitation’ lead to a christocentric reading of the passage as the effect of the Christ-event, ‘passing over’ may lead to a theocentric reading that views the Christ-event as the reason for God’s overlooking sins. We now examine these positions216 and their theological consequences. 1.6.1 Πάρεσις in Relation to παρίημι We begin with the traditional view. In this view, scholars argue that this rare word πάρεσις should be understood in relation to its verbal equivalent παρίημι. Fitzmyer217 points to Theodore de Bèze (1598), who understood πάρεσις in relation to the verb παρίημι. This verb is used in Lk 11:42, Heb 12:12 and Sir 23:2 in the sense of ‘pass over or let go.’ Scholars see such an interpretation pointing to Christ’s death as demonstrating God’s righteousness in wiping out sins, in contrast to his previous 215 216

217

Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 31. There are also other positions taken by scholars whose arguments have not won the day. Dahl, StudiesinPaul, 129, suggests yet another possible meaning for πάρεσις. He opines that the word could refer to the dismissal of criminal charge. It would then mean that Christ died so that God could justly dismiss the case against the human beings. Cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 351.

54

CHAPTER ONE

forbearance shown in passing over human sins.218 Although Kümmel reaches a different conclusion, he likewise translates πάρεσις as ‘overlook (hingehenlassen), pass over, close one’s eye to.’219 This traditional and widely-held position has been supported with well-structured arguments in the recent studies of Cranfield and Kraus. Cranfield sees no reason why πάρεσις should be considered equivalent to ἄφεσις (pardon or forgiveness).220 He finds nothing in the text to suggest this, pointing for support to the reference to God’s ἀνοχή in 3:26. He adds at the same time, God would not be good and merciful to pass over sins indefinitely, which would be nothing less than to approve evil, in denial of his own nature, and a crucial betrayal of sinners. What God has done, Cranfield maintains, is to pass over sins without compromising his goodness and mercy. His intention has all along been to deal with them once and for all, decisively and finally, through the cross. He understands Paul as wanting through this phrase to establish that God’s purpose from eternity was that Christ should be ἱλαστήριον. It is in this sense that God has passed over sins, not because of approval of evil or neglect, but as a decisive act that establishes Christ as ἱλαστήριον once and for all. Wolfgang Kraus shows how ‘passing over’ could be a fitting translation and backs his position from an examination of the extra-biblical literature and other occurrences of the verb παρίημι.221 His examination of πάρεσις reveals the medical sense of going limp and paralysis and sees no explicit tendency towards remission. παρίημι, too, gives no unambiguous meaning. In particular, he points out that the LXXnowhere uses it in the sense of forgiving.He observes that many works, which he discusses in his history of the study of πάρεσις (Kümmel, Lyonnet, Rath), do not discriminate between tradition and redaction in Rom 3:25f. They take δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as their basis. To understand this as a synonym for ‘God’s salvation in Christ,’ implies that πάρεσις is to be understood as ‘forgiveness’ or ‘remission.’ The context, however, gives a dif218

219

220 221

Fitzmyer Romans, 351, lists RSV, Althaus, Barrett, Blackman, Boylan, Cranfield, Dodd, Huby, Kuss, Lagrange, Michel, Prat, and Schlier following this understanding of πάρεσις. Cf. Kümmel, “Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις,”156,157. Referring to Kümmel (EinBeitrag, 260) Campbell,RhetoricofRighteousness, 45, note 2, presents a long list of those who follow this line; namely, Zahn, Althus, Dodd, Haering, Bardenhewer, Brunner, Gaugler, Wizsäcker and Albrecht, Moffatt, Holtzmann, Feine, Bultmann, BADG, Steiger, Karner and Taylor. Cf. Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 211-212. Cf. Kraus, TodJesu, 95-99.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

55

ferent perspective. The search for comparable passages must not concentrate on πάρεσις alone. Rom 3:25 speaks of πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων. So, πάρεσις should be understood in relation to sins or offences, not to remission of monetary debt or the freeing of captives. Those who see the meaning as remission are over dependent on the extra-biblical literature, to the neglect of the context. The more fitting meaning in the context of Rom 3:25, he concludes, is ‘passing over.’ To see πάρεσις in relation to παρίημι as ‘passing over’ influences the exegesis of the whole pericope. Campbell is opposed to such an approach because “it is unwise to place too much emphasis on the verb because, fundamentally, it is a different word from the noun.”222 Nevertheless, many scholars argue that πάρεσις should be seen in relation to παρίημι. The death of Christ is seen as the demonstration of God’s uprightness that takes away sins, which is in contrast to his former forbearance shown in passing over human sins of the past.223 The proponents of this view argue for such a meaning attested for πάρεσις in Plutarch, Comp.Dion. Brut. 2, and in Xenophon, Hipparchicus 7.10.224 In earlier times God has mercifully overlooked sin, but this called into question his concern for sin, and hence his justice. God sent Jesus as a means of human redemption to show the righteousness of his judgment while showing how he has passed over former sins without punishing them. 1.6.2 Πάρεσις as a Synonym of ἄφεσις Because πάρεσις is a hapaxlegomenon in the Bible, scholars have sought clues as to its meaning from elsewhere. According to Fitzmyer, a meaning found in the extra-Biblical literature is pardon, or remission, in the context of remission of debt or punishment and ancient interpreters and the Vulgate understood it in this way.225 Accordingly scholars have seen 222 223 224

225

Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 48, note 4. Cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 351. An analysis of these texts will be made in the seventh chapter of this study (p. 294). From the study so far we have noticed that scholars vary in their understanding of the extra-biblical literature too. This necessitates a detailed analysis of the extra-biblical sources as well. Fitzmyer (Romans, 351) lists Dionysius of Halicarnassus and a few other literatures as example. It should be noted that a detailed study of Creed on Dionysius of Halicarnassus reveals that the πάρεσις cannot have such a meaning there. See J. M. Creed, “ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ in Dionysius of Haricarnassus and in St. Paul,” JTS 41 (1940): 29, 30. A detailed evaluation of the text will be taken up in the seventh chapter. Consideration of πάρεσις as a synonym of ἄφεσις is favoured by the Vulgate translation of it as ‘remissionem.’

56

CHAPTER ONE

it as a synonym of ἄφεσις meaning pardon, remission, or forgiveness. For example, we notice that Luther, Calvin and Bultmann among others have favoured such an understanding. ἄφεσις is used in the DeuteroPauline letters Col 1:14 and Eph 1:7 and in Lk 1:7; 3:3; 24:27 and in Acts 2:38. For Meyer “πάρεσις, inasmuch as it belongs to a prepositional phrase continuing the finite verb, must be equivalent of ἄφεσις.”226 Although many scholars hold this position, we will focus on the wellconstructed arguments of Fahy, Kümmel, Campbell and Penna. T. Fahy’s exegesis of Rom 3:25 reaches the conclusion that ‘forgiveness’ is the most fitting translation of πάρεσις.227 In his view, to understand it in this way conveys a theology which is consistent with Paul’s thinking. He sees Christ’s atonement as having covered the sins of people of all time. God’s forgiveness of sins committed before Christ needs no further justification. The Vulgate translates πάρεσις as remissio. Elsewhere, it is used in the sense of ‘remission of debt’. He notes a further accepted meaning of πάρεσις as ‘slackness,’ but adds that one could scarcely associate slackness with God, even apparent slackness, in the matter of sin. In Acts 17:30, “God has overlooked the times of our ignorance.” This is ὑπεροράω, not πάρεσις. Since Paul could have conveyed ‘passing over’ by ὑπεροράω, he must mean something different by πάρεσις. Fahy sees forgiveness as the only meaning that can apply where God and sin are in question. Kümmel argues that ‘remission’ is a better translation than ‘overlooking’ or ‘passing over,’228 the traditional interpretation associated with Anselm. He advances several arguments. First, Rom 1:24-32 claims that God has really punished former sins. How can this be if he has passed over them? Second, the traditional interpretation, that God overlooks sins, demands that God prove his righteousness to the world. This is hardly consistent with Rom 9:19-21 where Paul insists that God has no need to explain himself. Third, Kümmel argues that δικαιοσύνη in Rom 3:21-22 refers to a saving act of God rather than a divine attribute. An immediate change of meaning is unlikely in the following verses (3:2426). He claims the support of extra-biblical sources for such a view. In his opinion, it is improbable that God’s overlooking previous sins could be said to reveal his saving righteousness in Christ. To release or remit sins in a public event would, on the other hand, be a demonstration of 226 227 228

Meyer, “The Pre-Pauline Formula” 204. Cf. T. Fahy, “Exegesis on Rom. 3:25f,” ITQ 23 (1956): 69-73, esp. 70-72. Cf. Kümmel, “Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις,” 154–167.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

57

his saving righteousness. He therefore concludes that ‘release’ or ‘forgiveness’ makes better sense in this context. Campbell follows the same line as Kümmel.229 He also points out that 3:25c-26a are parallel in construction to 3:26bc. God’s forgiveness of sins in the past is presented parallel to his demonstration of righteousness in the present time. Therefore, these words are to be read together. If πάρεσις is interpreted as ‘release’ or ‘remittance,’ there is a smoother flow of thought. God’s saving righteousness is demonstrated because of the release from previously-committed sins through Christ, and this demonstration is certainly taking place ‘in the present time.’ In his view, passing over previously committed sins cannot possibly reveal anything in the present. It is rooted in the past, and thus it drives a block between the two discussions of righteousness. This block can be removed, if πάρεσις is rendered as deliverance or remittance, which takes place in the present. Therefore, he concludes that this meaning fits smoothly both with Paul’s surrounding use of δικαιοσύνη and with its following clause. Romano Penna has argued for a meaning of ‘pardon’ by calling attention to an inscription of Colophon in tribute to Polemeus Knemades, which he believes to have been unjustly neglected.230 He argues that Paul’s statement has to be understood in a christocentric context of redemption brought about through Christ. It is his contention that “the meaning of πάρεσις in Rom 3:25c in the equivalent sense of ἄφεσις is proven, both because it has the same association with ‘sins,’ and because we find the same association of ἄφεσις with the concept of a debt to be remitted.”231 This meaning is appropriate in Rom 3:25 because διά is used in a final sense here and the prepositional phrase ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ in 3:26 has an instrumental value pointing to expiation carried out through Christ. πάρεσις of sins then has a juridical sense, communicating

229

230

231

Cf. Campbell, Rhetoric of Righteousness, 49. Here we have represent scholars with their own verse subdivision. For the details of our verse subdivision of Rom 3:21-26, see p. 113. Romano Penna, “The Meaning of πάρεσις in Romans 3:25c and the Pauline Thought on the Divine Acquittal,” in Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion, ed. Michael Bachmann and Johannes Woyke, WUNT 182 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 251273. The fact that he admits that Colophon also uses the verb in the sense of “neglect, disregard, omit” seems to challenge his own conclusion (see p. 255). Penna, “Meaning of πάρεσις,” 260. An obvious drawback of his analysis is that it gives too much emphasis to ἄφεσις and its association with sins while to paying no attention to πάρεσις and its association with sins.

58

CHAPTER ONE

that redemption is not possible without absolution. It therefore belongs to the process of justification. To sum up the discussion, we note that those who consider πάρεσις to be a synonym of ἄφεσις bring forward the following arguments. First, God’s passing over former sins (the traditional view) cannot account for God’s punishment of sins in former times. Second, overlooking sins would contradict Paul’s statement in Rom 9:19-21 that God has no need to explain himself to the world. Third, ὑπεροράω could have been used if Paul wanted to convey ‘passing over.’ Fourth, in Rom 3:25 it means ‘pardon’ of sins which is an inevitable part of justification. The inscription of Colophon seems to favour this meaning. Finally, the connection between the two discussions of righteousness in the pericope can be better explained if we consider πάρεσις to be a synonym of ἄφεσις. 1.6.3 Πάρεσις as Incapacitation The scholarly assumption that there are only two possible meanings for πάρεσις in Rom 3:25 is challenged by Christopher T. Holmes. In his recent article, he posits that ‘incapacitation’ should be the appropriate translation of πάρεσις.232 Holding fast to this neglected meaning in Rom 3:25, he argues that this was the most prevalent meaning, especially among medical writers, in the Hellenistic period. Further, he shows that Aretaeus of Cappadocia often uses πάρεσις as part of a family of words that describe paralysis of the body or of its parts. He points out: “Lexical investigation has demonstrated the semantic overlap between παραλύειν/ παραλύσις and παρίημι/πάρεσις; this overlap between the two is so strong that it suggests that they are nearly synonymous.”233 Moreover, he maintains that this meaning was used by Paul’s contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus. In the context of Rom 3:21-26, therefore, it might mean redemption from the incapacitating consequences of sin. Holmes may be right that ‘paralysis’ is the most frequently used meaning in the extra-biblical literature. But what he needs to show is that this field of meaning is not only common, but appropriate to the context of Rom 3:21-26. He is, after all, proposing to disregard the views of previous scholarship, and needs to give sufficient reasons for doing so. Not 232

233

Christopher T. Holmes, “Utterly Incapacitated: The Neglected Meaning of ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ in Romans 3:25,” NovT 55 (2013): 349-366. Moo, Romans, 240, note 68, also mentions ‘paralysis’ as a possible meaning of the term. Holmes, “Utterly Incapacitated,” 364.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF ROM 3:21-26

59

least, since God is the subject of action in Rom 3:25, he needs to relate his translation to God’s action towards previous sins. In the end, we find his translation less intelligible than the more traditional efforts. The study of πάρεσις in relation to παρίημι is in the end an attempt to clarify the question of the righteousness of God. Paul wants to show how God can be seen as righteous in having passed over earlier human sins as he did it by showing that this was part of a definite plan – to establish Christ as ἱλαστήριον, who takes away the sins of humankind. As Kraus has remarked, retaining ‘remission’ as the translation of πάρεσις here is perhaps the result of the isolated study of extra-biblical literature neglecting the context. The same might be said for ‘incapacitation.’ In any case, scholars agree on the great importance on πάρεσις for a sound theological interpretation of the pericope. We will study it in more detail in chapter seven, looking for clues from the immediate setting, from the wider context of the text and from usages in similar contexts found elsewhere. Since the verbal form παρίημι is relatively frequent in the Greek Bible (22 times), and because so many of Paul’s other words and concepts in Romans are derived from scripture, we pay careful attention to these uses. We conclude this discussion with the observation that there is no scholarly agreement on the meanings of πάρεσις. Yet there is agreement that it greatly influences the interpretation of the pericope. How we translate πάρεσις will clarify and explain the meaning of the clause τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων. Whether the focus of Rom 3:24-26 is christocentric or theocentric plays a decisive role in how we understand this term. CHAPTER CONCLUSION As we have shown in this chapter, nearly every word in this pericope has been the subject of scholarly dispute. It is not a matter of how each word, phrase or expression is to be understood in isolation, but of the consequences for the whole passage. We will argue that classical theories of atonement have too often been read into the pericope, without sufficient attention to the text. We also believe that many scholars have overemphasised 3:24-26 within the pericope and that this has led them to a christocentric interpretation. Subsequent chapters will bring the theocentricity of the text to the fore and enable us to resolve many of the challenges posed by this intriguing passage. Each chapter will take up the issues raised in this chapter.

60

CHAPTER ONE

Our survey confirms that much contemporary research on the passage has a christocentric emphasis. Similarly, anthropocentric readers have overemphasised the Reformation concern of human justification by faith. We have seen that in most cases scholars have been working within a framework of either/or. In our view many scholars have placed too much emphasis on 3:24-26, in some cases even explicitly arguing that these verses make the pericope christocentric. Three broad questions have kept recurring across this chapter: (1) what is the source of Paul’s words and concepts and how are they to be understood, whether against a Hellenistic background, a biblical background, or both? (2) how can we clarify some of the issues related to the genitive constructions? (3) is the central message of the pericope christocentric, anthropocentric or theocentric? We will begin from Paul’s central concern, as expressed in Romans 1-3, arguing that, by recognising the theocentricity of Romans 1-3, we can clarify many of these issues.

CHAPTER TWO

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3 In the last chapter, we showed how many of the terms and phrases have been read from different perspectives. For many of the traditional anthropocentric readers this pericope is about how a person can be justified; for some others, it is rather about how Christ justifies and redeems humanity. Because this pericope is central to Paul’s letter to the Romans it is important to examine the larger perspective of Romans to clarify the issues it addresses. This broader approach will allow us to see our pericope in the larger context of the whole letter and to demonstrate that Romans is about God and his concern for humanity. This will prepare us to read Rom 3:21-26 against the whole letter. All the more, by way of a narrative critical examination of Romans 1-3, we want to understand how the preceding context before 3:21 has prepared the reader for a theocentric reading of 3:21-26. Explicitly theocentric readings of Rom 3:21-26 are rare. Yet, as the history of interpretation has shown, many earlier readings – whether of Romans in general, or of Rom 3:21-26 in particular – have been theocentric, even if it was not then felt necessary to label them as such. It is only now, in the face of the challenge of christocentric and anthropocentric readings, that we find it necessary to highlight the reasons why a theocentric reading is appropriate. This chapter will go on to show that the larger perspective of Romans is theocentric, because its main concern is to show how God can redeem his people. In other words, Paul’s concern is how Gentiles can be included in God’s saving plan. We contend that a theocentric reading enables us to address many of the apparent puzzles in Romans and that Paul’s argument springs out of a powerful theo-logical point of view, that is, his vision of God. Towards these ends, we shall study the scholars who have considered Paul’s understanding of God, though we must begin by noting that it is, for the most part, a neglected area of research. In the second section, we will deal with the theocentricity of Romans in general terms, passing in review the major issues it raises and the points wherein we observe it.

62

CHAPTER TWO

We will then move on to the specific issues that this raises with regard to Rom 3:21-26, developing a detailed treatment of these issues over the following chapters. In the final part of this chapter, we shall deal with the theocentricity of Paul’s argument in Romans 1-3. Our aim is to make a significant contribution to the research of Romans 1-3 by making a systematic characterisation of God in these chapters. It is to suggest that a characterisation of God in Romans 1-3 is the key that will unlock many of the puzzles in these chapters. This will clarify not only the central theme of these chapters but also provide us with a useful guide to our investigation in the following chapters.

ON

2.1 PREVIOUS RESEARCH PAUL’S UNDERSTANDING OF GOD

2.1.1 A Neglected Area of Research Despite the fact that Θεός is one of the most frequently used words in the Pauline letters, until the last few decades, Paul’s understanding of God was not a hot topic in Pauline studies. By this we mean that scholars by and large failed to look carefully at the way in which Paul understands God. Thus Romans has been looked at from an anthropocentric point of view: how a human person can be justified. This interest was partly due to the Reformation concern with ‘justification by faith.’ Particularly in Romans, as our history of research in the previous chapter has shown, this has not only led to the misunderstanding of many Pauline passages but also to the neglect of Paul’s central teaching on God. Any broader examination of the Pauline literature shows that anthropology, christology and ecclesiology have been the major areas of scholarly interest. Paul’s theo-logy in its strict sense, the language that Paul uses when he speaks of God, was not an issue in Pauline studies. Given this general lack of interest, it is probably unsurprising how little room many works on the ‘theology of Paul’ and commentaries on Romans give to Paul’s understanding of God. While there are detailed sections on christology, ecclesiology and eschatology, theology proper is not accorded a separate section. Even if this issue has been discussed, the focus has been on how theology relates to christology.1 Dunn underlines 1

Cf. Halvor Moxnes, TheologyinConflict:StudiesinPaul’sUnderstandingofGodin Romans, NovTSup 53 (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 2.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

63

the difficulty: “Paul’s convictions about God are all too axiomatic. Because they were axioms, Paul never made much effort to expound them. They belong to the foundations of his theology and so are largely hidden from view.”2 Dunn’s statement shows why scholars often overlook Paul’s convictions about God and concentrate on his more obvious christological statements. It also shows why christology and anthropology have remained among the most researched areas in Pauline studies. Among the reasons for the neglect of Paul’s understanding of God is the assumption that when we know the God of the OT, we know enough about the God of Paul. It was taken for granted that Paul’s image of God is the Jewish image of God.3 Lindemann states the problem as he writes, “dass Gott nicht nur nicht mehr selbstverständlich ist, sondern das er weithin unverständlich und sogar uninteressant geworden ist.”4 Therefore the question of independent research on Paul’s image of God has not arisen. Because Paul is seen to contribute to christology, and because Paul’s God is viewed through his christology, it has been too easily assumed that Paul has nothing else (new) to say about God. As Flebbe puts it, “the only thing God had made new was, so to speak, that he had raised Jesus from the dead.”5 The result of this “unquestioning assurance” has been the neglect of the Pauline understanding of God. Lindemann presents two more reasons for the marginal place reserved by researchers for Paul’s understanding of God. On the one hand, it was assumed that since his conversion, Paul’s thinking became more and more christocentric.6 On the other hand, the Pauline letters are assumed to have been written to believers, who by definition already knew about God. Lindemann considers, “daher hatte für den Apostel überhaupt keine gründsätzliche Notwendigkeit bestanden den Gottesgedanken näher zu entfalten.”7 As we study the theocentricity of Romans, we shall demonstrate that both these assumptions are not well grounded. It is not the christocentricity, but rather it is the theocentricity of Paul’s argument, 2

3

4

5

6 7

Dunn, TheologyofPaul, 28. In this work there is no section that specifically deals with “God,” but only “God and humanity.” Cf. Jochen Flebbe, SolusDeus:UntersuchungenzurRedevonGottimBriefdesPaulus andieRömer, BZNW 158 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 11. A. Lindemann, „Die Rede von Gott in der paulinischen Theologie,“ Theologie und Glaube 69 (1979): 373. Flebbe, Solus Deus, 11 (our translation). While he presents this as a reason for the scholarly neglect of Paul’s understanding of God, he also presents a number of German sources that follow this line of thinking. See his footnote 50. Cf. Lindemann, „Die Rede von Gott,“ 359. Lindemann, „Die Rede von Gott,“ 360.

64

CHAPTER TWO

that is evident in Romans. Further, rather than assuming that his readers are believers he expounds his understanding of God and builds an argument based upon it. The existential interpretation of Rudolf Bultmann focused attention on the anthropological side of Pauline theology. Bultmann insisted that Paul always speaks of God in terms of his action towards humans: “Jeder Satz über Gott ist zugleich ein Satz über den Menschen und umgekehrt. Deshalb und in diesem Sinne ist die paulinische Theologie zugleich Anthropologie.”8 This seems to have invited scholars to concentrate on Paul’s anthropological concerns. Paul’s writings about God have been seen only as addressing God’s action for human justification and salvation, while research has forgotten God himself. The result, as we will seek to show, has been an unbalanced concentration on human salvation. Philip Melanchthon described Romans as “a compendium of Christian Doctrine.”9 Since then the letter has too often been treated as a doctrinal treatise. This has had a significant impact on the way its statements about God have been understood. As Moxnes rightly notes, “statements about God are isolated from their context within the letter and treated as dogmatic expressions. Together with this, there is tendency to study Paul’s theology primarily as a starting point for the subsequent development of Christian doctrine.”10 Many of Pauline expressions about God are also isolated from their context by treating them as citations from tradition or as pre-Pauline formulae. For example, Oscar Cullmann contended that the confessional statements, like “Jesus is Lord” in Rom 10:9-10; 1 Cor 12:3 and Phil 2:11, show that “the theological thinking of the first Christians proceeds from Christ, not from God.”11 These ways of seeing texts have a tremendous impact on the ways in which Paul’s argument is understood. Another probable reason for this neglect is the search for what is typically Christian and radically new in Paul. As a result of this the last decades have seen a growing tendency to focus on Jesus’ obedience and faithfulness to God as a significant theme in Romans. This interest has partly arisen from a subjective genitive reading of πίστις Χριστοῦ, which 8

9

10 11

Rudolf Bultmann, TheologiedesNeuenTestaments, 6th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968), 192 (italics original). See the description in A. Andrew Das, SolvingtheRomanDebate (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007), 26. Moxnes, TheologyinConflict, 5. Oscar Cullmann, TheChristologyoftheNewTestament, trans. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall (London: SCM, 1963), 2.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

65

leads to a christocentric soteriology as the core of Paul’s teaching. This new direction in research has, however, concentrated on certain passages, overlooking the predominant theme of God and his concern for human salvation. Yet there has been a recent renewal of interest in Paul’s understanding of God. This reflects the gradual shift away from the anthropocentric reading that has dominated Pauline studies in the last generation. Nils A. Dals has gone so far as to say that God is “the neglected factor in the New Testament Theology.”12 The following section therefore examines works that deal with Paul’s understanding of God. 2.1.2 Recent Research in Paul’s Understanding of God Halvor Moxnes’ “Theology in Conflict,” which is focused on Romans, has researched Paul’s understanding of God. He suspects that there is a close relation between Paul’s theological language and a rhetorical situation in the early Church. Observing that most of Paul’s significant statements about God are to be found in Rom 4:13-22, which he locates as the centre of Paul’s theology, he considers that passage as the turning point of his study. He sees Paul’s God-language as forming a new identity for his community, one that consists of both Jewish and non-Jewish Christians. Paul is seeking to redefine ‘the people of God,’ while using traditional language about God. His statements about God have to be understood in this context. He believes that most of “Paul’s statements about God in Romans were related to this situation in which he attempted to achieve unity through conflict.”13 He finds that Paul “stands within (as well as over against) Jewish belief in God. This raises above all the question of the relation between Paul’s understanding of God and a Jewish understanding of God.”14 By introducing statements about God into the argument, Paul intends to re-interpret traditional beliefs. Moxnes also argues that Paul’s understanding of God goes against his non-Christian Jewish opponents. He also warns that in theological studies “we are

12

13 14

Nils A. Dahl, “The Neglected Factor in New Testament Theology,” Reflections 73 (1975): 5-8, esp. 5. About 35 years later, Larry W. Hurtado, God in New Testament Theology, Library of Biblical Theology (Abingdon Press: Nashville, TN, 2010), 1-6, refers back to Dahl and states many of the NT aspects of God is still under-examined. Moxnes, TheologyinConflict, 288. Moxnes, TheologyinConflict, 53.

66

CHAPTER TWO

constantly faced with the temptation to avoid the theme of the wrath of God, in order to attain a harmonious image of God.”15 Unfortunately, Moxnes’ study is focused in Romans 4 and gives little space to an overall view of Paul’s understanding of God in Romans. Moreover, his view that Paul’s statements on God arise in a situation of conflict does not find broad support in recent research. If he sees both continuity and discontinuity with the Jewish understanding of God, his research does not succeed in making the reasons for this clear. Paul-Gerhard Klumbies, who examines Paul’s God-talk from a broader perspective, reaches some challenging conclusions. His primary area of interest is the relationship between Pauline theology and christology. He argues that Paul’s theology has a christocentric orientation because Paul approaches his understanding of God through Christ (Paul sees God through the lens of christology). “In this way Paul comes to a theo-logy, based on the integration of soteriology in christology, that is directly related to human salvation.”16 Klumbies concludes that Paul’s understanding of God is incompatible with Judaism because it is completely determined by his experience and understanding of Christ. The christocentric focus of his theology is evident as he writes, “Auf der Basis des Christusgeschehens verkündet er den soteriologisch-christologisch explizierten Gott.”17 Evidently, he believes that his research leads in the direction of discontinuity with Judaism. His contention that Paul has come to understand God or has reset the understanding of God in the light of the Christ-event needs to be critically examined. Neil Richardson observes that “the significance of Paul’s language about God has been greatly underestimated, and yet we still have no overview of Paul’s teaching about God.”18 His interest lies in studying the language which Paul employed in talking about God, rather than how he understands God. The study is focused on selected passages from the Pauline letters. The part that deals with Romans is focused exclusively on Romans 9-11. He contends that Paul’s language about God and Christ has to be studied together: “Paul’s thought and writings are both 15 16

17 18

Moxnes, TheologyinConflict, 287. Paul-Gerhard Klumbies, Die Rede von Gott bei Paulus in ihrem zeitgeschichtlichen Kontext, FRLANT 155 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 252 (our translation). Similarly, Wesley Hill, PaulandtheTrinity:Persons,Relations,andthePaulineLetters (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015), 72 argues: “Already – prior to the Christ-event – the theology of Paul is christocentric (or christo-telic).” Klumbies, RedevonGott, 253. Neil Richardson, Paul’sLanguageaboutGod, JSNT SS 99 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 18.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

67

theocentric and christocentric; Paul’s language about God and his language about Christ are so intertwined that neither can properly be understood without the other.”19 He argues that there is not merely continuity with regard to the OT understanding of God, but clearly discontinuity because “Christ universalizedandradicalized the Old Testament understanding of the grace and love of God.”20 Based on these observations, he suggests that there is both continuity and discontinuity in Paul’s Godtalk. However, Richardson does not deal with the language Paul uses to speak about God and Christ in Romans 1-4. His selection of the passages that explicitly describe God seems to be insufficient to get a comprehensive view of Paul’s understanding of God. Jerome H. Neyrey’s examination of the NT understanding of God has a section entitled “God in Romans.” In this, he argues that Paul’s awareness of the controversial aspects of his ‘gospel of God’ compel him to present his case by means of “the categories that Graeco-Roman philosophers used in presenting their systematic doctrine on God: epistemology, physics, and ethics.”21 In his opinion, Paul identifies two ways to knowledge about God at the beginning of Romans: from the created world; and from the Jewish Scriptures. Paul’s use of the Jewish Scriptures in his presentation of God means that his orthodoxy cannot be questioned: Paul’s “doctrine of God, then is nothing novel, defective, or deviant.”22 He points out that Paul’s God-talk is characterised by God’s just judgment and mercy along with his impartiality and inclusivity. In his opinion, these verses of Romans provide the most systematic and coherent presentation of God in the NT. However, this brief examination has failed to see the details of Paul’s language about God elsewhere in Romans. Nor his claim that Paul is using the categories of Greco-Roman philosophers is widely accepted by Pauline scholars. A study of the language used about God in Romans is found in the recent work of Jochen Flebbe. He is interested in identifying what is old and what is new in Paul’s teaching on God.23 He explains that his focus is not on God as such, but on the language Paul uses to speak about God (God-talk). He makes a thorough exegesis of selected passages in Romans to draw attention to the significance of Paul’s use of language about God 19 20 21

22 23

Richardson, Paul’sLanguage, 312. Richardson, Paul’sLanguage, 313 (italics original). Jerome H. Neyrey, RendertoGod:NewTestamentUnderstandingoftheDivine (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004), 108-109. Neyrey, RendertoGod, 143. Flebbe, SolusDeus, 3.

68

CHAPTER TWO

in Romans. In doing so, he shows the image and character of God that this language projects. His close study of “for Jews and Greeks” draws attention to what he sees as the universal thrust of Paul’s theology. He sums up his conclusions as follows: “Die Theo-logie ist nicht nur aufgrund der bisherigen christologischen und anthropologischen Engführung der Exegeten bei der Analyse des Briefes vollkommen unterbestimmt geblieben, sondern die Rede von Gott ist durchgängig der entscheidende und im Hinblick auf andere Aspekte unerreichte Faktor in der Darstellung. Der Beschreibung der Wirklichkeit Gottes und seines Handelns – und nicht etwa von Person und Werk Jesu Christi oder des Wesens des Menschen – kommt die allesbestimmende Funktion in der Argumentation zu. Aus dieser immer vorgängigen Wirklichkeit leitet sich alles andere ab.”24

He concludes that Paul’s teaching about God is a determining factor in Romans, forming the basis for what he has to say on the justification of both Jews and Gentiles. Contrary to Klumbies, in Flebbe’s opinion, Paul has not found a new way of speaking christologically about God, but speaks of God in a way that is in continuity with both Scripture and tradition, albeit with emphasis on his universality. Our study is in dialogue with this serious work. We observe that his selection of certain passages with explicit theocentric focus has led to a neglect of the overall theocentric argument in the letter. Later in this chapter, we shall make a detailed analysis of theocentricity of Romans 1-3 and show that Flebbe’s focus on two passages (3:1-8 and 3:21-31) has not paid sufficient attention to the whole of Paul’s theocentric argument. The recent work of Suzanne Nicholson offers another useful study of Paul’s understanding of God, investigating the meaning and importance of Paul’s monotheistic statements. She approaches these as also being the point of departure for Paul’s view of Christ and explores “how Paul’s monotheistic convictions affect his overall christological argument.” 25 Her in-depth study of three passages (1 Cor 8:4-6, Gal 3:20 and Rom 3:30) aims to clarify Paul’s understanding of God and Christ and leads to the core argument that “for Paul, the oneness of God primarily involves not his numerical oneness, but rather his uniqueness.”26 Paul comes to this conviction through his reinterpretation of Scripture in the light of the Christ-event. In this way, she touches on the core issue of the divinity of 24 25

26

Flebbe, SolusDeus, 244. Suzanne Nicholson, DynamicOneness:TheSignificanceandFlexibilityofPaul’sOneGodLanguage (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010), 3. Nicholson, DynamicOneness, 245.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

69

Christ with regard to the oneness of God. She contends that “Paul has made major decisions regarding the faithfulness of God, the identity of Christ, and the practical outworking of the gospel message based on this dynamic understanding of the one God.”27 Although this study is a valuable guide to Paul’s statement about the oneness of God, it has not paid much attention to many explicit and implicit statements about God in order to gain a complete insight into how Paul understands God. We conclude this section with seven observations. 1) None of the above studies of Paul’s understanding of God makes a thorough analysis of his use of language about God in Romans 1-3. We cannot understand Paul’s depiction of God unless we follow his argument from the beginning. 2) No studies have examined the characterisation of God in Romans. We argue that it is important to see how Paul characterises God in the first three chapters to get clarity regarding what Paul is saying in Rom 3:21-26. 3) Paul’s depiction of the relation between God and Christ needs to be explored specifically from the point of view of Romans because that is where Paul presents his most nuanced view, which should not be allowed to be overwhelmed by the more obviously christological statements in other letters. 4) The theocentricity of Romans needs to be explored with a view to shedding light on other issues in Romans. 5) As we have seen, Paul’s understanding of God can be read either theocentrically or christocentrically and this, we argue, deserves further exploration. 6) Recent research keeps raising the question whether Paul is in continuity or in discontinuity with traditional Jewish understanding of God. Therefore, more study is required to demonstrate what is new in Paul’s teaching about God in Romans. 7) The tendency to read significant passages in Romans christocentrically, arguing that Jesus’ obedience and faithfulness to God is a significant theme in Romans, has not been addressed by the studies we have reviewed. As we have seen in the first chapter, this tendency is partly due to reading πίστις Χριστοῦ as a subjective genitive.

27

Nicholson, DynamicOneness, 249.

70

CHAPTER TWO

We will go on to explore the theocentricity of Romans in dialogue with the studies we have reviewed, filling in the gaps that we have noted. In this way we hope to present building blocks for a theocentric reading of Romans, showing that this theocentricity will unlock many of the puzzles in Romans as a whole and in Rom 3:21-26 in particular. We shall now turn to the theocentricity of Romans, drawing on some of results we have reviewed above, while critically examining others. 2.2 THE THEOCENTRICITY LETTER TO THE ROMANS

OF THE

2.2.1 Purpose of Romans and the Question of God Many different views have been put forward as to the purpose and central theme of Romans. For long the dominant view has been that Romans is a systematic exposition of Pauline theology. Such a view is maintained by Fitzmyer, who calls it an “essay letter.”28 Another view, developed in German scholarship, especially the works of F. C. Baur, is that Romans is best understood as Paul’s protest against Jewish particularism.29 Some scholars maintain that Romans, like the other letters of Paul, was written to address the needs and problems of its intended readers.30 Others argue that it has more to do with Paul’s own situation and plans. Contemporary scholarship tends to speak more of the purposes of Romans than of a single purpose,31 for that single purpose remains elusive. Among the various reasons and purposes that may be discerned in the body of the letter, we find a concern to explain Paul’s understanding of God to the mixed community in Rome, to show them how Christ can be incorporated into this understanding, to clarify how this God saves 28 29

30

31

Fitzmyer, Romans, 69-70. See R. Morgen, “Tübingen School,” in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed. R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden (London: SCM, 1990), 710-713. Cf. A. J. M. Wedderburn, TheReasonsforRomans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 1; Byrne, Romans, 8-19. Recently, Binz Antony, No One Can separate Us from the LoveofGodinChristJesus:ATheocentricInterpretationoftheGospelofGodforan Ecclesial Purpose in Romans 1-8 (Leuven: Unpublished Dissertation KU Leuven, 2011), 2-20, argued that Romans is written to address an external adverse situation against the faith of Roman Christians. See a recent assessment of various views in Robert L. Foster, “The Justice of the Gentiles: Revisiting the Purpose of Romans,” CBQ 76 (2014), 684-703. Wedderburn, Reasons for Romans, 96-98; Fitzmyer, Romans, 79; Ziesler, Romans, 3-16; Schnelle, ApostlePaul, 308-309.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

71

everyone through Christ and to make plain that this calls, in consequence, for unity between Jews and Gentiles. We shall develop these issues in the following sections. Our approach begins from a fundamental question: who or what is at the centre of Paul’s teaching in Romans? Is it God, or Christ, or is it something else? Our answer will determine our perspective on the letter, and the way it is understood. We believe that it is God who is at the centre of what Paul has to say in Romans and therefore that Romans can properly be described as theocentric. Although such technical terms as “christocentrism” and “theocentrism” address the needs of the modern interpreter, Paul seems to have been able to work through such issues without difficulty.32 The very fact that he does not pause to explain his God-concept shows that Paul expected his readers to follow his argument without trouble. His understanding of ‘God’ has not undergone any dramatic change since his Damascus experience. That is why Nicholson can write that “Paul’s understanding of God was never merely an assumption, but rather provided a conscious foundation that intentionally shaped the rest of his arguments.”33 For Paul, God is central, and we must catch hold of that essential theocentricity in his thought if we are to understand Paul’s argument and many of the concepts in Romans. We will then find that such a reading fits with the New Perspective on Paul, bringing out the continuity between his thought and that of traditional Judaism. Yet the recent tendency has been to read Romans christocentrically, emphasizing participation in the faithfulness of Christ as the key to salvation. It is a reading that assumes that Paul started with a theocentric outlook, (as found in 1 Thessalonians) and in the course of the years became increasingly christocentric, especially in writing Romans. Campbell argues that “Paul’s argument in 1.16-17 and 3.21–5.1 also clearly becomes rather more christocentric and staurocentric, as do his treatments of Abraham as a forerunner, and of Israel’s repudiation, of the gospel.”34 This reading raises serious exegetical questions, which we will address. For christological readings, in their zeal to assert the humanity of Christ, tend to overlook or to discard Paul’s clear emphasis on the divinity of Christ. In our view, there is good reason to think that Paul would spontaneously have been theocentric. It is our contention that by 32 33 34

Cf. Schliesser, Abraham’sFaith, 413. Nicholson, DynamicOneness, 2. Campbell, QuestforPaul’sGospel, 92.

72

CHAPTER TWO

restating the theocentricity of Romans we can address many of its puzzles. Our purpose in this section is to point up the challenges that confront christocentric readings of Romans and to draw out the theocentricity of Paul’s argument. The specific theme of Paul’s God-concept in Romans needs to be studied further in dialogue with the traditional anthropocentric reading and the most recent christocentric reading. Studies have often been focused on the more obvious statements about Christ or about humanity, and have made theological claims based on particular passages. As we look into the theocentric thrust of Romans, we will also have to investigate the relationship between God and Jesus, Paul’s concept of the oneness of God, his understanding of the death of Christ, his Jewish background, his knowledge and use of the Scriptures as they are to be found in Romans. 2.2.2 A Survey of Data in Romans The following table shows the frequency with which the terms Θεός and Χριστός appear in Romans: Θεός (32) Χριστός (14)

Θεόν (15) Χριστόν (8)

Θεοῦ (77) Θεῷ (29) Χριστοῦ (27) Χριστῷ (16)

Total = 153 Total = 65

This invites reflection. It is immediately apparent that Θεός and its forms appear much more frequently (2.3 times) than Χριστός. Although mere statistics or lexical data are not sufficient to establish theological questions, they serve to point us towards facts that can easily be overlooked. These data already point towards a theocentric thrust. The 153 uses of Θεός, usually without modifiers, makes it the most frequently used word in Romans, apart from articles, prepositions and pronouns, even exceeding in frequency such routine words as δέ, εἰμί and εἰς.35 Morris calls attention to this as he writes: “It is clear that in Romans Paul speaks of God so often that no other subject comes even remotely near it.”36 In terms of absolute numbers, next to Acts (166 times), the word ‘God’ 35

36

Cf. Leon Morris, “The Theme of Romans,” in ApostolicHistoryandtheGospel:BiblicalandHistoricalEssaysPresentedtoFrederickFyvieBruceonhis60thBirthday, ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin (Devon: Paternoster, 1970), 250. For a comparative chart of the uses of God and Christ in all the letters of Paul, see Moxnes, Theology inConflict, 16, esp. note 5. Morris, “The Theme of Romans,” 250.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

73

appears in Romans more often than in any other book in the NT. In terms of relative numbers, its frequency in Romans (21.5) is much more than Acts (8.98) or any other NT writing. In the other letters of Paul, ‘Christ’ is always more frequent than ‘God.’ This cannot be without significance: it shows just how much Romans is focused on God. Except in the case of the disputed Rom 9:5, all the occurrences of Θεός in Romans directly designate the God of the OT.37 Paul speaks of who God is and what he does for humanity. In the first three chapters alone, Paul uses ‘God’ 49 times, in most instances as the subject. ‘Christ’ appears 65 times in Romans and the importance of the title is evident. Christ has a unique role in Romans. Yet that role is expressed either in relation to God’s activity, or as God’s agent. This is particularly noticeable in chapters 1-3, where the nominative Χριστός does not occur - indeed its first occurrence is not until 5:6. All cases but one – the dative Χριστῷ in 3:24 – are genitive, Χριστοῦ. The ambiguity of the genitive has generated heated discussions and has often led to a christocentric reading. Indeed, ‘Christ Jesus’ is only introduced in a significant way in 3:21-26, while not a single reference to Christ Jesus draws attention to his humanity as opposed to his divinity. Paul uses simply ‘Jesus’ twice (3:26; 8:11), but both of these are statements in relation to God’s activity. Jesus is presented as God’s agent, through whom God justifies and redeems the world. Paul’s focus in Romans is not just on God and Christ. He is also concerned with theological themes, such as sin, justification, judgment, faith and atonement. His discussion of these themes is of how they relate to God. Since the Reformation, Romans has been read from the perspective of justification by faith, asking how a human being could be saved. This has led to anthropological concerns dominating many studies. As a result, commentaries have lost sight of Paul’s remarkable concentration on God. This has led scholarship to overlook some of Paul’s important insights. At some points, it has even led scholars to misinterpret him. 2.2.3 The Relationship between God and Christ Crucial to the theocentric thrust of Romans is the way Paul envisages the relationship between God and Christ. Many statements in Romans place Christ beside God, while a number of early statements involve him in the 37

Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, PaulandHisTheology:ABriefSketch (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989), 104.

74

CHAPTER TWO

theocentricity of the argument. Yet the last decades have seen a growing tendency to focus on Jesus’ obedience and faithfulness to God as a significant theme of the letter. This turns attention from the divinity of Christ towards his humanity. We must therefore ask how important this theme really is to Romans. What are the roles ascribed to Christ? Should the role of Christ be read over and against that of God or in parallel with it? What are the titles that Paul gives to Jesus? In answering these questions we will come to the heart of our topic. Our theocentric reading goes along with those scholars who see Christ either as God’s representative, or as the one who mediates on his behalf.38 As Watson contends, for Paul there is no difference between theocentric faith and faith oriented to Christ: “God is who God is only in relation to Jesus, and conversely Jesus is who he is only in relation to God.”39 We can see this signalled at many points. Most uses of ‘Christ’ are in theocentric contexts. Most of these texts speak of God as the subject and Christ as the instrument, or means, through whom God acts. Rom 6:23 says that God’s gift of grace appears in the Lord Jesus Christ. “Christology in Romans is theocentric.”40 For example, Paul’s theology of reconciliation is theocentric: it underlines God as the reconciler.41 Whereas the Pauline antilegomena make Christ the subject of reconciliation (Eph 2:16 and Col 1:21-22), the Pauline homologoumena consistently maintain his mediatory role. There are interchangeable formulations already in 38

39

40 41

The pioneering article by E. L. Allen, “Representative-Christology in the New Testament,” HTR 46 (1953): 161-169, has generated a lot of discussion in this regard. He holds that the shaliah pattern (where a delegate for another “acted as an authorized person to whom a definite commission had been entrusted”) from the Rabbinical literature can best describe the relations between God and Jesus. How Jesus is God’s representative can be explained by the old Jewish shaliahprinciple: “A man’s representative is as the man himself.” In another pattern, C. A. Wanamaker holds that “agency Christology” explains the relationship between God and Jesus. In his view, an agent is “anyone who takes over the function of his principal under the principal’s direction.” C. A. Wanamaker, “Christ as Divine Agent in Paul,” SJT 39 (1986): 517-529, esp. 519. With regard to this relationship, the terms like representative, agent, mediator, instrument, and tool are often used interchangeably. In Pauline letters, this relationship is at times expressed by διά with the genitive (see BDAG, 178). An extensive analysis of the different forms of mediation in Jewish literature and their possible implication for the Pauline Jesus Christ can be found in D. R. de Lacey, “Jesus as Mediator,” JSNT 29 (1987) 101-121. Francis Watson, “The Triune Divine Identity: Reflections on Pauline God-Language, in Disagreement with J. D. G. Dunn,” JSNT 80 (2000): 99-124, esp. 111. Cho, “Christology of Romans,” 41-51, esp. 51. See Reimund Bieringer, “Reconciliation to God in the Light of 2 Corinthians 5:14-21,” in ReconciliationinInterfaithPerspective, ed. Reimund Bieringer and David J. Bolton (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 39-58, esp. 44-47.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

75

Romans. For example, in Rom 8:35 Paul speaks of the love of Christ, whereas a few verses later (in 8:39) he speaks of the love of God through or in Christ (see also 2 Cor 5:14, which speaks of the love of Christ). In Romans Paul finds the need not only to speak of the love of Christ but also to clarify that it is the love of God through Christ. So, 8:39 is something of a theocentric correction, or clarification of 8:35. Paul makes no functional distinction between God and Christ. That is why he can interchange them so freely. “The gospel of God” (1:1) becomes “the gospel of Christ” (1:9). “The love of Christ” (8:35) becomes “the love of God” (8:39). These do not mean different things. Paul simply does not distinguish God’s act from Christ’s work. Over and beyond the many passages that attribute fatherly characteristics to God, there are four points in Romans where God is explicitly referred to as ‘Father’ (1:7; 6:4; 8:15; 15:6). This is important for Paul. He wants to speak of God adopting both Jews and Gentiles into one family. At the same time it implies the sonship of Christ. This is stated right at the start of the letter (1:1-7). Later, humanity calls God ‘Father’ and human beings are described as God’s heirs and children (8:15-17). God must therefore be affirmed as the father of Jews and of Gentiles alike.42 In 1:7 and 15:6, the title ‘Father’ is used along with “the Lord Jesus Christ.” The way in which Paul refers to Jesus as ‘son of God’ also bears witness to this inter-relation between God and Christ. The title is used 7 times, in 1:3, 4, 9; 5:10; 8:3; 8:29, 32. Cranfield sees it as indicating “a relationship involving a real community of nature between Christ and God.”43 Joseph Plevnik sees it as a proof of the theocentricity of the letter: “The identity of God’s Son yields Paul’s deepest understanding of Christ and makes his Christology and soteriology theocentric.”44 The relationship between God and Christ with respect to the salvation of humanity is stated in 5:8-10; 8:31-32, 37-39, where it is God who ensures salvation through Christ. These statements leave no room to doubt Paul’s firm conviction that Jesus is the Son of God.45 That is the source from which he draws his theological insight. Already in 1:3, 4, 42

43 44

45

Cf. Marianne Meye Thompson, “Mercy upon all: God as father in Romans,” in Romans andthePeopleofGod,ed. Sven K. Sonderlund and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 206. Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 840. Joseph Plevnik, “The Understanding of God at the Basis of Pauline Theology,” CBQ 65 (2003): 554-567, esp. 562. Cf. Plevnik, “Understanding of God,” 566.

76

CHAPTER TWO

hard on the heels of the first mention of Christ Jesus in 1:1, he is identified as the Son of God. This places Jesus at the heart of God’s redeeming purpose, “which means that there is a theocentric context within which Jesus’ significance is expressed.”46 Christ is placed side by side with God the Father as the source of salvation (1:7). Thus Hurtado: “Paul used divine-sonship language for Jesus especially when he wished to portray Jesus’ significance with reference to God.”47 Christ is “the Son in relation to God, as uniquely honoured by God and unique agent of God.”48 In our view, Paul has carefully presented Jesus Christ both in the sense of God’s anointed (human) king in the line of David (1:3) and as one designated as Son by God. We see this proven through his rising from the dead. Nevertheless, it is Christ’s divinity, not his humanity that comes in for more attention in Romans. The result of this is clear. God is not christologically redefined in Romans.49 Rather, Romans continues in the OT understanding of God, while showing how Christ reveals God’s compassionate nature. Christ is not presented as someone who acts to appease or to propitiate God. He is presented as one who acts on behalf of God, as a representative of God. 2.2.4 The Monotheistic Perspective and the Impartiality of God We must now consider how Romans presents the oneness of God. Does its presentation of Jesus as Lord, even as God, alter the monotheistic perspective of God? Surely not. Paul takes his belief in the one God for granted. He sees no need to discuss this in any of his letters. Paul’s conviction is that Jesus is Son of God, and therefore Lord. This can be observed in his first extant letter (1 Thess), where Jesus is called ‘Lord’ 24 times. The same applies in Romans. We are with Nicholson: “Although one-God language appears explicitly only infrequently, this emphasis nonetheless lies at the heart of Paul’s letter, and indeed, at the heart of his soteriology.”50 It may be argued that this reflects a wider understanding of the oneness of God than that of the Shema, or that he has extended the Shema to embrace Jesus. What is noteworthy is that 46

47 48 49 50

L. W. Hurtado, “Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” in Romans andthePeopleofGod, ed. Sven K. Sonderlund and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 224. Hurtado, “Divine Sonship,” 233. Hurtado, “Divine Sonship,” 233. Contra, Klumbies, RedevonGott, 252. Nicholson, DynamicOneness, 168-169.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

77

he “did not pause to argue this conviction, but took it for granted that his readers would agree with him.”51 We agree with Richard Bauckham’s observation that “early Christians included Jesus, precisely and unambiguously, within the unique identity of the one God of Israel.”52 Paul believed in the divinity of Jesus. To make sense of this belief he seeks a new way to understand Jewish monotheism.53 In Rom 16:27 “the only wise God” is used along with Jesus Christ. Without distorting the Jewish monotheistic view Paul affirms in this doxological passage in his typical style that let there be glory to the one God through Jesus Christ. He does not make monotheism a point of dispute, rather he makes it an assumption, from which he builds his argument. Paul does not compromise his monotheistic conviction, even when he asserts the role of Christ most strongly. The oneness of God is made explicit in 3:30. It is therefore impossible to maintain that Paul opposing Jewish monotheism. Yet his purpose is not to argue for the oneness of God. Rather, it is to use this oneness to argue for the unity of Jews and Gentiles. Thus in 3:30, εἷς ὁ θεὸς (cf. 1 Cor 8:6; Gal 3:20) is used to defend against any possible ethnic differentiation among God’s people. This leads into the central section 3:2131, which demonstrates that all have sinned, but that God has manifested himself to all in Christ. He also states here, for God, “there is no distinction” (3:23). Paul is clear in his understanding of the oneness of God. Nicholson underlines this point as he writes: If Paul had wanted to avoid any misunderstandings, if he had wanted to preserve a strictly numerical understanding of the one God, he would have taken great care to avoid any confusion between God and Christ when making these formulations. Yet what we see in Paul’s writings is an affinity for blurring the lines between God and Christ.54

This foundational understanding of God offers the key to the meaning of the Christ-event. Jesus reveals God and, in doing so, defines him. Paul’s language in 3:21-31 does not subordinate Christ to God. Rather, Paul speaks of God and Christ in terms of similar functions and of similar

51

52

53 54

Gerald O’Collins and Daniel Kendall, TheBibleforTheology:TenPrinciplesforthe TheologicalUseofScripture (New York: Paulist, 1997), 46. Richard Bauckham, JesusandtheGodofIsrael:GodCrucifiedandOtherStudieson the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), ix. Cf. Nicholson, DynamicOneness, 19. Nicholson, DynamicOneness, 23.

78

CHAPTER TWO

roles.55 Christ is not presented over and against the God of Israel, but as the representation of, as the unique revelation of, that same God. Thus for Paul, “God’s defining moment is found in the identity and activity of Christ.”56 The functions that Jesus exercises are the divine functions intrinsic to God.57 It is his conviction that in and through Christ God has had mercy upon all (11:32) that for Paul demonstrates God’s impartiality.58 Indeed there are times, especially when he speaks of Jesus as the instrument of God, when Paul seems to distinguish the functions of the Father from those of the Son. Yet he does not seem to view this as affecting their unity. Bauckham brings this point home when he points to both similarity and difference between Rom 11:36 and 1 Cor 8:6.59 In Rom 11:36 we read of God that ‘from him and through him and to him are all things,’ while in 1 Cor 8:6, the same statement is applied to God the creator (from and for) and Christ the mediator (through). Thus, all things are from and for or to God, but all things are through Christ. In Bauckham’s opinion “Paul’s reformulation in 1Cor 8:6 includes Christ in this exclusively divine work of creation by giving to him the role of instrumental cause.”60 That Paul can speak interchangeably of the roles ascribed to God and to Christ shows that he makes no essential distinction between them. Similarly, the oneness of God is alluded to in Rom 10:12. Here Jesus’ divine identity is stressed, without distorting the monotheistic concerns. As Bauckham notes, “it is not plausible that, where Paul takes the kurios of the Septuagint to refer to Jesus, he is not aware that kurios is functioning as a reverential substitute for the divine name.”61 Just like in 3:30, here too Paul can assert the unity of Jews and Gentiles because there is only one Lord. Rowe puts it well: “Paul’s God and the God of Israel are the same God only if YHWH is so identified with Jesus and Jesus with YHWH that the first two commandments are not violated.”62 E. P Sanders’ statement about Paul that “from him we learn nothing new or remarkable about God,”63 serves to underline Paul’s 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

63

Cf. Nicholson, DynamicOneness, 169. Nicholson, DynamicOneness, 245 (italics original). Cf. Bauckham, JesusandtheGod, x. Cf. Thompson, “Mercy upon all,” 215. See Bauckham, JesusandtheGod, 29. Bauckham, JesusandtheGod, 29. Bauckham, JesusandtheGod, 190. C. Kavin Rowe, “Romans 10:13: What is the Name of the Lord?,” HBT 22 (2000): 135-173, here 171. Sanders, PaulandPalestinianJudaism, 509.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

79

monotheism. Again we see how difficult it would be to make a clear separation between God and Jesus in Romans. It is therefore not difficult to understand why Paul calls Christ ‘God’ in 9:5, which in the NRSV is translated as: “To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever.” It is much discussed whether blessing here is attributed to Christ or to God. Whereas a period after “the Messiah” makes the following phrase a benediction of God, a comma makes Θεός into a predication of Christ. Some scholars have argued that this cannot be a predication of Christ, because it is unparalleled and odd.64 However, recent scholarship finds support for reading ὁ ὢν as referring back to Christ.65 Flebbe, for example, argues that Θεός here “sich über einen Relativsatz auf Christus bezieht.”66 A recent dissertation by George Carraway argues that 9:5 communicates Paul’s confession, that Christ is God over all.67 This may be the only example in the undisputed Pauline letters of Jesus being called ‘God,’ and the earliest example of that usage in the NT. This is not the place for a thorough exegetical analysis of this text. The theology of Romans can accommodate such a position. If we follow the logic of Paul’s argument, we should not be surprised that he does not explain why he calls Christ ‘God.’ In Romans, believing in Christ is the same as believing in God. As Michel rightly notes, “Der Glaube an Jesus ist die durch Kreuz und Auferstehung geborene Form des Glaubens an Gott.”68 In Romans, therefore, the oneness of God is an assumption, not an argument. 2.2.5 References to the Death of Jesus The way in which the death of Jesus is construed in Romans also emphasizes its theocentricity. Yet others have drawn a christocentric conclusion 64

65

66 67

68

Among others, Wilckens, Römer, 189; Byrne, Romans, 288; Lohse, DerBriefandie Römer, 269-270; Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 353-355. Among others, C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 464470; Fitzmyer, Romans, 548; Moo, EpistletotheRomans, 565-568; Matera, Romans, 221; Wright, PaulandtheFaithfulnessofGod, 707-708. Flebbe, SolusDeus, 270. George Carraway, ChristisGodOverAll:Romans9:5intheContextofRomans9-11, LNTS 489 (London-New York: Bloomsbury), 2013, 2. He argues that an examination of the wider context, overall argument and the key texts in Romans 9-11 “suggests the correct reading of 9:5b is that he [Paul] asserted that Christ is God over all; that is, he is the God of Israel.” Michel, DerBriefandieRömer, 277.

80

CHAPTER TWO

from the same references. Thus Fitzmyer sees Paul’s basic teaching as “christocentric soteriology.”69 But the key question is: how is the salvific role of Christ described, how is his death theologically interpreted in Romans? Some atonement theories seem to place Christ’s work over against God. Thus propitiation theories see Christ’s death as changing God’s mind; theories of substitution and ‘Christus Victor’ emphasise the human face of Christ who dies on our behalf; the sacrificial reading, likewise. In doing so, they support a christocentric interpretation of the death of Christ. The theology of the cross is often considered as one of the characteristic features of Romans. Close examination of the passages that speak of Jesus’ death, however, show them to be theocentric. “Handed over (to death)” (4:25) and “death of his Son” (5:10) stress divine activity. The other references to the death of Christ, in 3:21-26; 5:1-11; 6:3-11 and 8:31-38, also turn out to be theocentric. Schnelle observes: “Cross has God as its exclusive acting subject throughout. God acts in his own initiative at the cross and incorporates humanity into this event without any activity or previous achievement from human side.”70 For the moment it must suffice to say that we believe that Romans can be shown to emphasize not the death of Christ in itself, but the work of God in the death of Christ. Our reasons for doing so will become clear in detail as the study progresses. Emphasis on the faithfulness of Christ unto death is not characteristic of Romans. Although such emphasis correctly portrays salvation as flowing from the believers’ participation in Christ, it does not really come to the fore in Romans. Romans does not refer directly to Jesus’ life, teaching, or miracles. Thus Nicholson states: “Although Paul emphasizes repeatedly the importance of Christ’s death, he does not discuss the historical details themselves or describe in any depth the steps that Jesus took in his earthly life to be faithful to God. Such lack of explication is hard to fathom if Paul had wanted to emphasize Jesus’s faithfulness.”71 It is not Christ’s faithfulness, but God’s faithfulness or salvific plan that is expressed in and through Jesus’ death. It is important to grasp this point so that we do not read a christology into the letter.

69 70

71

See Fitzmyer, PaulandHisTheology, 36-70. Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 450. A similar view can be seen in L. Ann Jervis, “Divine Retribution in Romans,” Int 69 (2015) 323-337, esp. 333. Nicholson, DynamicOneness, 196.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

81

Our theocentric reading sees the death of Christ as an expression of God’s love for his people. It sees atonement in Romans as the result of God’s love and mercy in Christ. This view is clearly presented in Rom 5:6-11. Although 5:10 speaks of ‘enemies,’ the focus is on God’s love (5:5) as shown in Christ’s death (5:6, 8). In this passage it is clearly God who is doing the reconciling, in and through Christ. God’s giving his Son for us is the guarantee for his love (5:8-10; 8:32). Clearly God is the initiator of human redemption by his action in and through Christ. Paul’s soteriological principle is stated in 10:9: “If you profess with your lips that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Unlike the christocentric descriptions of Jesus’ death in Eph 2:16 and Col 1:22, in Romans Jesus’ death is depicted in the framework of God’s love. 2.2.6 Arguments Based on Scripture Paul’s way of using Scripture in Romans also highlights its theocentricity. Since the rise of the New Perspective, there has been renewed interest in Paul’s use of Scripture. Following this path, we argue that Paul’s terminology and concepts in Romans are not to be primarily understood through a Hellenistic background. Rather, we maintain that Paul’s terminology and concepts are to be understood from the paradigm of Scripture. This is made especially evident by the constant citation in Romans of the Scriptures in support of the argument. Flebbe also underlines this fact by noting “wie Paulus jeweils mit “Schrift und Tradition” arbeitet und wie seine Aussagen sich zu diesen verhalten.”72 On the one hand, this shows the continuity in Paul’s understanding of God. On the other hand, as we have seen, it complicates his understanding of Christ. The manner in which Paul carefully enlists the OT to substantiate his arguments is a distinguishing feature of Romans. His partner in dialogue is neither a contemporary person nor a crisis situation, but Scripture itself. So Paul begins his letter by stating that the gospel that he preaches is long ago promised by the prophets in Sacred Scripture (1:2); he announces his theme in 1:16-17 by citing Hab 2:4; his teachings, according to 3:21, are “attested by the law and the prophets”; the Abraham and Genesis story is used to highlight the importance of justification by trusting in God, with the citation of Gen 15:6 in 4:3 playing a central role. These are only a few of the examples of Paul using Scripture. His 72

Flebbe, SolusDeus, 18.

82

CHAPTER TWO

quotation of Scripture and his repeated allusions to it point to continuity rather than rupture with Judaism. Paul’s use of Scripture in Romans throws light on his understanding of Christ. Most significant is the way in which Romans cites and alludes to OT texts that refer to God. David Capes’ study of the Yahweh texts shows that out of 14 Pauline citations seven refer to God while the other seven refer to Christ.73 Based on this analysis he concludes that the “evidence from Paul’s letters and particularly his use of Yahweh texts suggest that he identifies Jesus as Yahweh manifest.”74 It is important to understand this framework of Pauline understanding of God and Christ. Another scholar who studies this issue, Francis Watson, argues that Paul’s starting point is not his own christological convictions; rather it is Scripture itself that provides the matrix for his christological formulations. Thus Watson writes: “The Christ who sheds light on scripture is also and above all the Christ on whom scripture simultaneously sheds its own light.”75 This may show us that what Paul wants to teach about Christ is in continuity with the Scriptures. The quotation of Joel 2:32 in 10:13 deserves special attention. It is the climax of Paul’s argument in 10:1-13. Here a text that originally refers to God is applied to Christ. C. Kavin Rowe’s recent study argues that it “eliminates the possibility of thinking of the God of Israel, YHWH, as apart from the human being Jesus. This unitive relationship is dialectical and hinges in fact on unreserved identification of one with the other as well on clear differentiation.”76 This shows the continuity between the two testaments and has significant implications for Paul’s view of Christ. Hence Paul’s use of the Scripture illumines his broader understanding of God. 2.3 PAUL’S THEOCENTRIC ARGUMENT IN ROMANS 1-3 An important point of our argument in the previous section was how God is central in the letter to the Romans. We now consider the question of the theocentricity of the first three chapters of Romans. Although studies on the theology of Romans deal with 3:1-8, Paul’s theocentric argument 73

74 75 76

David Capes, OldTestamentYahwehTextsinPaul’sChristology, WUNT 2, 47 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 160. Capes, YahwehTexts, 183. Francis Watson, PaulandtheHermeneuticsofFaith (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 17. Rowe, “Romans 10:13,” 136-137.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

83

in the whole of these chapters has not been a topic of serious research. What is the central theme that guides Paul’s argument in the first three chapters of Romans? These chapters are often discussed with regard to ‘justification by faith,’ which for many is central to Paul’s theology. Accordingly, these chapters have been regarded as anthropocentric, built up around the themes of universal sinfulness and justification of humans by faith. Our main thesis is that Romans 1-3 is theocentric. It is so because these chapters direct our attention to God, albeit the God who is concerned about human beings. As we have seen above, there is a high word frequency of Θεός in Romans 1-3. It is here that we find Paul’s understanding of God, the understanding that he then uses in his argument for the unity of Jews and Gentiles. Since these chapters are laying the foundations of the argument of the whole of Paul’s letter, we need to pay attention to the central focus and teaching of this section. Further, we must differentiate Paul’s theological assumptions from his argument. It is partly because Paul’s God-concept is often considered as one of his assumptions that the theocentricity of his argument in Romans 1-3 is neglected. We shall show that whereas the existence of God and the oneness of God belong among Paul’s assumptions, the nature of God and of his concern for humanity are central to his argument in these chapters. We therefore begin by examining the theme of Romans 1-3. This will show how these chapters lead in different directions depending on where we locate its centre of gravity. We shall propose that Paul’s argument is essentially theocentric and that his central theme is God’s justice. We shall then contribute to research on these chapters by showing how Paul characterises God in them. 2.3.1 The Theme of Romans 1-3 The effort to identify the precise theme of Romans 1-3 can lead in different directions. This is partly because of the difficulty of establishing the coherence of the argument of the chapters, a difficulty that has led a number of commentators to the conclusion that Paul is not consistent in his argument.77 Thus Douglas A. Campbell argues that Rom 1:18-3:20 77

See Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 151; Wilckens, Römer, 247; Moo, Epistletothe Romans, 140-141; Roland Bergmeier, DasGesetzimRömerbriefundandereStudien zumNeuenTestament, WUNT 121 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 42.

84

CHAPTER TWO

does not contain Paul’s view of things, but rather the ideas of JudeoChristian teachers who oppose Paul.78 To accommodate the various themes that are to be found in these chapters, most scholars have considered Romans 1-3 to be addressing a broad theme of “universal sinfulness”79 or an “indictment of humankind.”80 Paul’s statement in 3:9 that he has “already charged all” is taken as a reference to 1:18-3:8.81 The focus on “human sinfulness” in 1:18-3:20 then leads to an anthropocentric reading of 3:21-31 that focuses on “justification by faith.” This interpretive strategy has not been without its critics in recent research. Klyne R. Snodgrass who argues that “vindication of God” is its central theme points out that “the usual explanation that it deals with the sinfulness of Jews and Gentiles is a distortion of 1:18-3:8.”82 He is right to observe that unrighteousness and injustice raise questions about God himself. Thus the question is whether God can ignore sin and be unfaithful. To clarify this he adds that God’s revelation in Christ and the gospel is the commencement of the end-time vindication. “If proving all humans are sinners were Paul’s point, it is strange that ἁμαρτία and its cognates hardly appear before 3:9. Nor did Paul charge every Jew with gross transgression in 2:17-24.”83 He sees human sinfulness as an assumption, moreover an assumption that is not directly discussed until 3:9-29. He concludes therefore that Paul presents a vindication of God with a view to clarifying the righteousness of God. Snodgrass makes a valid point regarding the neglect of God in this section, but he too easily discards Paul’s apparent discussion of humans. Jouette M. Bassler also challenges the traditional understanding. She argues that divine impartiality is the fundamental theological argument 78 79

80 81

82

83

Campbell, QuestforPaul’sGospel, 246-257. Among those who follow this line of thought are: Frederick Fyvie Bruce, TheEpistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Leicester: IVP, 1979), 87; Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 137-139; Fitzmyer, Romans, 270; Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 33; Schreiner, Romans, 81, 102; Gary W. Burnett, Paul & SalvationoftheIndividual (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 157. Dunn, TheologyofPaul, 111-114. See, for example, Murray, Romans, 102; Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 69. Wendy Dabourne, Purpose and Cause in Pauline Exegesis: Romans 1.16-4.25 and a New Approach to the Letters, SNTS MS 104 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 13-14, notes that the driving question in ‘justification by faith’ is not whether God is righteous, but how human beings can be righteous before God. In his view, 1:18-3:20 is not a demonstration of ‘all have sinned,’ rather “it shows what sin is, and how sin distorts even the gift of grace, election, into a possession.” (p. 25). Klyne R. Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace – To the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul,” NTS 32 (1986): 72-93, esp. 76. Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace,” 76.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

85

in Romans 1-3,84 with 1:16-2:10 building up to its conclusion in 2:11. In her view, this “serves as the thematic introduction to the subsequent argument (2:12-29), which emphasizes the equality of Jews and Gentiles before God’s tribunal even with the revelation of the Law.”85 She is right when she notes that this goes along with the similar statement of impartiality in 3:9, 10. Yet important as this theme may be, it does not do justice to the more recurrent themes of Romans 1-3, to argue that the central theme of the chapters is contained in these two statements alone. In his efforts to refute the above arguments, Richard H. Bell tries to re-establish the traditional Protestant reading of the chapters. He refutes Snodgrass by arguing that although ἁμαρτία and its cognates are not frequent, yet it is everywhere clear that Paul is talking about sin. For him the “argument of 1:18-3:20 concerns the universal sinfulness of humankind. Paul wishes to prove that all, Jews and Gentiles, will be condemned on the day of judgment.”86 Rom 1:18-3:20 is then a preparation for what Paul has to say about justification by faith. Moreover Bell considers that to take “God’s impartiality” as the key theme, as does Bassler, is to distort the text. That everyone needs righteousness, which can be obtained only through faith, is much more fundamental to Romans 1-3.87 Our theocentric reading of these chapters will be in dialogue with Bell’s anthropocentric reading. Peter Spitaler’s synergetic reading strategy makes trust and justice into the outer frame of the chapters, and sinning and justice into their inner frame.88 He observes that the traditional reading deduces “an essential anthropological state, sinfulness, from [a theological argument]”89 and is therefore hypothetical. In his view, 2:13 (doers of law will be justified) is contrary to 3:10 (no one is righteous). The theme of universal sinfulness “encourages some to classify content fictional or factual, such classification efforts remain ambiguous because they are influenced by the interpreter’s understanding of the thematic composition of Romans 84

85 86

87 88

89

Jouette M. Bassler, “Divine Impartiality in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” NovT 26 (1984): 43-58. Bassler, “Divine Impartiality,” 53. Richard H. Bell, No One Seeks for God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans1:18-3:20, WUNT 106 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 11. Bell, NoOneSeeksforGod, 3. Peter Spitaler, “An Integrative, Synergistic Reading of Romans 1-3,” BibInt 19 (2011): 33-77, esp. 51-52. For a summary of his earlier argument on this issue, see Peter Spitaler, Universale Sünde von Juden und Heiden?: Eine Untersuchung zu Römer 1,18-3,20, FB 109 (Würzburg: Echter, 2006), 177-184. Spitaler, “An Integrative, Synergistic Reading,” 47.

86

CHAPTER TWO

1-3.”90 Those who hold such a view arrive at a general conclusion by overemphasizing the phrases “just one” in 1:17 and “no one is righteous” in 3:10. However, in his view, the purpose of this section is to make Christ’s coming meaningful for both Jews and Gentiles. Taking on the method of enunciation, Alain Gignac finds many discourses in Romans 1-3 that are juxtaposed: God’s wrath (1:18-32); God’s impartial judgement (2:1-29); challenges to God’s justice, truthfulness and faithfulness (3:1-9); God’s case against a monstrous humankind (3:920); and the strange manifestation of God’s justice (3:21-26).91 In his view, the “multiplicity of voices sustains interest and animates the text, but also destabilizes the reader through its presentation of many facets of God and many concepts of God’s justice, as in a cubist artwork.”92 What we observe in the forgoing analysis is that scholarly perceptions of the centre of these chapters drastically affect their understanding of Paul’s argument. Moreover, many studies seek to establish one position by completely refuting another. So any weight given to theocentric reading is seen as undermining anthropological concerns, while those who argue for the anthropological reading do not give due wait to the statements about God. We shall consider two sections within the first three chapters that create problems for either of the above interpretations. 2.3.1.1 TheProblemofAnthropocentricityofRomans2 When we discuss the coherence of Romans 1-3, chapter 2 raises problems. Paul’s long description of the sins and injustice of both Gentiles and Jews in this chapter makes it particularly difficult for those who challenge the anthropological reading of these chapters. Whereas many consider it as a separate unit that begins to treat the issue of the Jews,93 some consider it as the continuation of Paul’s description of universal sinfulness.94 In any case, the main concern of this chapter is considered anthropological. Watson finds Romans 2 to be a stumbling block for the

90 91

92 93

94

Spitaler, “An Integrative, Synergistic Reading,” 45. Alain Gignac, “The Enunciative Device of Romans 1:18-4:25: A Succession of Discourses Attempting to Express the Multiple Dimensions of God’s Justice,” CBQ 77 (2015), 481-502, esp. 489. Gignac, “The Enunciative Device,” 501. See Dunn, Romans1-8, 78; Fitzmyer, Romans, 297; Moo, EpistletotheRomans, 125; Matera, Romans, 57. They observe that Paul shifts from the use of third person to second person reference in Rom 2:1 is an indication of a separate unit. Cf. Lohse, DerBriefandieRömer, 97; Lee, Paul‘sGospelinRomans, 99.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

87

Lutheran interpretation of Paul.95 To address this difficulty, various solutions have been put forward: (1) O’Neill considers the whole of chapter 2 as an interpolation,96 (2) the Tübingen school considered it to be Paul’s attack on Jewish Christians;97 (3) Sanders argues that Romans 2 goes against Paul’s theology. In his opinion “if there is any passage in Paul that is aberrant, it is Rom. 2:12-16.”98 (4) Lietzmann argues that Paul must here be speaking hypothetically.99 These opinions show how Romans 2 coloured the anthropocentric interpretation that follows. Attention was long centred on 2:6-16 and on the tension between justification by works and justification by grace. It is sometimes argued that 2:13 (“the doers of the law will be justified”)100 does not fit the overall context. Yet judgment on the basis of works is basic to Judaism and Paul can be seen as projecting here “essentially a Jewish view of judgment, but one that is radicalized and applied to both Jew and Gentile.”101 Bell argues that “Romans 2, correctly understood in the context 1.18-3.20, does not contradict this statement. Justification is solagratia, solafide, propterChristum.”102 We state the problem here while postponing discussion in detail until later. Nevertheless as Snodgrass observes, Romans 2 has not always received adequate attention because it becomes “lost in the shuffle as people move quickly from the description of human sin in 1:18f. to the proclamation of the righteousness of God in 3:21f.”103 It clearly raises difficult issues. It has been remarked that many commentaries and studies have spent more time “explaining the text away than explaining it.”104

95

96 97

98 99

100

101 102 103 104

Cf. Francis Watson, Paul,JudaismandtheGentiles:ASociologicalApproach, SNTS MS 56 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), chapter 6. See O’Neill, Paul’sLettertotheRomans, 40, 264-265. See Richard Adalbert Lipsius, BriefeandieGalater,Römer,Philipper, HNT 2 (Freiburg: Mohr, 1892), 81; Emil Weber, Die Beziehungen von Röm. 1-3 zur MissionspraxisbeiPaulus, BFCT 4 (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1905), 21-23. See also the discussion on the issue in Bell, NoOneSeeksforGod, 132, note 5. Sanders, PaulandPalestinianJudaism, 516. Hans Lietzmann, Einführung in die Textgeschichte der Paulusbriefe an die Römer, HNT 8 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933), 39-40. For example, Pelagius asked if God’s saving justice is provided only when humans act morally in order to gain this reward. See Theodore De Bruyn, Pelagius’Commentary onSt.Paul’sEpistletotheRomans, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 72. Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace,” 78. Bell, NoOneSeeksforGod, 275. Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace,” 72. Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace,” 73.

88

CHAPTER TWO

Later in this chapter we will show how well Romans 2 fits the theocentric thrust of chapters 1-3.105 Seen from a broader perspective it becomes clear that the development of the argument is not anthropocentric. Rather, Paul is concerned with how God handles human injustice and sin, arguing that God does not merely disregard human sins (1:1832), or close his eyes to sin and injustice, but judges each on the basis of works (2:1-29). God’s justice prevails, despite human injustice. Paul is “correlating positive and negative expressions of human conduct with positive and negative responses by God.”106 This shows the difficulty of a single, negative, anthropological interpretation of these chapters as “universal sinfulness.” Rather, we should see how Paul skilfully interweaves many themes that are primarily concerned with revealing the character of God. Paul’s concern in this chapter is not so much with people as with seeing them inrelationtoGod. The question that Paul is addressing is how God, being just, can deal with the sins and injustice of the people. Nothing is gained by isolating chapter 2 from chapters 1 and 3. Thus 1:182:16, which describes how the Gentiles have broken away from the relationship with God, and 2:17-3:3 which shows how the Jews have also broken away from the relationship with God, together raise the primary question of God’s justice in the context of injustice and sin. It is important therefore to pay attention to Paul’s repeated use of the verb κρίνω and the noun κρίμα in 2:1-5 and 16. Thus 2:2 (“God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth”) and the mention of God’s ἀνοχή in 2:4 are significant. The concept of impartiality introduced in Rom 2:11, plays a significant role right through the argument of Romans 1-3. 2.3.1.2 TheFunctionofRom3:1-8 Rom 3:1-8 is another important passage that has generated considerable attention. This passage is evidently theocentric. Every verse in 3:2-7 mentions God at least once. It is therefore a stumbling block in the way of those who argue that chapters 1-3 is anthropocentric. We shall deal with many of the concepts used in Rom 3:1-8 in the following sections. Here we shall highlight some of the issues in this text.

105 106

See section 2.3.2, pp. 81-89. Spitaler, “An Integrative, Synergistic Reading,” 64.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

89

The exegetical difficulty of Rom 3:1-8 is clear. Hall describes it as “one of the most puzzling passages in the epistle.”107 The difficulty is not merely to understand what it says, but to grasp its function in the argument of the chapter and of the letter as a whole. Since this unit contains a series of questions and answers, it is argued that Paul imagines a debate with a Jewish interlocutor.108 Stowers has questioned this reading and has suggested that it is a diatribe, thereby reading this text as a dialogical exchange.109 Dodd goes so far as to say that “the argument of the epistle would go much better if this whole section would be omitted.”110 Richard H. Bell does not go quite so far, but still he argues that in 3:1-8 Paul has “moved away from his main theme.”111 In other words, he sees the verses as a digression. However, much recent scholarship has seen these verses as containing the key to understanding Romans. Thus Dunn calls it a “railway junction.”112 Many recent commentaries explicitly deny the claim that it is a digression.113 Lohse, for example, categorically refutes any digression as he writes: “Obwohl die Form, in der die Einwände aufgeführt und wiederlegt werden, sich von der bisherigen Redeweise unterscheidet, liegt nicht eine Abschweifung vor.”114 Hays argues that the question raised in 3:1-8 (whether “God has abandoned his promises to Israel”) is answered in 3:21-26.115 Cranfield connects this text to what was going on before: “The question raised is nothing less than the question of the credibility of God.”116 It is not just the identity of the Jews, but God’s trustworthiness that is at stake. This becomes clear from the four questions and answers to be found successively in 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 7-8. Each question here receives an answer, mostly drawn from Jewish tradition, 107 108 109

110 111 112 113

114 115

116

David R. Hall, “Romans 3. 1-8 Reconsidered,” NTS 29 (1983): 183-197, esp.183. Cf. Matera, Romans, 79-80. Stanley Kent Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, SBL DS 57 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981), 122-123. This suggestion was supported by Byrne, Romans, 107-111; Leander E. Keck, Romans ANTC (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2005), 89-94; Matera, Romans, 78-80. In their opinion, the form of diatribe here is the continuation of 2:1-5 and 2:17-24. Dodd, Romans, 46. Bell, NoOneSeeksforGod, 209. Dunn, Romans1-8, 130. See for example, Fitzmyer, Romans, 325; Haacker, Römer, 80-81 and Matera, Romans, 79-80. Lohse, DerBriefandieRömer, 115. Cf. Richard B. Hays, “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3,” JBL 99 (1980): 107115, esp.108. Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 177.

90

CHAPTER TWO

concerning the character of God. Flebbe argues that these verses contain a significant and decisive part of Paul’s argument,117 indispensable to the argument of chapters 1-2, especially through the conclusion contained in 3:9. So far we have seen difficulties of coherence in the first three chapters of Romans. Those who follow a traditional interpretation of “universal sinfulness” have found it difficult to give an adequate exegesis of 3:1-8. Others have found it difficult to address the apparently anthropological concerns of Romans 2. Now we move on to our own suggestion. 2.3.1.3 God’sJusticeastheCentralTheme Our thesis is that God’s justice is the central theme of Romans 1-3. This is theocentric. It will help us see the coherence of its argument. In the following section we give a detailed sketch of the picture of God as understood by Paul in Romans 1-3. This makes it clear how central this picture is to Paul’s argument. We will show that Paul’s rhetorical questions about God, in particular the use he makes of God’s δικαιοσύνη (3:5), God’s πίστις (3:3) and ἀλήθεια (3:7) are related to the justice of God. For the moment our purpose is only to show how Paul’s words relate to the justice of God. If we call this the central theme, we still admit that not everything is completely related to it. Our point is to show just how much does indeed relate to the justice of God. We begin by making clear what we mean by God’s justice. Karl Kertelge helpfully distinguishes between what he calls the Hebrew and the Greek understandings of justice.118 In his view, the key difference is that the Hebrews understanding of justice as relational, whereas the 117

118

Flebbe, SolusDeus, 21. Flebbe considers that the central axiom is the categorical difference between God and humans. This difference has to be kept in mind in all discussions so that argument may not go in the wrong direction. See Karl Kertelge, „δικαιοσύνη,“ in EDNT 1 (1990): 325-330, esp. 326. See also a similar distinction in Dunn, TheologyofPaul, 341. This clear dichotomy between the Hebrew and Greek thinking might be called into question. Ultimately, it is not important whether we can label them as Hebrew or Greek. What is important is that there are understanding of justice that is more focused on norm or law and there is other concept of justice that is more relational. This emphasis on the relational understanding of justice seems to be very helpful for our study, especially to understand Paul and his understanding of God in Romans. This relational understanding is underlined in Louw and Nida’s definition of δικαιόω: “to cause someone to be in a proper or right relation with someone else, to put right with, and to cause to be in a right relationship with” 1:452. We shall deal with this issue in detail when we study δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in our fourth chapter.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

91

Greeks understand it as reflecting norms. Thus under the Hebrew understanding of justice, someone is just if they are faithful to the relationship, while under Greek justice the key lies in following the given norm. Although one can be guilty and deserving of punishment under both concepts, in Greek understanding justice means only to punish those who are guilty and vindicate those who are not guilty. We argue that it is the relational understating of justice that underlies Paul’s argument in Romans 1-3. To be just is to be faithful to the underlying relationship, in this case between God and his people. Actions that enhance the friendship, the love in the relationship, are just. We consider that bringing in this insight into our understanding of the justice of God helps us grasp how God can be loving and just at the same time. The love and the justice are two sides of the same coin. It is of these two sides, these two different epochs of God’s justice, that Paul speaks in Romans 1-3. In general, 1:18-3:20 describes how God’s justice prevailed in relation to the law. In addition, it is the epoch of God’s compassionate justice that is highlighted in 1:16-17 and 3:2131.119 Whereas the former embraces God’s distributive justice, the latter is based on God’s unconditional love. God’s relational justice is presented as impartial not only in the epoch of distributive justice (2:6-11) but also in the epoch of compassionate justice (3:22-24). The rare compound δικαιοκρισία, found in 2:5, is a broader term for God’s just judgment.120 Paul uses it to speak of the punitive aspect of justice, along with ὀργὴ θεοῦ (1:18; 2:8). The forbearance of God’s justice towards humanity is expressed by God’s ἀνοχή in 2:4 and 3:26. Paul uses δικ- words, the verb κρίνω and the noun κρίμα prominently in Romans 1-3.121 These are directly related to justice, as are words from 119

120

121

In treating the story of Abraham, Paul describes God’s mercy (ch. 4) by drawing from Genesis 15-18. In Romans 5 too, God’s mercy in and through Jesus is highlighted. A lengthy description of God’s mercy towards Israel and Gentiles is found in 9:1-11:36. John Reumann, “Righeousness,” in ABD5 (1992): 742-745, esp. 765, notes the difference between God’s δικαιοκρισία, just judgment that affects the wicked and God’s δικαιοσύνη, by which he justifies the sinner. The concrete relationship of these terms to God’s justice will be studied in detail in the fourth chapter. Recently, Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 958-959, argued that justification is juridical in the sense that it is the pronouncement of a verdict. For him it “is the declaration of the one God.” Refuting him on this point, David I. Strarling, “Covenants and Courtrooms, Imputation and Imitation: Righteousness and Justification in Paul and the Faithfulness of God,” JSPL 4 (2014): 37-48 (esp. 42-44), argues that Paul has an ethical dimension in mind when he speaks about justification.

92

CHAPTER TWO

the semantic field of justice: judge, to judge, judgment; wrath; vengeance; justice; just; description of great judgment.122 The use of these words reinforces the importance of ‘justice’ which, because of its relational nature, is also related to human sin and trust. Thus Paul is not looking at justice as a characteristic of God alone, but as a characteristic of his relationship with humanity. However, being just, God’s judgment is impartial (2:11) in contrast to that of humanity (2:1, 3). Those who do evil are not in a just relationship with God (2:8, 9, 12, 13). This helps us grasp the coherence of Paul’s argument in chapters 1-3, since God’s δικαιοσύνη and human πίστις are main themes of its climatic section, 3:21-31. In short, a relational understanding of God’s justice in Romans 1-3 enables us to pull together various themes that otherwise seem incoherent. We shall now turn to the characterisation of God in Romans 1-3, which will show not only the prominence of God in those chapters, but also how other concepts are discussed in relation to God’s justice. 2.3.2 The Characterisation of God in Romans 1-3 In this section, we will show how Paul characterises God in Romans 1-3. By this, we mean the way in which God is described from a narrativecritical viewpoint. To our knowledge, no one has previously systematically studied how Paul does this. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the narrative features of Paul’s letters, because of the realisation that they “do not simply offer independent snippets of ‘truth’ or isolated gems of logic, but are discursive exercises that explicate a narrative about God’s saving involvement in the world.”123 Grasping the narrative elements of Pauline theology will help clarify and rethink many of debated issues in Romans.124 122

123

124

Cf. Neyrey, RendertoGod, 116, argues however for a norm-oriented justice and judgment. He considers that 1:19-2:3 is constructed in the pattern of lex talionis or in the pattern of “crime and punishment.” Bruce W. Longenecker, “Narrative Interest in the Study of Paul,” in NarrativeDynamicsinPaul:ACriticalAssessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2002), 3-16, esp. 4. Until the last two decades, the dominant view, as Christian J. Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1984), 353, expressed it, was that “Paul is a man of preposition, the argument and the dialogue, not a man of the parable or story.” However, recent scholarship shows itself increasingly open to the possibility that Paul’s discourses are formed by an underlying narrative. See, for example, N. T. Wright, “New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Structure of Romans 3-8,” in RomansandthePeopleofGod:EssaysinHonorofGordon

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

93

This insight, that letters have stories, calls on us to discern their narrative patterns and the substructure of Paul’s discourse.125 We argue that Romans, especially chapters 1-3, is the story of God. Narrative analysis then invites us to ask of these chapters: What is said about God? What kind of God is this? What verbs does Paul use when God is the agent and recipient of the actions? How is this story used to shape his core argument? Our purpose is to show how the characterisation implied by the answers to such questions helps us to understand the role God plays in the unfolding of the narrative of these chapters. In this way, we aim to investigate how God’s role is normatively constructed in these chapters. God is the primary ‘character’ in Paul’s story. Paul’s words reveal how he understands God’s character. In sharing God’s story, he discloses the character of God as he understands it from the Hebrew Scriptures and his own experience. The place of humanity and of Christ in this story helps us see how Paul understands the character of God. Paul makes a number of explicit statements about God and presupposes others. At times, he alludes to commonly held views of God. He can do this because he is writing to a community of believers. Even his non-Jewish readers probably sympathize with Judaism and he can presuppose that, at least to some extent, they share the same story of God. Before entering the details of Paul’s story of God in Romans 1-3, we need to recall that a characterisation of God may differ from that of other

125

D.FeeontheOccasionofhis65thBirthday, ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 26-36; Katherine A. Grieb, The Story of Romans:ANarrativeDefenseofGod’sRighteousness (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002); Bruce W. Longenecker, “Sharing in Their Spiritual Blessings? The Stories of Israel in Galatians and Romans,” in NarrativeDynamicsinPaul:ACritical Assessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2002), 58-85; Douglas A. Campbell, “The Story of Jesus in Romans and Galatians,” in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2002), 97-125; A more recent narrative approach to two major sections in Romans (5-8 and 12-15) is: Corneliu Constantineanu, TheSocialSignificanceofReconciliationinPaul’sTheology:NarrativeReadings inRomans, LNTS 421 (London: Clark, 2010), 99-180. Cf. Hays, FaithofJesusChrist, 5. In his view Paul’s arguments are constructed upon ‘the story of Jesus Christ.’ Scholars have, however, warned against imposing a strict definition of the story and then try to fit Paul’s stories into an established form. See, James D.G Dunn, “The Narrative Approach to Paul: Whose Story?,” in Narrative DynamicsinPaul:ACriticalAssessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2002), 217-230, esp. 221; Constantineanu, Social Significance, 17-18.

94

CHAPTER TWO

actors in a story. Scholars have pointed out at least three challenges in the characterisation of God:126 (1) whereas readers normally know a character in a story through what the narrator tells them, most of Paul’s readers have a preconception of God; (2) when we talk about the God of the Bible, we do so without recourse to those details that normally enable a narrative character to emerge, such as appearance, speech, geographical location; and (3) unlike the development and change that human characters undergo in the Bible (and other literature), constancy is a distinctive feature of the character of God. We must always remember that our endeavour of characterisation of God is primarily a literary exercise and that the biblical presentation of God is in contrast to, or in analogy with human character. This is particularly important when we consider the characterisation of God in Romans 1-3. Here Paul presents God both as the one who relates to humans and as the one who is different from them. 2.3.2.1 NarrativeAnalysisofGod’sCharacterisationinRomans1-3 In this narrative analysis we will show how Paul tells the story of God from a relational perspective. Such relational perspectives are the distinctive features of Paul’s God-talk in Romans 1-3. The following charts show how God is used: (1) as the agent of the action, as the recipient of the action, and (2) other statements about God and other relationships and qualities of God. Apart from an analysis from a general relational perspective, we also examine the rhetorical questions that highlight the character of God by differentiating his nature from that of human beings. This helps us grasp a comprehensive view of Paul’s characterisation of God in Romans 1-3.

126

See Marianne Meye Thompson, “God’s Voice You Have Never Heard, God’s Form You have Never Seen: The Characterisation of God in the Gospel of John,” Semeia 63 (1993): 185-187. The three points described below are assimilated in the light of my reading her article. For a summary of her depiction of God in the gospel of John, see Marianne Meye Thompson, TheGodoftheGospelofJohn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 227-240.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

95

Analysis of the Use of ‘God’ in Romans 1-3: God as the Agent of the Action εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις (1:1-2) μάρτυς γάρ μού ἐστιν ὁ θεός (1:9) δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι (1:16) ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ θεου (1:18) ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν (1:19) παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς (1:24, 26, 28) τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ἐπὶ τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας (2:2) ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ (2:5) οὐ γάρ ἐστιν προσωπολημψία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ (2:11) κρίνει ὁ θεὸς τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (2:16) οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (2:29) μὴ ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν; (3:5) ἐπεὶ πῶς κρινεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον; (3:6) δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται (3:21) δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι (3:24) προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον (3:25) εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ (3:25) πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτου (3:26) δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ (3:26) ἢ Ἰουδαίων ὁ θεὸς μόνον; οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν; (3:29) ὃς δικαιώσει περιτομὴν ἐκ πίστεως καὶ ἀκροβυστίαν διὰ τῆς πίστεως (3:30)

God as the Recipient of the Action Πρῶτον μὲν εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1:8) ὁ θεός, ᾧ λατρεύω ἐν τῷ πνεύματί μου (1:9) διότι γνόντες τὸν θεὸν (1:21) οὐχ ὡς θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ ηὐχαρίστησαν (1:21) καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν θεὸν (1:28) οἵτινες τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες (1:32) σὺ ἐκφεύξῃ τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ (2:3) διὰ τῆς παραβάσεως τοῦ νόμου τὸν θεὸν ἀτιμάζεις (2:23) πρῶτον μὲν [γὰρ] ὅτι ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ (3:2) μὴ ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ καταργήσει; (3:3) οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν (3:11) οὐκ ἔστιν φόβος θεοῦ ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν (3:18) ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ (3:19)

96

CHAPTER TWO

Other Statements about God δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται (1:17) μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ (1:25) τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾽ ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (2:24) γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής (3:4) εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον (3:26) εἴπερ εἷς ὁ θεὸς (3:30)

Other Relationships or Qualities of God εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (1:1) υἱός θεοῦ (1:3, 4, 9) ἀγαπητός θεοῦ (1:7) εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ (1:7) εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (1:9) θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ (1:10) ἥ ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης (1:20) μακροθυμία θεοῦ (2:4) λόγιον τοῦ θεοῦ (3:2) Ἰουδαίων ὁ θεὸς (3:29) ἐθνῶν [ὁ θεὸς] (3:29)

These charts relate to explicit statements and phrases about God in the first three chapters of Romans that disclose a characterisation of God. It is not to be forgotten that there are other statements and expressions where God is implicitly the agent of the action or which are related to God. Our characterisation of God will also pay attention to these. God is overwhelmingly present in Romans 1-3. In these chapters, God is seen as active, rather than being the recipient of the action. In a sense, almost everything that Paul discusses in these chapters is related to God. Even when he speaks about human beings or Christ, he wants to show a kind of link it has with God. In that way, most things are related or connected to God. In the majority of these instances God is the subject. The most striking feature of Paul’s argument is that God is at the centre. There are many statements and expressions where God is explicitly the subject or the agent of the action. Verbs used to refer to the present, past and future activities of God often have humanity or Jesus as their object, or as the recipient of the action. The most frequent verbs with God as subject are ἀποκαλύπτω, φανερόω, κρίνω, δικαιόω, προεπαγγέλλω and παραδίδωμι. These are relational verbs, connecting God with his people. When God is the object of the sentence, with people including Paul as subject, the most prevalent verbs are also relational: εὐχαριστέω, γινώσκω, λατρεύω, δοξάζω, ἐκζητέω and ἀτιμάζω. Even in these instances, the relational verbs used show God in the central place. The use of these verbs underlines our main thesis that Romans 1-3 deals with God’s justice. Christ is never the subject of a sentence where God is the object.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

97

In the matrix of God’s justice, we can include a list of divine attributes in the second chart. As we found it useful to go by the content and meaning of the expressions in their contexts, we have included the subjective genitive expressions in the first category and the objective genitive in the second category in the first chart and all other statements and expressions are included in the second chart. Whereas a number of genitive constructions qualify God, few of these are directly about God. There are more genitive phrases where Θεός is the nomenrectum than where it is the nomen regens. This is in contrast to the later part of Romans, where we find many expressions in nomenregens: for example, ὁ θεὸς τῆς ὑπομονῆς (15:5); ὁ θεὸς τῆς ἐλπίδος (15:13); ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης (15:33; 16:20). The attributes of God that we saw in the chart are more or less in the same category. Even when God is in nomen rectum, it is about God, because, in most of these genitive expressions, God is in the subjective genitive. Thus, as the NRSV translations of these expressions convey, Paul is talking about God’s characteristics such as trustworthiness, kindness, truthfulness, wrath and justice. As these designations used for God and the genitive constructions show, the nature of God is one of the primary questions in this section. Whereas God’s δικαιοσύνη (3:5) has to be seen as the justice of God, other expressions about God’s πίστις (3:3) God’s ἀνοχή (in 2:4; 3:26) and God’s ἀλήθεια (3:7) God’s δόξα (1:23; 3:7, 23) are related to it. Later in this study, we shall see that the concepts of God’s πίστις and God’s ἀλήθεια are relational terms because of their Hebrew background. Thus, God’s trustworthiness is one of the most prevalent and most developed concepts here and, along with his truthfulness and justice, is presented in contrast to that of humanity. In the narrative construction, whereas the character of God does not change, humans do. Another notable feature of Romans 1-3, with its continuation in Romans 4, is the extensive uses of δικ- words compared to the rest of Romans and any other letter of Paul. God’s δικαιοσύνη (1:16; 3:5, 21-22, 25-26), δικαιόω/δίκαιος (3:4, 5, 24, 26, 30) and other cognates are often found in these chapters. This is a clear indication that the main theme of the letter is related to this concept. Since this is connected with the main thesis of our study, we will treat this point in detail the following chapters. In addition to the relational expressions in the chart we discussed above, a number of rhetorical questions in these chapters also reveal the character of God.

98

CHAPTER TWO

Do you imagine…, you will escape the judgment of God? (2:3) Do you despise the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience? (2:4, 5) Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? (Rom 2:4) Do you dishonour God by breaking the law? (2:23) Will their faithlessness nullify God’s faithfulness? (3:3) But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (3:5) For then how could God judge the world? (3:6) But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? (3:7) Is God the God of Jews only? (3:29) Is he not the God of Gentiles also? (3:29)

In the narrative sequence of Romans 1-3, as we see above, we come across many rhetorical questions. Paul employs these to address the core question of the nature of God. They highlight the theocentricity of Paul’s argument. Like many rhetorical questions, the question is false, for the expected answer is a simple ‘no.’ Sometimes Paul himself provides the ‘no.’ All these questions are meant to clarify the nature of God. Thus the questions “will their faithlessness nullify God’s faithfulness? (3:3) and “But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (3:5)” is answered immediately: “By no means.” In addition, we find a few questions expecting the answer ‘yes.’ Thus, at 3:29 Paul asks: “Is God the God of Jews only?” (This objection is raised because of the previous statement about God’s preference: “Jews first” (2:9), while at 2:29 he adds: “Is he not the God of Gentiles also?”) His answer is a categorical ‘Yes.’ By these rhetorical questions, Paul confirms the correct teaching about God. They are intended to help the reader, not to lead to false conclusions. In addition, we find a few questions that apparently throw suspicion on God’s reliability. For example, Paul asks: “For then how could God judge the world?” (3:6) and “But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?” (3:7). Answers are found in the immediately following verses. Thus, we see how Paul heads off possible false conclusions regarding the nature of God, especially his justice, by drawing out affirmations of his reliability and impartiality. This touches on the central theme of these chapters: the justice of God. Paul’s story of God does not emerge exnihilo. It is the continuation of the OT story of God. Most of the things that he says about God are

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

99

what he has understood from the Hebrew Scriptures. For example, in Rom 1:20, 23 he recalls the creation story of Genesis 1. This story is woven into Paul’s argument, not to become explicit until later, in 5:12-21 and 8:19-22. However, he is at times making a radical interpretation of Scripture, reading it in a new light. For example, his interpretation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:23-24 is radical: that the breaking of the law by Jews blasphemes God’s name among nations. We see that Paul “did not invoke Scripture in a hermeneutical vacuum: the Scripture that Paul knew, and to which he frequently appealed, was always Scripture-interpreted.”127 One of the radically new elements in Paul’s God-talk is that he thanks God. Although not many of the statements about God in the charts cite Scripture directly, they express biblical ideas and biblical language. Strikingly, most of the nouns and verbs in the genitive constructions about God are biblical. God’s fidelity and trustworthiness, that occur time and again, are biblical themes. Paul is not here having completely new insights about God. Rather, he is emphasizing aspects of God that can readily be misunderstood. Some of the statements about God are found in direct citations. Others come in allusions to the Scriptures. God’s justice is affirmed by citing Ps 51:4 in Rom 3:4: “That you may be justified in your words and prevail when you are judged.” Retributive justice of God is stressed by citing Ps 62:12 in Rom 2:6 as axiomatic: “For he [God] will repay according to each one’s deeds.” The consequences of human sin on the name of God in stated in 2:24 by quoting Isa 52:5: “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” On the other hand, in 2:29 Paul asserts, alluding to Deut 30:6, that a Jew who follows the heart receives praise from God. We also find in 3:9-20 a cluster of scriptural quotations from the Psalms and Isaiah which highlight how humanity has alienated themselves from God. In the climax of this section Paul cites Ps 36:1, in Rom 3:18: “There is no fear of God in their eyes.” The picture is of humans standing arrogantly before the court of God. Apart from the direct citations, the various attributes used in 2:4-10 are in general close to the self-revelation of God in Ex 34:6-7.128 The attributes of justice and mercy, the common scriptural way of relating to God (Ps 103:6-18; Jer 32:17-20) are also the main attributes in Romans 1-3. 127

128

Bruce N. Fisk, “Paul among the Storytellers: Reading Romans 11 in the Context of Rewritten Bible,” in PaulandScripture:ExtendingtheConversation, ed. Christopher D. Stanley (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012), 56-57 (emphasis original). Cf. Neyrey, RendertoGod, 114.

100

CHAPTER TWO

We shall have more to say about these attributes when we study the source of Paul’s terminology. The relational understanding of the God’s justice embraces all the implicit mentions of God in these chapters. To discuss all the explicit and implicit statements of God it would require a verse-by-verse exegesis of these chapters, because nearly every verse is, in our understanding, related to God. Thus, in 1:5 we read “through whom [Jesus Christ] we have received grace.” Although this verse does not explicitly mention God, we do not doubt that God is the implied subject in this verse as the one who gives grace. Even the long description of human transgressions and sin is aimed at showing the estrangement between God and humans. That is why, after each description, we find either a rhetorical question or a statement about God’s action and reaction towards human iniquity. The most radical point concerns the fatherhood of God. God is presented as “our father” and the “father of Jesus.” These expressions reveal Paul’s view of our relationship to God. He is also called the “God of Gentiles” and “the God of Jews.” This is to show that all are children of God and that God does not show partiality to any group. Thus, God as the creator and redeemer of all humanity stands as a pillar of Paul’s characterisation of God. The core of the whole story is how this father continues to engage in relation to his children. In the narrative world of Romans 1-3, God is portrayed as the one who is consistent in his relationship to his people. Not only is God’s nature consistent. He also acts consistently for the sake of human beings. Despite human rebellion, injustice, and consequent alienation, God takes the initiative to set humanity right with him. 2.3.2.2 RelationalUnderstandingofGod Many scholars have approached the first three chapters of Romans through an anthropological reading. Rom 1:18-3:20 has been seen as Paul’s description of universal sinfulness; and 1:16-17 and 3:21-31 as his statement of justification by faith. Against this view, others have argued that the main point in these chapters is God’s impartiality, or God’s vindication. Is Paul’s central concern here humanity, or is it God? In our view this is a false question. Our relational understanding shows that for Paul there is no humanity without God and that God is related to humanity. He speaks of humanity in the light of God. Humanity and God are inextricably interrelated. What Paul is saying is that, in his relationship with humanity, God is just.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

101

The characterisation of God seen through our charts and the rhetorical questions is almost all about how God relates to people or how people relate to God. In the end, humans know God because he enters into dialogue with them – into relationship. The central concern of Romans 1-3, then, is how the human relationship with God comes to be broken, how God handles this situation and how the relationship can be re-established. When this inextricable link between God and humanity is clearly perceived, Paul’s argument in these chapters is seen to be coherent with the God who relates to humanity at its centre. Since God’s justice is related to his impartiality, this is a specific characteristic of his nature. God is the ‘God of all’ and the justice of God demands that there be no discrimination: human beings are treated equally. God’s impartiality towards humanity runs closely with the main theme of God’s justice. This impartiality and inclusivity is a striking aspect of Paul’s relational understanding of God. Hence: “God shows no partiality” (2:11); “to everyone who has faith” (1:16); “no distinction” (3:22); “Jews first and also the Greek” (2:9); “each one’s deeds” (2:6); “all who believe,” “all have sinned,” and “[all] are now justified” (3:2224). It is because both Jew and Gentile belong to one and the same God, Paul calls for the unity. “Since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith” (Rom 3:30). God treats humanity without differentiation and Paul therefore argues that for any group or individuals to claim privilege is self deception. God’s concern is for everyone, for the whole of humanity. That is the conclusion, the climax, of Romans 1-3. 2.3.2.3 Paul’sGod-CentredArgumentinRomans1-3 We have now seen how Romans 1-3 refers to God and his relation to humanity. Here we sum up Paul’s God-centred argument. From a narrative critical point of view, on arriving at Rom 3:21, how has the author shaped the reader’s awareness with regard to God? Paul is not here addressing (as in other letters) those whom he has previously taught. That affects the way he writes to them,129 the way the implied reader is constructed. (Both the implied reader and the implied author are partial 129

For a detailed analysis of Paul’s relationship with the addressees of his authentic letters see, Reimund Bieringer, “Paul’s Divine Jealousy: The Apostle and his Communities in Relationship,” in Studieson2Corinthians, Reimund Bieringer and Jan Lambrecht, BETL 112 (Leuven: University Press, 1994), 223-253.

102

CHAPTER TWO

realities, narrative constructs of the author). Paul therefore assumes, at each point along the way, that his implied reader knows only what he has so far explained. It is perhaps for this reason that Paul explains more about God in Romans than in his other letters. Rom 1:16-17 and 3:21-22, in particular by their repetition of the revelation or manifestation of God’s δικαιοσύνη, create an inclusion within which the need for the manifestation of his δικαιοσύνη is explained. The relationship between God and humanity is presented as broken by sin and injustice. Paul wrestles with the problem of how this breakdown raises questions about God’s justice and trustworthiness. Thus, 1:18-32 and 3:9-11 concern human injustice, while 2:1-3:8 deal with just and unjust human behaviour, in contrast to God’s justice.130 The scriptural quotation in 1:16 reminds the reader that the just person will live by trust in God. This relationship is then further explicated by talking about just living and just conduct. We shall give a brief overview of Paul’s God-centred argument, showing its structure. This will also show how, when it reaches its climax in 3:21-26, that climax emerges from is built out of the warp and the weft of what has gone before. The structure of Romans 1-3 can be outlined as follows: 1:1-15 1:16-17 1:18-32 2:1-11 2:12-16 2:17-3:20 3:21-26 3:27-31

130

Paul’s gospel of God and thanksgiving; Revelation of God’s merciful justice in the gospel of God; Rejection of God by Gentiles and God’s just wrath; God’s just judgment; God’s concern for the Gentiles; God’s impartial justice in relation to Jews and Gentiles; Manifestation of God’s merciful justice in Christ; God’s justification of everyone who trust in him.

Richard B. Hays, TheConversionoftheImagination:PaulasInterpreterofIsrael’s Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 57, argues that “if we put aside the presupposition that Romans is a treatise answering the question ‘How can I be saved?’ it at once becomes clear that Paul’s underlying purpose in 3:9-20 is to establish beyond all possible doubt the affirmation that God is just in his judgment of the world.” He also demonstrates that the connection in this section between the expressions πάντας ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτίαν (3:9), οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος (3:10) and ὑπόδικος πᾶς ὁ κόσμος (3:19) is not merely accidental. In that way, 3:9-20 is answers the questions raised in vv 5-7. Thus the section draws attention to the fact that all stand guilty in a just relationship with God. The underlying fact therefore is God’s justice prevails in spite of human injustice. This interpretation clarifies the need for the demonstration of God’s compassionate justice in 3:21-26.

THE THEOCENTRICITY OF ROMANS 1-3

103

This outline demonstrates that Paul’s argument, in the first three chapters, is theocentric. His primary concern is not what a Jew or a Gentile may have done, but what God has done in relation to the whole of humanity. As the study progresses we shall demonstrate that many of the central terms in these chapters are relational, further explicating the main point. We have already shown that, every time Christ is mentioned in these three chapters, it is in a clearly theocentric context. Most mentions of Christ relate to his mediatory role, using prepositions such as “by” or “through” (1:5, 7, 8; 2:16; 3:22, 24). How does the christocentric reader of Rom 3:21-26 deal with the evident theocentricity of Rom 1-3? From what we have seen so far, a christocentric reading of 3:21-26 is only possible if this pericope is considered as as a turning point. CONCLUSION We now bring together the main threads of this chapter. We started from the broad question of the theocentricity of Romans. Noting that theo-logy is neglected in the study of Romans, we reviewed some recent studies of Paul’s understanding of God as found in Romans. We inquired whether Paul’s understanding was here different from the received Jewish understanding of God. We are convinced that Paul is not trying to challenge the traditional view. This is made clear by his repeated use of Scripture to substantiate his argument. Rather, he is interpreting tradition in a new situation. Romans provides many indications that support our contention that the main question of the letter is God, how he reveals himself and his indiscriminate redemption of all. The christological assertions and the christocentric statements of the letter, especially regarding the death of Jesus, demand to be read within this theocentric thrust. Christ reveals God and brings us into union with God. Christ acts as God’s medium of salvation for humanity. There are explicit statements and implicit assumptions about God. Together they provide the lens through which we can understand Paul’s argument about God. We proposed ‘God’s justice’ as the central theme of Romans 1-3. This pulls together the two opposing readings of these chapters. When ‘God’s justice’ is taken as their central theme, these chapters show how God and humanity are inextricably interrelated. We therefore suggest that the dichotomy may be unreal. This suggestion helped us to see the theocentricity of Paul’s argument in Romans 1-3. We then pursued to show the way Paul characterises God in chapters 1-3. To see the subject matter of

104

CHAPTER TWO

these chapters, we looked for contextual signals. We suggested that almost everything that Paul discusses in these chapters is related to God. Since Romans 1-3 deals with God’s relation to his people and directs our attention to God, we concluded that our reading of them should be theocentric. The heart of the theocentric argument is Rom 3:21-26. There, Paul describes how God’s merciful justice embraces all without any discrimination and what God has done through Jesus Christ. The theocentric narrative discussed in this chapter will now help us to address many of the exegetical issues in Rom 3:21-26.

CHAPTER THREE

ISSUES CONCERNING THE TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26 Following our review of the history of interpretation of Rom 3:21-26 and of the question of the theocentricity of Romans 1-3, we now turn to address various issues concerning the text, sources and syntax of 3:2126. The scholarly dispute, as presented in the history of the interpretation, calls for a clarification of certain aspects of the text. Hence, the main focus of this chapter is twofold: (1) to establish the text by analysing its text-critical and source-critical issues; and (2) to address the issues of syntax that cloud the structure of the argument. By focusing on addressing these issues we shall bring out the argumentative structure of the pericope. We consider that 3:21-26 constitutes a coherent literary unit and will explain our reasons for this view. We will then treat the textcritical and syntactic issues raised by the pericope, including the allegedly pre-Pauline material in 3:24-26. The goal is to establish the main topic and the line of thought of the pericope. We will conclude this chapter with our translation of the text. The treatment of semantic and theological concerns will be postponed to the following chapters. 3.1 DELIMITING THE PERICOPE By delimitation of the pericope we mean establishing that it is a literary unit that communicates something new in relation both to what precedes and to what follows. To this end we will examine the themes, style and internal coherence of the pericope. Johannes P. Louw suggests that the most relevant unit to begin with is a paragraph, which he defines as “essentially a cohesive unit in terms of its particular scope and topic.”1 His point is that a larger section may not be workable, while smaller units 1

Johannes P. Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1982), 98.

106

CHAPTER THREE

may result in too much fragmentation. Following Louw’s approach, we will treat Rom 3:21-26 as a paragraph, which we will now situate in its immediate context. Delimitation is concerned with the mix of continuity and discontinuity. The conjunctions used can help throw light on this. Thus the use of the conjunction διότι, in 3:20, may indicate a concluding statement. νυνὶ δέ, at the start of 3:21, indicates rather a shift or a contrast – for some, a temporal shift,2 while for others, a logical contrast.3 For Jewett, this is “a characteristically Pauline formulation that implies either a contrast with a previously mentioned time period or a logical contrast with a preceding argument.”4 For Dunn, “No one disputes that with νυνὶ δέ, in v 21 Paul intends a decisive shift in the argument to a new stage: the eschatological state of affairs brought about by Christ.”5 Although there is disagreement on whether it is a logical contrast or a new stage in salvation history, we can be confident that here we have the beginning of a new section, in which the perfect tense of the φανερόω of God’s δικαιοσύνη (3:21) contrasts with the present of the ἀποκαλύπτω of God’s wrath in 1:18.6 Rather than a new stage in salvation history, we consider νυνὶ δέ as introducing a logical contrast. Apart from this expression, there is no supporting evidence of a temporal shift in 3:21-22.7 While there are several uses of νῦν (νυνί) in Romans,8 the exact expression νυνὶ δέ is found in Rom 3:21; 6:22; 7:6, 17; 15:23, 25, used in ways that support our 2

3

4 5 6 7

8

See, for example, Leenhardt, L’épîtredesaintPaulauxRomains, 58; Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 201; Zeller, Römer, 85; Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer, 56; Dunn, Romans 1-8, 164; Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 221; Lohse, Der Brief an die Römer, 129-130; Martens, LaJustification, 48; Wolter, DerBriefanDieRömer, 247; Sung-Ho Park, Stellvertretung Jesu Christi im Gericht: Studien zum Verhältnis von Stellvertretung und Kreuzestod Jesu bei Paulus, WMANT 143 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 2015), 211-212. See, for example, Jewett, Romans, 272; Lee, Paul’s Gospel in Romans, 224; Flebbe, Solus Deus, 65. However, Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 81, maintains that it can express both senses. A comprehensive analysis of νυνὶ δέ by Johannes Woyke, “’Einst’ und ‘Jetzt’ in Röm 1-3: Zur Bedeutung von νυνὶ δέ in Röm 3,21,” ZNW 92 (2001): 185-206, argues that it has a rhetorical function here. He also compares it with similar uses in Philo, Josephus, Septuagint and NT writings other than Romans. Jewett, Romans, 272. Dunn, Romans1-8, 161. Cf. Lee, Paul’sGospelinRomans, 225. Paul does speak about a new era, which is expressed in many other ways in 3:24-26, especially with reference to the Christ-event and the mention of ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ. The present time is also expressed by διὰ πίστεως because faith is always in the present time. See Rom 3:26; 5:9, 11; 6:21, 22; 7:6, 17; 8:1, 18; 11:5, 30, 31; 13:11; 15:23, 25; 16:26.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

107

contention that it is here used to indicate a logical contrast. When νυνί indicates a temporal shift, we would expect clear contextual signals.9 Here, with the addition of δέ, it introduces a contrast with 3:20 and still more with the whole of 1:18-3:20. By νυνὶ δέ, Paul seems to exhort his readers to remember what he said earlier, in particular at 1:17. For that reason, along with Woyke, we consider that it here “rhetorische Funktion besitzt und dabei einerseits die erläuternde Affirmation der Hauptthese von Röm 1,17 markiert und andererseits die Einführung eines die Argumentation von Röm 1,18-3,20 entscheidend durchbrechenden neuen Aspekts(Progression) signalisiert.”10 Paul is not only introducing a shift in theme, but establishing a logical link with what he said earlier. Thus the temporal expression νῦν can here express something different, ‘deliberative,’ with ‘now’ meaning the ‘now’ of the speaker, not the now of the content. There is continuity between the pericope and what precedes it, a logical flow of ideas between 3:20 and 3:21-22. As we have shown, God continues to be the main actor in 3:21-26 and this is one of the elements of continuity. 3:20 and 3:21 are also connected by their reference to the law. If the phrase μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν was not there, then νυνὶ δέ in 3:21 could express something new. But Paul says that it is already in the law and the prophets. Further, with δικαιωθήσεται in 3:20, we observe that the terminology of δικ- words is already introduced. Several ideas or forms of language can be connected to each other. In the first sentence (3:21) after the contrast, the focus is not on Jesus Christ, but on what could be understood within the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul is saying that God’s manifestation is attested by the law and the prophets. Further, God’s salvation is εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας (3:22). This must be seen in contrast to πᾶς ὁ κόσμος (3:19) and πᾶσα σάρξ (3:20). The three clauses clearly relate to one another, each expressing a different universality. Continuity can also be observed with ἥμαρτον in 3:23, which is linking with ἁμαρτίας in 3:20. A logical contrast with the preceding argument is more likely here, because it is followed by χωρὶς νόμου, which contrasts with ἔργα νόμου in the previous verse.

9

10

Compare with Rom 6:20-22; 7:5-6; 11:30. Cf. Woyke, „‘Einst‘ und ‚Jetzt‘,“ 185; Flebbe, SolusDeus, 65. Woyke, „‘Einst‘ und ‚Jetzt‘,“ 206 (italics original). As example of its usage as a rhetorical element, Flebbe, SolusDeus, 66, points out 1 Cor 15:17-20.

108

CHAPTER THREE

The unique concentration of δικ- words and πιστ- words in 3:21-26 is clear evidence that Paul is saying something new. “Since the law works as the key topical issue in Rom 2:12-3:20, the introduction of faith as the counterpart of the law can imply a topical shift in Paul’s argument.”11 This topical shift can be particularly observed by the introduction of human πίστις, which has not so far featured in 1:18-3:20. The theme of God’s δικαιοσύνη, introduced in 1:17, is reopened for clarification and development in relation to the death of Christ, using the same combination of δικ- words and πιστ- words, and God’s concern for ‘all,’ that was to be found in 1:16-17. This section clearly develops the point, first envisaged in 1:16-17, as Paul’s main thesis. As Ziesler rightly observes, “[The passage’s] particularly dense character arises partly from the fact that it is a crucial moment in the letter to the Romans, gathering up what has gone before, and pointing forward to much that Paul will say in the ensuing chapters. It is a watershed.”12 The passage is loaded with key theological terms and the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ stands out by virtue of its frequency. Thus, 3:21-26 marks not only a positive shift, but also a topical connection, to the theme of God’s δικαιοσύνη. The previous chapter also showed how the introduction of ‘Jesus Christ,’ in 3:22, as a new character in the narrative, signals the beginning of a new pericope. He is mentioned four times in this pericope, yet not at all in the pericope that follows (3:27-31). This points to a topical shift. Because of its central role, Rom 3:21-26 is rich in themes. Despite difficulties in the syntax of 3:24-26, it shows internal unity. 3:24-26 contains three hapaxlegomena and two terms with uncharacteristic definitions (προέθετο and αἷμα), which have raised the possibility that prePauline material is present. Further, discussion of their meaning and of the grammatical relations of the sentences has led to differing, even to contrasting, theological interpretations. This text has been important in trying to understand the meaning of the death of Jesus. The stress on the effects of the Christ-event in 3:24-26, highlighting justification, redemption, expiation/propitiation and forgiveness, has led to the christocentric interpretation of the passage. However, as we shall argue in the following sections, there is a logical flow of argument from 3:21-23 to 3:24-26, and unity regarding both content and vocabulary.

11 12

Lee, Paul’sGospelinRomans, 213. Ziesler, “Salvation Proclaimed,” 356.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

109

The main theme of the sub-sections is δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, while the use of the conjunctions δέ, γάρ and καί point to the unity of the passage. The lexical chains reinforce this internal unity, with the repetition of δικwords and πιστ- words and talk about God. In our opinion, the central message of the pericope is that God has manifested his righteousness by justifying all who have faith in Jesus Christ: and that this is to be distinguished from what Christ or humanity have done. There are still other indicators of the coherence and internal unity of 3:21-26. The repetition of the manifestation of God’s δικαιοσύνη, in 21 and 26, clearly creates an inclusio. The pericope opens with a shift to the present in 3:21 (νυνί) and concludes with a call into the present in 3:26 (ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ). The manifestation of God’s δικαιοσύνη is repeated in 3:21 (φανερόω) and in 3:26 (ἔνδειξις), suggesting that this manifestation of God’s δικαιοσύνη, in a unique way, in the present time, is the main thesis of the pericope. The newness of theme and style can be observed as Paul continues in 3:27-31. This new pericope marks a change in style in the form of a dialogue with questions and answers. Paul does not pose any questions in the previous pericope. In addition, the first thing we notice is οὖν, which we do not find in 3:21-26, although Paul often uses οὖν in Romans. By this introductory ‘then,’ Paul is asking some serious questions in the light of his statements in the previous pericope. The change of theme is indicated by the use of new terminology such as καύχησις. “Jews and Gentiles” are introduced as new characters, while ‘Jesus Christ’ is not mentioned at all. Although different in focus, the antithesis between faith and law continue to dominate this text, as it did the previous pericope. In sum, Rom 3:21-26 can be called a pericope with a clear beginning, middle and end. It expresses an internal coherence and newness in theme. Campbell says that “the section has constantly attracted designations like ‘thesis paragraph’, because it stands at the heart of a sustained theological discourse.”13 It stands as a response to the powerful arguments developed through 1:18-3:20, and as a crucial link to the exegetical discourse of 3:27-4:25. Thus it dominates one third of Paul’s letter to the Romans. We may go further and say that it is the centre and heart of Romans.

13

Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 11.

110

CHAPTER THREE

3.2 TEXT-CRITICAL ISSUES OF ROM 3:21-26 THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VARIANTS

AND THE

The text of Rom 3:21-26 has come to us through many different textual witnesses and has been reconstructed on the basis of available manuscripts. We are concerned to study the earliest recoverable text, using text-criticism to discern “the transmission of the NT text and identify its alterations and distortions.”14 Moving beyond those traditional goals, current understanding of the textual criticism also “pays close attention to the narratives and the multiple interpretations that the variant readings disclose–including the rejected variants.”15 The textual history of our pericope, Rom 3:21-26, raises a number of textual issues, many of which are identified by the critical apparatus of NA27 and NA28.16 However, these issues and the theological significance of the variant readings have not received much attention.17 It is necessary to consider both the external and internal evidence as tools for text-critical judgement.18 We employ the criteria of text-criticism to assess the witnesses, and to establish the text that we will study and to identify any difference they might make to our assessment of the theocentricity of the pericope. This will serve as a basis for the following analysis.

14 15

16

17

18

Eldon Jay Epp, “Textual Criticism,” in ABD 4 (1992), 411-435, here 413. Eldon Jay Epp, “Why does New Testament Textual Criticism Matter? Refined Definitions and Fresh Directions,” ExpT 125 (2014): 417-431, esp. 431. A history of the various trends in textual criticism provided by James Keith Elliott, “Recent Trends in Textual Criticism: A New Millennium, a New Beginning?,” Babelao 1 (2012): 117136. For a description of the move beyond the traditional seal for the ‘original text’ see pages 127-128. We have followed both NA 27 and NA28 because some of the issues that are not mentioned in the latest version are also relevant to our study. For the meaning of the symbols and abbreviations used, see NA28 introduction 57*-61*. To make an assessment of the manuscripts and their category we have followed, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the TheoryandPracticeofModernTextualCriticism,trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 159-162. For the principles of external and internal criticism, we follow Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 11*-14*. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 8, who mentions some of the variants, does not discuss the variant readings. Apart from a few older commentaries (and Jewett,Romans, 268) most of the modern commentaries do not even mention the text-critical issues in Rom 3:21-26. Cf. J. Delobel, “Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Siamese Twins?,” in NewTestament TextualCriticism,ExegesisandChurchHistory:ADiscussionofMethods, ed. B. Aland and J. Delobel (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994), 98-117.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

111

With these goals in mind, we shall make a brief examination of the most important textual variants in Rom 3:21-26,19 looking at some manuscript witnesses (even if they are late) as witnesses to a particular theology. Where variant readings seem not to have a great impact on the text and where the evidence for making choices is limited, we will treat the variations as minor. We have identified, following NA27 and NA28, the most important textual issues in 3:22, 25 and 26 and treat them therefore in three main sub-sections. 3.2.1 Textual Variants in 3:22 3.2.1.1 VariantReadingsofΙησουΧριστου The first textual problem in Rom 3:22 is the two variant readings of Ιησου Χριστου, which in our opinion have great theological relevance. The following chart presents the different readings of the text: Text Manuscript witnesses

Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Ιησου Χριστου εν Χριστω Ιησου Χριστου [All other major A B textual witnesses]

First, we compare reading 1 with reading 2. Codex Alexandrinus gives the prepositional phrase εν Χριστω Ιησου with πίστις in place of the widely attested genitive expression Ιησου Χριστου. NA(27)28 does not mention this variant. It is mentioned by at least two commentaries,20 but has not elsewhere been much discussed. When compared to reading 1, there are three variations involved in reading 2: that between the genitive and the prepositional phrase with εν followed by dative; that of the word order; and that of changing Χριστου to Χριστω.

19

20

For a detailed list of many minor variants and manuscript witnesses see, Reuben Swanson, ed., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Romans (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 43-46; Kurt Aland, ed., TextundTextwertdergriechischenHandschriftendesNeuenTestaments:DiePaulinischenBriefe,ANTF 16 (Berlin: Walter de Gruynter, 1991), 328-330. Most of the minor variations seem to have been caused by a very similar vowel or mispronunciation. For example, in the text of Rom 3:21, the manuscript F spells out δικαιοσύνη as δικαιωσύνη and in ‫ א‬and D*μαρτυρουμένη is spelled as μαρτυρομένη. Sanday and Headlam, EpistletotheRomans, 84; Jewett, Romans, 268.

112

CHAPTER THREE

The external evidence goes against reading 2. Reading 1 is widely attested by the best witnesses. However, we consider that the changes in reading 2 need some reflection. On the basis of the shorter and more difficult reading, the internal evidence also supports reading 1. It is worth noting that a change from genitive to dative, with the addition of ἐν, cannot happen accidentally. Thus, the reading ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ with πίστις, which is longer by the addition of ἐν, can plausibly be explained as reflecting a scribe’s attempt to clarify the language and so also the meaning of the expression. We are of the opinion that the scribe is here trying to clarify the ambiguity of the text, showing which of the two possible meanings of the genitive is correct. He does not want to change the content, but wants to tell us what he thinks is the right interpretation. This provides a satisfactory explanation for reading 2 and leads us to prefer reading 1. We shall see in the fifth chapter how this variant reading can help clarify the πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ dispute and shed light on the theocentricity of the passage. Porter has pointed to a further possibility, that the scribe of Alexandrinus could have made a conscious change to emphasize Christ as the realm of faith.21 We consider this to be an important point. Elsewhere (Gal 3:24; Rom 3:25-26) Paul introduces πίστις by a preposition that is then followed by the dative. A desire to emulate this form offers a more plausible explanation than pure accident of why the scribe should have introduced an additional preposition, altered the word order and changed case.22 This can be strengthened by the fact that the scribe of Alexandrinus has a different word order than Vaticanus in a number of other places (Rom 8:11; 10:9; 12:3 14:11; 16:2).23 The change of word order in reading 2 has some theological significance, for it adds to the theocentricity of the pericope. It is quite plausible that the scribe wanted to

21

22

23

Cf. Stanley E. Porter, “The Rhetorical Scribe: Textual Variants in Romans and their Possible Rhetorical Purpose,” in Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible, ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. L. Stamps, JSNT SS 195 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 403419, esp. 417. Lee, Paul’sGospelinRomans, 220. The genitive structure is changed into dative. Lee, Paul’s Gospel in Romans, 220, note 10, observes that it breaks some scholars’ unwarranted romantic conjecture that “The ancients… were not nearly so troubled by analysis of ambiguity as we are – indeed they relished it. Critics who refuse to take that seriously are simply failing to face the realities of ancient usage.” See Christopher Bryan, A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in its Literary and Cultural Setting (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 109; Cf. Nigel Turner and James Hope Moulton, TheGrammarofNew TestamentGreek,Syntax, vol. 3 (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1963), 210. See the details in Porter, “Rhetorical Scribe,” 411.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

113

emphasize ‘Christ’ in a way that underlined his divinity rather than his humanity. This, in our opinion, adds to the theocentricity of the text because the more stress is given to ‘Christ’ the more emphasis is laid on God working through Christ. “A switch from the scribe’s more usual ‘Jesus Christ’ to ‘Christ Jesus’ is noteworthy, since the focus of the passage for him seems to be upon this figure as the agent of God’s work in relation to humanity.”24 For this reason, we retain this case as a significant variant, and will return to it when we discuss the πίστις Χριστοῦ dispute in chapter five. Now we turn to reading 3. This reading has Χριστου in place of the widely attested Ιησου Χριστου. Reading 3 is supported by a single witness. No other known manuscript supports this reading. Rather, the oldest manuscripts (for example 𝔓40 and ‫ )א‬offer clear external evidence in favour of reading 1. Moreover, in terms of quality as well as quantity, this reading has strong textual evidence. The internal evidence also seems to be against those few scholars who prefer to read διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ.25 The transcriptional probability principle can explain the omission by the scribe’s familiarity with πίστις Χριστοῦ in Gal 2:16; Phil 3:9; Eph 3:12. In addition, as we shall see, when Paul uses a similar prepositional phrase in 3:26, Ἰησοῦ is present. Morison notes that “the complex designation ‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘Christ Jesus’ is a favourite combination with Paul. He uses it with great frequency.”26 Morison considers that Paul does so because it enables him to express both the human and the divine dimensions. On the basis of the above observations, we conclude that the omission of Ιησου in reading 3 may be accidental or unconscious because of the scribe’s familiarity with uses of πίστις Χριστοῦ elsewhere. 3.2.1.2 AlternateReadingsofειςπαντας A second textual problem in 3:22 needs serious consideration. The following chart presents the three variant readings of the text:

24 25

26

Porter, “Rhetorical Scribe,” 418. For example, O’Neill, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 73. Reading 3 is also found in Marcion. James Morison, Critical Exposition of the Third Chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co., 1866), 223. We shall deal with the issues relating to the various titles later in this study.

114

Text Manuscript witnesses

CHAPTER THREE

Reading 1 εις παντας 𝔓40 ‫ *א‬A B C P Ψ 81 104 630 1506 1739 1881 Cl Did

Reading 2 επι παντας

Reading 3 εις παντας και επι παντας Vgst., wwAmbst Pel, 2‫ א‬D F G K L 33 John Dam 365 1175 1241 1505 2464 it vgcl sy; Ambst

While reading 2 has the preposition ἐπί in place of εἰς,27 reading 3 has an additional clause καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας. We have included patristic citations and early version witnesses, as in NA28, because it helps to see the relevance of reading 2. However, in terms of external criticism reading 1 is very strongly supported by external evidence, whereas that for reading 3 is comparatively weak and reading 2 seems to be the weakest. The fact that reading 1 has the support of 𝔓40 ‫ *א‬A B C P Ψ and minuscule 1739, which is a very important witness for Romans,28 testifies that it has the oldest and best textual witnesses. Coming to internal evidence, preference for the shorter reading points to readings 1 and 2 rather than 3. Of the two shorter readings, reading 1 has the better manuscript support. The longer reading 3 is found in the TextusReceptus. Yet it is pleonastic and seems not to communicate any new meaning. The longer reading εἰς πάντας καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας is found in some older translations and commentators. It is the text behind KJV: “unto all and upon all them that believe.” Calvin says that Paul “repeats the same thing in different forms of expression adauxesim.”29 Nygren also prefers this reading because for him it is more likely that the scribe would have dropped one of the similar expressions than that he would have added it.30 Morison similarly argues that the shorter text is due to the eye of the scribe moving from the first πάντας to the second: “Their identical

27

28

29

30

Although NA28 does not mention reading 2, it is mentioned in NA27. See the details of the textual witnesses for this reading in Metzger, Textual Commentary, 508; Jewett, Romans, 268. The Latin vulgate uses superomnes in place of εἰς πάντας/ ἐπὶ πάντας. However, Vulgata Clementina supports reading 3 by translating it as: etsuperomnes quicreduntineum. Aland and Aland, TheTextoftheNewTestament, 157, treats this minuscule in the first category although it is from the 10th century. See T. H. L. Parker, Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans 1532-1542 (Edinburgh: Clark, 1986), 157. ad auxesim lit. to amplify: a rhetorical device to intensify meaning by using successive words of increasing force. Nygren, CommentaryonRomans, 150.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

115

termination might mislead the eye.”31 Sanday and Headlam understand it as a conflation or a combination of two alternative readings. However, they add: “If it were the true reading εἰς would express ‘destination for’ all believers, ἐπί ‘extend to’ them.”32 This longer reading then stresses in 3:22 that God’s δικαιοσύνη is for all and upon all. There is a point in the argument that καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας could have been dropped because of the repetition; and that it is unlikely that a scribe would have added it as an explanation because such a simple phrase did not need explanation. However, καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας is in principle redundant, except insofar as Calvin’s rhetorical point may justify its presence. In 3:22, it cannot be an addition to underline the universalistic dimension because it is followed by τοὺς πιστεύοντας. In that way, it is both for the believers. What we also need to note is that it is ἐπί with the accusative, which tells us that it is not all that different from εἰς. If it were ἐπὶ πᾶσιν, it could have been used for the argument that it has reached them already. If this observation is correct, then καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας is redundant. All the more, reading 1 fits better into Paul’s style. With the preceding διὰ πίστεως in 3:22, it seems to stand in parallel to the expression ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν in 1:17. Furthermore, we notice that εἰς πάντας keeps on coming later in Romans (5:12, 18 (twice); 10:12; 16:19). One the contrary, the expression ἐπὶ πάντας is not found elsewhere in Romans. It seems to us more likely that the phrase has been added by a scribe, not as an explanation or clarification, but for emphasis. Hence, it aims to underline that Paul’s concern in 3:22 is human πίστις directed to Christ, which in turn redeems each and every one who believes. The scribe’s understanding of the text may then throw light on his theocentric reading of Rom 3:21-22, which we shall show later in this study. For the present purpose it is sufficient to note that the scribe seems to understand it, not as a reference to the ‘faith(fullness)’ of Christ, but as a faith in Christ. This leads us to conclude that the longer reading can be explained as a conflation that is unlikely, because of its redundancy, to be original. We then consider reading 1 as the preferable reading.

31 32

Morison, CriticalExposition, 226. Sanday and Headlam, EpistletotheRomans, 84.

116

CHAPTER THREE

3.2.2 Textual Variants in 3:25 3.2.2.1 TheArticleτης:OmissionorAddition? A more difficult textual problem, to be found in 3:25, is the absence of the article in the phrase δια της πιστεως in many manuscripts. Metzger indicates της within brackets {C}, meaning that the committee found it difficult to decide which variant to prefer.33 While the latest editions of NA (26, 27, 28) include the article in square brackets [τῆς], previous editions exclude it. The following chart presents the variant readings of the text: Text Manuscript witnesses

Reading 1 δια της πιστεως 𝔓40vid B C3 D2 K L P Ψ 33 81 630 1775 1241 2464

Reading 2 δια πιστεως ‫ א‬C* D* F G 0219vid 104 365 1505 1506 1739 1881

Reading 3 [vac.] A

At first glance, the manuscript evidence seems to give slightly more support to reading 1. However, a close look at the quality of manuscripts shows that with “vid” in 𝔓40vid, the reading of 𝔓40 is apparent but not certain. Moreover, while minuscule 33 is considered overall to be of good quality, scholars have pointed out that it is not of a good quality when it comes to the text of Romans.34 At the same time, as we have already noted above, minuscule 1739 gives a reliable witness to reading 2. These observations lead us to the view that the evidence is somewhat evenly balanced between readings 1 and 2. This prepositional phrase is altogether lacking in reading 3. Although A is a strong witness, in this case it is a singular reading. Thus, the external evidence supporting reading 1 is strong because of its attestation in 𝔓40vid and B. In the same way, ‫ א‬C* D* F and 1739 can be counted rather strong support to reading 2. It is interesting to observe that later in Rom 9:4, NA28 opt for αἱ διαθῆκαι, 33 34

Metzger, TextualCommentary, 449. The minuscule 33 (ninth-century) is called the “Queen of the minuscules” and even an “excellent representative of the Alexandrian type of text.” Cf. Bruce M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 88. However, its quality with regard to Romans is called into question by Aland, ed., TextundTextwert, 200, whose analysis of MS 33 reveals that, out of the 44 text readings for Romans, 26 are Byzantine readings and none these can be considered as the old text.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

117

which is attested by similar manuscripts ‫ א‬C and 1739 over against the singular ἡ διαθήκη found in 𝔓46 and B. At least this shows that the issue is more complex than one might think. As the external evidence remains somewhat evenly balanced, internal criticism is particularly important in deciding which reading to prefer. Scholars’ opinions vary on the internal evidence. Metzger notes the reasons for both options: on the one hand, the article could have been added by copyists who wished to point back to διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Rom 3:22; on the other hand, when later in the chapter Paul uses πίστις absolutely (especially in 3:30, 31) διὰ is followed by the article.35 Sanday and Headlam argue that Paul would have included the article to point back to διὰ πίστεως in 3:22.36 Jewett favours the absence of the article because an addition “by a later scribe may reflect an understanding of faith such as one finds in the Pastorals, where ἡ πίστις refers to “the faith” in a creedal sense.”37 We know of no scholar who considers reading 3 to be preferable. Yet there is no consensus that the omission of the prepositional phrase is accidental. Thus Käsemann did not consider this to be a chance omission,38 for its absence links ἱλαστήριον directly to ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι. Picking up this point, Porter suggests that it is part of a rhetorical manoeuvre to emphasize “sacrificial imagery in the minds of those who thought in this framework, rather than imposing ‘faith’ as an intermediary.”39 However, we doubt that a scribe would have simply deleted such an important phrase, a favourite of Paul. Interestingly, in Rom 10:5 where most manuscripts have τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου, the scribe of Alexandrinus has written τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ πίστεως. This at least shows that the scribe knows that this phrase is a favourite of Paul. Nevertheless, it is not easy to imagine how he missed such an important phrase in Rom 3:25. All that we can note at this point is that the scribe of Alexandrinus seems to have shorter readings elsewhere in Romans (for example, 5:17; 7:23; 9:4).40 Because of its complex syntax and the fact that there are a large number of prepositional phrases following ἱλαστήριον, he might have missed one and he might not have 35 36 37 38 39 40

Metzger, TextualCommentary, 449. Sanday and Headlam, EpistletotheRomans, 89. Jewett, Romans, 268. Käsemann, AndieRömer, 92. Porter, “Rhetorical Scribe,” 413. Cf. Porter, “Rhetorical Scribe,” 413-414; Swanson, ed., GreekManuscripts, 74, 107, 135.

118

CHAPTER THREE

realised it because the sentence reads less complex without διὰ πίστεως. Moreover, the fact that this phrase is often used by Paul makes it likely that it is part of Paul’s original composition. For all these reasons, we conclude that the absence of the clause in reading 3 is likely to be accidental. A close examination of textual witnesses and of Paul’s use of this phrase elsewhere helps us to make our preference for reading 2. We observe that C* D* do not have the article, but that it has been added in the corrected versions C3 D2.41 It is very difficult to assess these correctors and the exemplar they used in modifying the text, especially when the corrector is of a later century. The correctors might have been using a different manuscript, which could have caused the modifications in the text. Although corrections need not in themselves be of lesser quality, we note in this case the difficulty of knowing their Vorlage. For that matter, it is not unreasonable to think that the article could have been added later by a scribe concerned to clarify the ambiguity of the text. Another possible theological reason for this later addition is his familiarity with ἡ πίστις, in a creedal sense, used in the Pastorals. However, we believe that reading 1, διὰ τῆς πίστεως, is best explained as a scribal attempt to point back to διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Rom 3:22.42 In this way, it is the anaphoric use of the article. It could have also come about because the scribe has seen the two uses of διὰ τῆς πίστεως in 3:30-31 (the only two uses with the article in Romans). Further, not only can διὰ πίστεως be considered as a variant of ἐκ πίστεως in Romans, but it can also been seen as a catchphrase that refers back to Paul’s use of it, in the quotation of Hab 2:4, in Rom 1:17. The prepositional phrase ἐκ/διὰ πίστεως is frequently used in Romans 1-4, mostly without the article (see 1:17; 3:22, 26, 30; 4:16, 41). This expression has, as we shall show in chapter 5, great exegetical significance in grasping Paul’s understanding of 41

42

Jewett (Romans, 268) considers these corrections as the main reasons for his opting for the exclusion of the article: “It seems more likely that the article would be added than deleted, as shown particularly by its presence in the corrected versions D2 (though D1 lacks the article) and in a vast majority of other manuscripts, so I believe a firm decision should be made for its exclusion.” In addition to the witnesses that we have noted for reading 2, Jewett finds support for deletion of the article in minuscules 6 88 424c 436 459 1319 1573 1962 2495 Or Eus Did Cyr Hes1/2. In spite of his efforts to provide more evidence for the deletion of the article, his rejection of reading 2 on the grounds that it is found in the corrected versions seems to be based on a position that the original version is always better than corrected versions. We find it difficult to evaluate the work of a corrector without studying all his corrections, especially if he is not from a later period. Hence this is not good grounds for a strong decision. Cf. Metzger, TextualCommentary, 508.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

119

πίστις in Romans.43 All the more, in the immediate context διὰ πίστεως stands in contrast to διὰ νόμου (see 3:20; 27). In this context, διὰ πίστεως communicates God’s means for the salvation of everyone without any discrimination. In the light of these observations we think that the usage without the article is theologically sound and fits Paul’s usage elsewhere in Romans. Thus, we prefer reading 2. 3.2.2.2 VariantReadingsofδιατηνπαρεσιν The phrase διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν in Rom 3:25 is marked in NA27 to show that it is replaced with other words by a number of cited witnesses.44 NA27 offers the three variant readings set out in the table. Text Manuscript witnesses

Reading 1 δια την παρεσιν

Reading 2 δια την παρεσιν εν τω νυν αιωνι 𝔓40 ‫ א‬A B D F 33 1908 81 Ψ G 326 629

Reading 3 εν τω νυν καιρω δια την πωρωσιν 1875

The external evidence for reading 1 is strong: we have only cited a selection of its important manuscript witnesses. Because all the other known manuscripts support διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν, NA27 does not give details of the manuscripts used to support the reading, but mentions only the witnesses to reading 2 and 3. We shall still examine the variants, because this prepositional phrase is crucial in our theocentric interpretation of the pericope. It is supported by a broad combination of manuscripts, including the earliest and those most widely used. Reading 2, which includes ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι after διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν, is supported only by a single witness of the 11th century. Similarly reading 3, whose text ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ διὰ τὴν πώρωσιν is totally different from readings 1 and 2, is only supported by a single witness dating from the 10th century. The external evidence for reading 1 is therefore much stronger than for readings 2 and 3. Internal criticism also seems to support reading 1, on the grounds that it is shorter. Readings 2 and 3, as Jewett points out, “appear to be aimed at theological clarification of the text”45 and a scribe might well have attempted some explanation. Along this line, we consider that in this 43 44 45

See our discussion on pp. 191-292. NA28 does not mention the variant readings. Jewett, Romans, 268.

120

CHAPTER THREE

variant there is a deliberate attempt by the scribe to clarify the ambiguity of the text. It is plausible that in Rom 3:25 he wants to underline the tension between the present age (ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι) and the previous sins (τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων). The addition of ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι therefore seems to provide the reader with a theological explanation of what God has done with sins in the past and what he does at the present time through Christ’s death. Thus, reading 2 reflects a theological understanding of a later scribe. Regarding reading 3, the addition of ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ is because the copyist has moved to the next verse where αὐτοῦ precedes this same expression. In addition, the scribe of reading 3 might have understood πώρωσιν instead of πάρεσιν, not being familiar with the rare word πάρεσις. Added to these explanations, neither reading 2 nor reading 3 makes good sense in the context of Paul’s argument. Thus we consider that these singular readings have arisen either as a theological explanation or accidently, for the reasons mentioned above. We conclude, on the basis of both the external and the internal evidence, that reading 1 is to be preferred. 3.2.3 Textual Variants in 3:26 3.2.3.1 Absenceofκαι The majority of textual witnesses read 3:26 as δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ. However, the conjunction καί is missing after δίκαιον in manuscripts F, G, it, Ambst. The weight of external evidence favours its inclusion as being attested in the oldest and most widely circulated manuscripts. As regards the internal evidence, the principle of the more difficult reading, points towards including the conjunction.46 As in the case of the article, it is however difficult to apply the principle of the shorter reading in this case. It is plausible that a scribe deleted it by accident, that his eye simply missing the conjunction. As both δικαιον and δικαιουντα begin with similar letters (δικαιο), it is plausible that the scribe skipped from one word to another, leaving out και. However, we cannot also rule out the possibility that an intelligent scribe, faced with the complex syntax of the verse, sought to improve it by omitting the conjunction. Nuances of interpretation depend on whether we accept or reject καί. The inclusion of the conjunction correlates δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ with 46

Metzger, TextualCommentary, 12*.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

121

δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως, which is central in the pericope. As Sanday and Headlam rightly notes, “it is not that God is righteous andyet declares righteous the believer in Jesus’, but that ‘He is righteous and also, we might almost say andtherefore, declare righteous the believer.”47 If there is no καί, then the text reads εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ. In this construction, δικαιοῦντα is an attributive participle contraction, qualifying αὐτὸν. Jewett points out that the absence of the conjunction “may represent an effort at syntactical improvement by changing the participle δικαιοῦντα from a compound predicate adjective to a circumstantial participle of means that explains how God is righteous: “so that he is righteous in setting right the person from faith in Jesus.”48 Since the issue is connected with the syntax of the verse, we shall discuss it in the following section. As far as the text is concerned both the external and internal evidence point to the inclusion of the conjunction. It might have been deleted in some later manuscripts either because of the parablepsis by homoioarchton, or to clarify the difficult syntax and to show a disjunctive forcefulness and connectedness. 3.2.3.2 Ιησου,ΙησουΧριστουorΙησουν? Rom 3:26 presents a problem similar to that discussed in 3:22. Here we have four variant readings, with manuscript attestations as follows: Text

Reading 1 Ιησου

Manuscript ‫ א‬A B C K P witnesses 81 104 365 630 1175 1241 1505 1739 Vgst syh sa bomss

Reading 2 Reading 3 Reading 4 Ιησου Ιησουν [vac] Χριστου 629 it Vgcl syp D L Ψ 33 614 F G bo 945 1506 1881 2464

Reading 1 uses the shorter title Ἰησοῦ, whereas reading 2 uses Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Reading 3 has Ἰησοῦν, the accusative. External evidence favours reading 1. Reading 2 is only supported by minor manuscripts.

47

48

Sanday and Headlam, EpistletotheRomans, 90. For the various nuances of meanings of καί, see BDAG, 494-496. Later in this chapter, when we study the issues of syntax, we will decide which meaning of the conjunction is most fitting in this context. Jewett, Romans, 268.

122

CHAPTER THREE

However, some important manuscripts witness to reading 3, such that a firm decision at this level is difficult. Turning to internal criteria, the principle of the shorter reading points to a preference for readings 1 and 3 over reading 2. The transcriptional probability suggests that Ἰησοῦ could have been misread as Ἰησοῦν. Metzger notes that Ἰησοῦν could be the result of copyists’ blunders in transcribing scriptiocontinua ΙΥΠΟΥΟΥΝ (Ἰησοῦ was usually written ΙΥ and Ἰησοῦν as ΙN).49 This could explain the origin of variant with the accusative Ἰησοῦν by seeing a confusing letter. How are we to understand the origin of longer title Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ? We consider that Χριστοῦ can be a scribal addition: “The reading of syrp (κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) corresponds to Syriac ecclesiastical idiom.”50 A pious scribe may have expanded Ἰησοῦ to Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, possibly to make the text more familiar: the longer title Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is regularly used,51 whereas Ἰησοῦ alone is very rare in Romans. This is the more likely because the scribe already encountered the longer title in the same section (3:22, 24). As we see in the chart, reading 4 with manuscripts F and G, and the codices that follow this tradition omit the whole name. The same manuscripts omit καί in this verse. This leads us to think that the scribe may have found this complex sentence difficult to understand and so simplified it. The omission makes the text all the more theocentric, implying that God justifies all those who have faith. If so, the variant sheds light on the dispute as to whether πίστις here refers to Christ’s faith(fullness) or to human faith. The copyists of these manuscripts seem not to have been aware of such a christocentric reading of the phrase. This early understanding of the scribes encourages us to think that, from an early date, πίστις was here understood anthropologically. Similarly, the shift into the accusative in reading 3 could be because the scribe, perceiving the theocentricity of the pericope, modified the text accordingly. In this reading Ἰησοῦν is clearly the object. On the basis of both external and internal criteria, we conclude that reading 1 is to be preferred. Not only is it strongly supported by the most 49 50

51

Metzger, TextualCommentary, 509. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 449. Jewett, Romans, 269, also concludes that this is the reason for the shift in case. For example, in the first five chapters, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is used in Rom 1:4, 6, 7, 8 and 3:22; 5:1, 11, 15, 17, 21. It is also notable that the form Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is used in 1:1; 2:16. Ἰησοῦ without any other title is found only in 3:26, but it is used combined with κύριος in 14:14 and 16:20.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

123

reliable manuscripts, but it makes better sense in the context of Paul’s argument. Some of the textual variants may have been useful to clarify how an ancient scribe understood the text, which in turn has an impact on the question of its theocentricity. On the basis of the above analysis and conclusions, we shall follow this text for our exegetical study in the following sections and chapters. 3.2.4 The Text in a Sense-Line Presentation Having completed our text-critical analysis, we are now in a position to present the Greek text of Rom 3:21-26, with verse subdivisions. This is basically based on the text of NA28, but with our text-critical decisions. The Greek text that follows, with its sub-divisions, is used throughout this book, unless we refer to the specific sub-divisions of a particular author. Clauses within a verse are numbered with Latin letters and phrases (when necessary) with Greek letters. The longer lines in some parts show the complexity of the text and the difficulties of sub-dividing a long sentence with many prepositional phrases. Thus, we have subdivided 3:25 (and in 3:26a) as 25α 25β 25γ 25δ and 25ε because the whole verse is a single clause. 21a νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται 21b μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν, 22a δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. 22b οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή. 23a πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον 23b καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ 24 δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 25α ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον 25β διὰ πίστεως 25γ ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι 25δ εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ 25ε διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων 26aα ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ, 26aβ πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ 26aγ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, 26b εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον 26c καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ.

124

CHAPTER THREE

We have now established the text of Rom 3:21-26 which we will use for our study. We have also examined some of the variant readings for their theological relevance. The above sub-divisions will help us to cite and refer back to the parts of the text. We now move on to address the issue of pre-Pauline material in 3:24-26. 3.3 SOURCE-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ROM 3:24-26 The previous section addressed only text-critical issues, establishing the text of Rom 3:21-26 for our study. We now turn to the source-critical issues, in particular those that arise as a result of the alleged presence of pre-Pauline material in 3:24-26. As we have seen in the first chapter, difficulties with 3:24-26 led to the controversial suggestion that prePauline material is present. We must therefore consider the weight of any evidence that these verses belong to a pre-Pauline formula, as opposed to their being an original composition of Paul. It is worth noting that 3:24-26: (1) is formed by one participial clause, one relative clause and a string of nine prepositional phrases; and (2) includes some words that are typical of Paul.52 The presence of the Pauline elements within the allegedly pre-Pauline formula undoubtedly creates a problem for the citation hypothesis. How is the presence of typically Pauline elements in the section to be explained? Yet the prominence of the so-called non-Pauline elements also needs explanation. Almost all scholars agree with Bultmann’s observation that there are elements here that are unique within Paul’s writings. Nevertheless, there is no consensus about whether this is, or is not, explained by the presence of non-Pauline elements. Although the citation hypothesis seems impressive, we will seek to show that it becomes unsustainable under careful scrutiny. We shall also show how this position is integrated with our overall understanding of Paul. Some preliminary observations are in order before we examine the verses one by one. No one doubts that Paul used traditions in writing his letters. 1 Cor 15:3-7, where Paul says that he is handing over what he also received, is a classic example. It is worth trying to identify the traditional material that Paul uses, so that we may better understand his theological emphasis. However, the task of identifying the tradition behind Pauline letters is difficult and can lead to ambiguous, even misleading conclusions. Whereas many speak of a pre-Pauline formula, some 52

Cf. Ribbens, “Forensic-Retributive Justification,” 551.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

125

speak of non-Pauline traditional material. Unless scholars can point to a specific source, this must remain speculative. Traditional ideas “can manifest themselves across the full spectrum of early Christian literature.”53 If it is a formula, it requires stable wording. Yet we cannot find similar wording elsewhere in the NT writings. It has been argued that the construction and a few words are similar to other uses of prePauline material in the Pauline writings. A closer look at those texts shows that the hypothesis is no less debatable there. The original Sitzim Leben of this formula is also problematic. The difficulty is the jump from an observation to a conclusion. We will now critically examine certain words and phrases that have been connected with the possibility of pre-Pauline material. What is striking is that there is no consensus on the delimitation of the proposed prePauline material, even among those who argue for its presence. 3.3.1 The Probability of Pre-Pauline Material in 3:24 There is really no compelling reason to identify 3:24 in any of its components as pre-Pauline. On the contrary, many of the expressions here are typically Pauline. This is seen in the way in which the pre-Pauline character of material in 3:24 has been challenged, with a number of scholars assigning it, or reassigning it, to Paul. Lohse rightly pointed out that neither τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι nor ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ is found prior to Paul. Both must, therefore, be Pauline.54 Moreover, he observes, “Tatsächlich finden sich sowohl die Wörter δωρεάν und χάρις wie auch die Formel ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ des öfteren in den paulinischen Briefen, so dass nur ἀπολύτρωσις als ein Wort übrigbleibt, das der Apostel sonst nicht zu gebrauchen pflegt.”55 The difficulty, however, is that 3:24 begins with δικαιούμενοι, which is syntactically inexplicable,56 while of the few uses of ἀπολύτρωσις in the Pauline writings, a number are in allegedly pre-Pauline material. But how far can the presence of ἀπολύτρωσις be held as evidence for pre-Pauline material in 3:24? Even if some of its other occurrences (Rom 8:24; 1Cor 1:30; Col 1:14; Eph 1:7; 4:30) may be pre-Pauline, it is surely an overstatement to say that Paul only uses the term in such 53

54 55 56

Robert Matthew Calhoun, Paul’s Definition of the Gospel in Romans 1, WUNT 316 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 92. Lohse, MärtyrerundGottesknecht, 149, note 4; See also Flebbe, SolusDeus, 95. Lohse, DerBriefandieRömer, 132. Cf. Käsemann, AndieRömer, 91.

126

CHAPTER THREE

instances.57 Even if the term was prevalent in a tradition prior to Paul, it does not follow that when he uses the term he must be quoting traditional material. He may be using it to express his own ideas. This fact is noted by Flebbe as he writes that here “ist nicht der Kenntnis der Formel zu entnehmen, sondern einer Kenntnis der paulinischen Texte, in denen diese Bestimmungen wichtige und spezifische Elemente sind.”58 The prePauline argument makes sense only if it can be shown that a lengthy portion of pre-Pauline material is present. Nor is it convincing to say that δικαιούμενοι is syntactically inexplicable. As Charles H. Talbert noted, “the question about the awkwardness of the beginning of 3:24 can be explained by a careful examination of the syntax of the passage.”59 We notice that Paul sometimes uses a participle to continue a finite construction (2 Cor 5:6; 7:5; 8:18-20).60 Since 3:24 is a dependent clause, it can be treated as the continuation of the previous sentences, which provide the subject and the main clause. N. H. Jung has argued in this line: “The pantes in v. 23 does not require a corresponding pantes in v. 24, as Käsemann claims, because v. 23 is itself an epexegetic gloss on the pantes of v. 22. Thus v. 24 refers back to v. 22a and the intervening phrase is parenthesis.”61 Moreover, Klaus Wengst argues that the coordination of participles with finite verbs is something Paul often does.62 As Schlier notes, examples for such constructions are to be found in 2 Cor 5:6; 7:5; 8:18.63 In short, many of the expressions in Rom 3:24 here are typically Pauline. The argument that 3:24 contains pre-Pauline material must be abandoned. If pre-Pauline material is present in the pericope, it begins after 3:24.

57

58 59

60 61 62 63

The occurrence of the term in 1 Cor 1:30 is comparable to what is found here. Käsemann also views it as a pre-Pauline text, without sufficient warrant. See Wengst, ChristologischeFormeln, 87, note 4. Although the sense of the term is different in Rom 8:23 it cannot be pre-Pauline. Cf. Bremer, DeathofChrist, 39. A detailed discussion of ἀπολύτρωσις and its related concepts will be taken up in the sixth chapter. Flebbe, SolusDeus, 95. Talbert, Romans, 107. The various issues relating to the syntax of this passage shall be treated in detail in the following section. Here we briefly address it from the perspective of how far this issue can be an indication of non-Pauline material. Cf. Meyer, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 199. N. H. Jung, “Did St.Paul Compose Romans III:24f.?,” AusBR 22 (1974): 30. Wengst, ChristologischeFormeln, 87. Cf. Schlier, DerRömerbrief, 109.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

127

3.3.2 The Probability of Pre-Pauline Material in 3:25-26 Rom 3:25-26 challenge both sides of the argument. On the one hand, the proponents of a pre-Pauline fragment have to explain how typically Pauline expressions come to be present, while on the other hand the opponents have to explain the occurrences of rare words including hapaxlegomena and the complex syntax. The issue of pre-Pauline material here is related to our central question of the theocentricity of the pericope, it is argued that the pre-Pauline material is christocentric. Kraus brings home this point: “Dabei kann die Frage, ob das Überlieferungsstück sich auf Christus also logisches Subjekt bezog, also mit ὅς (Nom.) begann, oder auf Gott, sodass mit ὅν (Akk.) zu rechnen ist, als untergeordnet gelten.”64 In the former case, the focus of 3:25-26 can be considered as a christocentric interpretation of the death of Christ. The presence of typical Pauline material in this section raises serious challenge. This section undoubtedly contains many words and clauses that are familiar to Paul. Those who argue that he nonetheless here adopted pre-Pauline material generally overcome this difficulty by arguing that he modified the adopted formula by introducing phrases typically his own: 1) τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι; 2) διὰ πίστεως; 3) πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν, with others arguing for 4) ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι.65 The question is then whether Paul is expanding traditional material, or whether he could have composed these verses drawing on traditional terminology. The relation between ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι and διὰ πίστεως has long been discussed. Whereas the former is widely considered to be prePauline, the latter is considered to be Pauline. We will argue in the following section that these two clauses need not be taken in close relation. Whereas διὰ πίστεως may go with ἱλαστήριον, ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι goes directly with προέθετο. This makes better sense of Rom 3:25. προτίθημι occurs here and 1:13, so the argument for its non-Pauline usage is rather strained. An important point is that 3:25 is not describing the act of Jesus, but the action of God. When the pericope is examined from a theocentric perspective, some of the interpretive difficulties in 3:25-26 may be overcome. It is argued that αἷμα is present elsewhere in the traditional 64 65

Kraus, „Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit,“ 196. See Fitzmyer, Romans, 343. Although Tobin, Paul’sRhetoric, 140-142, considers ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι as part of the inserted creedal formula, he admits the other typical Pauline expressions as his additions. In our judgment, this fragmentary nature of the material already raises questions about how it can be then called a pre-Pauline formula. Some others consider εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ too as Pauline addition. See Kraus, DerTodJesu, 16-19; Jewett, Romans, 270-271.

128

CHAPTER THREE

material, but this is not enough to prove that the material is traditional in every instance where it is employed. We cannot rule out the possibility that Paul used the term because it best expressed his own thought. Nor does a close examination of rare words necessarily imply the presence of pre-Pauline material. Piper notes that the key term ἔνδειξις is found in the NT only in Paul (Rom 3:25, 26; 2 Cor 8:24; Phil 1:28) and the word ἀνοχή is found only in Rom 3:26 and 2:4.66 Although the use of ἁμάρτημα is rare, its occurrence in 2 Cor 6:18 goes against nonPauline usage. These observations show that there is more Pauline terminology here than at first appears. The number of rare words in this section should not be exaggerated. The argument from vocabulary has now been reduced to the three hapaxlegomena: ἱλαστήριον, πάρεσις and προγίνιμαι. Bultmann has argued that such usage is not in Paul’s style.67 However, the fact that Paul does not use these terms anywhere else in his writings does not in itself mean that they do not come from him. We can also findhapaxlegomena elsewhere in Paul where we have no doubt that Paul has composed the text without using any traditional material.68 These observations help us to think that Paul must have been aware of the use of ἱλαστήριον in the LXX. Since Rom 3:21-26 has so many allusions to OT motifs, as we will argue later in this study, it is highly likely that he uses the term as it is used in the LXX. Further, Paul’s use of διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων explains why a manifestation of the righteousness of God was needed. As this is central to Paul’s argument, is it likely that he has adopted it from somewhere else? The argument that Rom 3:25-26 belongs to a creedal formula is also debatable. A comparison of these verses to other creeds shows how peculiar it is.69 Ethelbet Stauffer offers helpful criteria for recognizing creedal material: “Creedal formulae often strike us by their simple and clear syntax. They avoid participles, conjunctions, and complicated constructions, and prefer parataxis to hypotaxis. Their thought proceeds by thesis rather than by argument.”70 These characteristics are not present in 3:2526. Our discussions so far have served to show just how complex this

66 67 68 69 70

Piper, “Righteousness of God,” 8. Cf. Bultmann, TheologyoftheNewTestament, 46. See, for example, Rom 1:20. Cf. Wolter, DerBriefanDieRömer, 245. Cf. Bremer, DeathofChrist, 48. Ethelbert Stauffer, NewTestamentTheology, trans. John Marsh (London: SCM, 1963), 338-339.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

129

text is. Indeed, it was in order to provide a solution to this very complexity that the hypothesis of a pre-Pauline formula arose. Käsemann’s conclusion seems to be partly based on his observation that there are two different discussions of δικαιοσύνη and the second is part of the pre-Pauline formula.71 He appears prejudiced. Indeed, he seems to have his conclusion that there are two discussions of righteousness ready-made and to seek explanations for it. Nor is it easy to comprehend Käsemann’s interpretation of the segment διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων as a block to the flow of the discussion. It seems more like a necessary presupposition to the following section. Other scholars have argued that it is constructed in parallelism to the following sentence. In that sense, the clause stands as the core of the pericope. Paul, moreover, speaks about the sins of the Jews and the Gentiles in Rom 1:18-3:20. As a continuation and climax of this section it is necessary that Paul should state how God has dealt with former sins. As we have seen in the first chapter, if we admit that Paul is using an antecedent tradition in 3:24-26, it could also result that Paul is using δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 3:21-22 in a different sense from that in 3:25-26, with the latter correcting the sense of the former. It seems unlikely that Paul uses δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in two distinct senses in the same passage. Further, as Fitzmyer rightly notices, “that reading would introduce an Anselmian distinction into the Pauline text, which does not warrant it.”72 The observation of Schlier is relevant to establishing its literary genre or from which context such a quotation derives, but despite imaginative guesswork, none of the studies has convincingly situated the text. We cannot conclude merely on the basis of the presence of the new theme or new words that it does not come from Paul, for if we follow that logic we will not be able to explain many of the words or themes that occur only once in his letters. A significant observation is that the part that scholars consider as prePauline and the part that they consider to be by Paul are equally theocentric. This argues against the proposal of pre-Pauline material. That there is no difference in this regard is an indication that it is from Paul himself. It is too naive when some argue that Paul made ‘a christological hymn’ theocentric by his additions. In the passage under consideration, Paul is sometimes said to be correcting the material he is quoting. This is indeed a strange argument. It is unlikely that Paul would quote something that 71 72

Käsemann, “Zum Verständnis,” 150-151 (see the discussion on p. 29). Fitzmyer, Romans, 343.

130

CHAPTER THREE

he does not agree with. Further Paul does not give any indication that he is correcting a previous statement. Piper is right in observing that the readers of Paul who lack modern exegetical tools would not have understood such a correction without him explicitly stating it.73 To conclude the discussion, we maintain that Paul’s purpose in 3:2426 is not to present a christocentric discussion of the death of Christ. Even the idea of ‘a pre-Pauline formula’ is misleading because, given its fragmentary nature, the disputed text cannot reasonably be considered to be a ‘formula.’ Although many have pointed to a difference in style, unusual clustering and novelty as regards the theme in this text, they have neither convincingly shown the original Sitz im Leben nor the original meaning of the formula. Moreover, the hypothesis of pre-Pauline material has led to a tendency to overemphasize the pre-Pauline setting of the passage neglecting the present context. We assert that these verses cannot be treated in isolation alienating them from Paul’s argument in the immediate and wider context. We ask therefore: can we not consider it as a Pauline composition that uses traditional language? Of course, some peculiarities of the text need explanation. But the difficulty in interpretation, the change in style, and the presence of new ideas are not sufficient grounds to decide in favour of the insertion of pre-Pauline material in the text. Moreover, as Seifrid points out, “there is no tradition in the NT that matches the thought and imagery of this passage.”74 The hypothesis of a pre-Pauline formula simply does not solve the problems of the text. As there is no sufficient ground to conclude for pre-Pauline material in the text, we must treat it as belonging to Paul’s original composition. Indeed we will argue that there is both integrity of the text and the development of a crucial argument to be found here. Paul writes using words that for him are unusual. Yet he does so in a way that is totally in keeping with other Pauline terminology and with his style of writing. Paul is the author of the letter and Rom 3:24-26 should therefore be viewed from that perspective. We consider that it is entirely by Paul. Any studies that isolate this text from its immediate context and make a christocentric interpretation of the death of Christ do not do justice to the evident theocentricity of Paul’s discussion.

73 74

Cf. Piper, “Righteousness of God,” 9. 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, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 618.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

3.4 ISSUES

OF

131

SYNTAX IN ROM 3:21-26

As we have seen in the previous section, it was the complex syntax of 3:24-26 that raised the question of whether pre-Pauline material was present. We now turn to address this syntax in detail, to establish the issues of grammar and syntax raised by the text and, as far as we can, to clarify them. We will also show how theological strategies and preconceptions have come to colour scholarly understanding of the syntax of 3:21-26. On the other hand, the complexity of the text makes it almost impossible to avoid interpretative decisions. Rom 3:21-26 is complex, as Campbell notes, “comprising extended periodic syntax with a series of carefully formed clauses and phrases, and ending in a v. 26 with a climactic concluding phrase.”75 Any reading of the argument or interpretation of the theology of these verses depends on how we construe the syntax – the relationship between the words, the clauses and the string of prepositional phrases that make up the verses. 3.4.1 The Relation of 3:22 to 3:21 The syntax of verses 3:21 and 3:22 is not at all obvious. First, given that Paul connects the two genitive phrases δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ and πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in 3:22, we are obliged to ask what relationship subsists between δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 3:21 and πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in 3:22? Second, as there is no finite verb in the first part of 3:22, are we to understand φανερόω, the verb of 3:21, as being also the verb of 3:22? Third, how are we to understand πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ? If we understand it as believers’ faith in Jesus Christ, we have to ask how believers’ faith can be the reason for the manifestation of God’s δικαιοσύνη.76 The passive verb is in the perfect tense (πεφανέρωται), but the act of faith is taking place in the present. How can an act of faith in the present reveal God’s δικαιοσύνη in the past? As we have noted in the history of interpretation, this depends on a particular understanding of πίστις. We will discuss these genitive phrases later. Until then we will stick to issues of syntax. The phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, repeated in 3:22 from 3:21, is there connected by the particle δέ. This particle is not adversative. It is not 75 76

Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 81. Hays, FaithofJesusChrist, 159; Hays, “Πίστις and Pauline Christology,” 283; Campbell, QuestforPaul’sGospel, 197.

132

CHAPTER THREE

something in contradiction to the previous verse but would link these verses. It is therefore used in an explanatory sense, meaning “that is.”77 After Paul has finished μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν in 3:21, why is he repeating δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ? In our view, it is because he thinks that this δικαιοσύνη needs some explanation. Paul wants to specify that the δικαιοσύνη which he just mentioned is the δικαιοσύνη of God, characterised by coming through faith in Jesus Christ and being for all the believers. In that sense it is an apposition that qualifies what kind of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ it is. This explains why it would not rely on supplying a verb. The repetition in 3:22 is therefore for the sake of clarity, to overcome its distance from the previous usage in 3:21.78 δέ then provides transition and connects 3:22 to 3:21. For that reason we should not see it as marking a contrast. Rather, it here provides emphasis and indicates that a fuller qualification of the phrase will follow.79 Much confusion has been created by taking the prepositional clause εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας as modifying the previous prepositional phrase, διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, or the main verb, φανερόω, in the previous verse. The word order would suggest that it is more natural to read both the prepositional phrases, διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας, as qualifying δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. As an apposition, Paul simply repeats a phrase from the previous sentence and qualifies it with two prepositional phrases. In this reading, Paul is then providing an explanation of how and to whom God’s δικαιοσύνη has been made manifest. διά with the genitive conveys that God’s δικαιοσύνη is made manifest through faith in Jesus Christ.80 εἰς conveys that this

77

78

79

80

BDF § 447.8; Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples, trans. Joseph Smith, SubBi 42 (Roma: Gregorian & Biblical, 2011; reprint, 9), 467; BDAG, 213.2. Cf. Moo, EpistletotheRomans, 223. Charles Raith II, AquinasandCalvinonRomans: God’sJustificationandOurParticipation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 42, notes that “for Calvin, this repetition is a rhetorical device that serves to press upon the reader Paul’s central message, namely, that our justification rests upon God’s mercy alone.” Dunn, Romans1-8, 166; Stanley E. Porter, IdiomsoftheGreekNewTestament, 2 ed., BLG 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 208. Lee, Paul’sGospelinRomans, 229, notes that “its function is not to signify the adversative relationship between the two clauses, but to show with stress that v. 22 works as an exposition of v. 21.” Similarly, Wolter, DerBriefanDieRömer, 248, notes that by repetition in 3:22 Paul wanted to show that “eine präzisierende Erklärung dieses Begriffs ergänzen will.” BDF § 223; Zerwick, BiblicalGreek, 113.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

133

manifestation is to all who believe.81 Human faith is not the manifestation of God’s δικαιοσύνη. Rather, that δικαιοσύνη “comes to expression through faith in Christ.”82 The purpose, then, is not to contrast law and Christ, or χωρὶς νόμου (3:21) and διὰ πίστεως. Rather, it is to underline that God’s δικαιοσύνη is for all. Thus, Paul explains in 3:22 that the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ which in 3:21 he has declared to have been manifested (πεφανέρωται) is in fact manifested through faith in Christ (διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), which is intended for all those who believe (εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας). 3.4.2 Redundancy in 3:22 Romans 3:22 has seemed to many to be clumsy in its syntax, while in διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας, with the prepositional phrase that contains a substantival participle, εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας, has seemed a needless repetition. This has prompted some scholars to consider διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as a reference to the ‘faithfulness of Christ’ (rather than our preferred ‘through faith in Christ’). The prepositional phrase εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας refers to believers’ faith. These together then modify the main verb, φανερόω, in the previous verse. Syntax apart, this understanding raises many other questions, which we will address as the study progresses. As we have said, we favour taking these prepositional phrases as qualifying δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. The repetition is both for the sake of emphasis and for the sake of balancing πᾶς in 3:19-20 and 23.83 Such repetition is one of Paul’s stylistic hallmarks: the point he wants to emphasise is often repeated (see for example Rom 3:19; 5:18-19). In the second part of 3:22a, the emphasis falls on πάντας. It is then evident that this phrase is not redundant: rather, it stresses that God’s δικαιοσύνη is εἰς πάντας, against any type of favouritism. The transition to the following explanatory clause, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή, is then smooth. The whole world that is accountable to God (ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ) of 3:19, and the all who believe (πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας) of 3:22 are potentially the same as the all who have sinned (πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον) of 3:23. The passage is then tied in to the context of 1:18-3:20, in which 81

82 83

BDF § 207; Archibald Thomas Robertson, AGrammaroftheGreekNewTestamentin theLightofHistoricalResearch, 3 ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919), 481. Dunn, Romans1-8, 167; See also Jewett, Romans, 278. See Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” 61-81, esp. 75. See also, Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 203.

134

CHAPTER THREE

Paul establishes that all are guilty before God. Whereas πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ presents humans as the actors with Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as the realm of this action, the following πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας portrays human beings as the recipients. There is a word play here, with the πιστwords (noun and verb) reinforcing and clarifying one another. 3.4.3 A Parenthesis in 3:22d-3:24a? Campbell suggests that 3:22d-24a [Campbell’s verse sub-division] should be identified as a parenthesis.84 According to him the parenthesis begins with οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή 3:22, because this “comment cannot complete the sense of the section’s opening clause,”85 the manifestation of δικαιοσύνη. Rather, this statement of no διαστολή86 clarifies its antecedent clause, εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. He takes this departure from the main point of 3:21-22 as an indication that Paul is using parenthesis as a rhetorical technique, either a “quite deliberated violation of measured periodic syntax,” or “a brief divergence from the subject.”87 Accordingly, 3:23-24a diverges from the main point and explains the statement οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή (3:22). Campbell argues that, taking 22d-24a as a parenthesis, Paul’s central argument emerges quite clearly in the reminder of the text. It is conveyed through three clauses that contain διά with the genitive and which are to be understood as connected to δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται in 3:21. 84

85 86

87

Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 86-101. In what follows we summarise the main points of Campbell’s syntactic proposal. More recently, Waetjen, LettertotheRomans, 115-116, considers 3:22b-26 as a scribal interpolation because the main thought in 3:21-22a is interrupted by the following verses, but naturally continued in 3:27-31. However, Waetjen fails to provide us sufficient reason why this central part of the text is considered as a scribal interpolation and how concretely that interpolation might have happened. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 87. The word διαστολή is found in Romans here and in 10:12. Apart from these instances, this rare word is found in the NT only in 1 Cor 14:7. In 10:12 it is followed by Ἰουδαίου τε καὶ Ἕλληνος thereby making it more specific that there is no discrimination between Jew and Gentile. William S. Campbell, “No Distinction or no Discrimination?: The Translation of Διαστολή in Romans 3:22 and 10:12,” TZ 69 (2013): 353371, usefully establishes that it can make better sense if translated as ‘discrimination.’ This translation is favoured by Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 121, who gives ‘discrimination’ as the first meaning, followed by ‘to express orders’ and ‘to cede a tract of land’ as the other possible meanings. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 87. For an explanation of parenthesis, see BDF § 465.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

135

More specifically, the three διά clauses qualify πεφανέρωται, which conveys a christocentric revelation of God’s δικαιοσύνη. Stripped of its parenthetic elements, in Campbell’s opinion, Paul’s main argument reads as follows: (νυνὶ δὲ…) δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας… διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον, διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι.88

The focus of the διά-with-genitive clauses is christocentric, because the focus of these clauses is Christ. 3:21-25 can then be read as a single, if complex, sentence. Contrary to Campbell, we read 3:23-24 as central to Paul’s argument. In our reading οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή in 3:22d continues the emphasis on πάντας, the ‘all’ in the previous clause. Similarly, with πάντες γὰρ in 3:23 we go back to this πάντας. πάντες is used here again to pick up and continue the main line of thought. Thus, the particle γάρ and πάντες in 3:23 show that the same discussion carries on, explaining why God’s δικαιοσύνη has been revealed to ‘all those who believe.’ Another problem is that Campbell does not list μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν (3:21) and δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ (3:22), either in his identification of a parenthesis, or in the main argument of the pericope. To make this point, he is stripping the text of everything other than the διά clauses. We find that, by doing so, he is not faithful to the text. Whereas Campbell’s proposal sidelines some parts of the text and requires that “the idea associated with the πεφανέρωται be carried into three verses where the verb does not formally appear,”89 we find continuity in Paul’s thought. Further, as Cranfield rightly points out, δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι is part of Paul’s central argument.90 The second διά clause needs to be connected to the preceding δωρεάν and the dative expression τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι. Then Campbell’s parallelism does not work. Moreover, his approach even excludes the central affirmation of God’s action, setting Jesus as ἱλαστήριον (3:25) apart from the main argument of the pericope. Campbell is driven to argue that διὰ τὴν 88 89

90

Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 95. Daniel P. Bailey, “Review of Campbell’s The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Rom 3:2126,” JTS 44 (1993): 279-283, esp. 281. Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 205.

136

CHAPTER THREE

πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων is yet another parenthesis, an aside from the main argument. The marginalising of this fourth διάclause (the one with the accusative rather than the genitive) is hard to accept. Moreover, Campbell does not provide us with stylistic parallels elsewhere in Pauline writings.91 By excluding a large portion of the text from the main argument and by neglecting the centrality of δικ- words, his proposal shifts the focus firmly to Christ. We believe that Campbell’s perception of the content of the pericope has influenced his identification of parentheses. In our view, 3:22-25 is central to the pericope and to a proper understanding of what Paul says in 1:18-3:20. Our treatment of the issues raised by Campbell in the following sections will clarify our reasons for rejecting his proposal. Our study will be in critical dialogue with his position. 3.4.4 Πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον in the Syntax of 3:23 Many scholars find it difficult to explain how πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον, in 3:23, fits the syntax of what precedes and follows it. They note that Paul here seems to move away from his main point. The verb, ἥμαρτον, is aorist, and is often taken as pointing to the universal character of human fallen-ness.92 The text continues with ὑστεροῦνται in the present tense. Many scholars argue that καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ, although a clause in the present, is generally attached to πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον; while some argue that it is attached, by virtue of the same tenses, to εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. As Johnston writes: “When πᾶς functions pronominally, then it has a built-in anaphoric quality, and the scope of the antecedent limits the possible application of ‘all’.”93 He suggests that “πάντας seen as a pronoun in Rom 3:23 helps resolve the difficulty posed by δικαιούμενοι in v. 24 without needlessly complicating the explanation. The ‘all’ who sinned and fall short of God’s glory are the same ones who in v. 24a are justified.”94 πάντας is then limited by ‘all who believe’ in the previous clause. The difficulty of the verb 91 92 93

94

Cf. Bailey, “Review,” 281. Cf. Dunn, Romans1-8, 167. William J. Johnston, “Which ‘All’ Sinned? Rom 3:23-24 Reconsidered,” NovT 53 (2011): 160. He points out 1 Cor 10:1-4 as the closest parallel, but also Mt 13:56; 14:20; Jn 13:10; 1 Cor 1:10 as some of the examples. Johnston, “Which ‘All’ Sinned?,” 162. However, Dabourne, PurposeandCause, 14, points out that there is a serious problem for reading it as justification of the believers because if it is “announcement of justification by faith, the grammar does not match the meaning.” Hence, he argues that it is necessary to hold that Paul means that all

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

137

ὑστεροῦνται in the present tense may then sound like unbelievers lacking the glory of God, which can be overcome if it is taken “as a gnomic present describing what is generally true.”95 The conjunction γάρ then provides the reason why Paul uses πάντας. We find Johnston’s suggestion to be informative. However, we have a different understanding of εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. Accordingly, we hold that πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον refers neither to believers’ sins nor to Jewish or Gentile sins. Rather it refers to all those who have sinned before the Christ-event. Nor does the preceding clause εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας refer to any exclusive group of believers. Hence, πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον may be seen, in the light of what follows (3:24-25), as referring to all those who sinned before the coming of Christ. Thus, πάντες here is continuing οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή and is also further explicated and modified in the following verses. The repeated particle γάρ 3:23 explains why there is no διαστολή: all, without discrimination, receives God’s δικαιοσύνη by means of faith. πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον explains why no one can claim righteousness by their own merit. Paul is here dealing with God’s handling of sins before Christ, which correlates with God’s passing over of the former sins described in 3:25.96 Unless this link is taken into consideration πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον will cause further problems for the understanding of Paul’s argument in 3:24-26. πάντες therefore maintains the repeated emphasis of 3:3, 9, 12, 19, 20, 22. More specifically, πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον recalls the previous statements about ‘all’ in 3:9 and 20 and establishes a link with these verses. This πάντες is further specified in the following verse, by the attributive participle δικαιούμενοι. To this we now turn. 3.4.5 The Complex Syntax of 3:24-26 As we have seen in the previous section, Paul’s wish to include prePauline material has been put forward in explanation of the complicated syntax of 3:24-26. The long sentence begins with a participial clause,

95

96

those who sinned are freely justified by God. Unless we observe this point Rom 3:23 will not serve as a summary statement of Paul’s argument in 1:18-3:20. Johnston, “Which ‘All’ Sinned?,” 162. See also Daniel B. Wallace, GreekGrammar BeyondtheBasics:AnExegeticalSyntaxoftheNewTestament(Grand Rapids, MN: Zondervan, 1996), 523. The meaning διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων in the context of 3:25 is seen from different theological view points. We shall deal with the syntactic issues here in the following section and in more detail in the seventh chapter.

138

CHAPTER THREE

continues with a relative clause and contains a string of nine prepositional phrases. To explain such complication, we need to show both the internal and external connections that it establishes. Some of the issues concerning διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ in 3:24 and ἱλαστήριον in 3:25 need more detailed examination. These will be taken up in later chapters where we study them in detail. Here we address those issues of syntax that have generated alternative readings of the passage. 3.4.5.1 ConsiderationsConcerningδικαιούμενοιin3:24 Many interpreters have been troubled by the abrupt interruption of the syntax caused by the passive participle δικαιούμενοι in 3:24. Some scholars have attempted to explain this by postulating citation of prePauline material. The connection between the passive participle δικαιούμενοι and what precedes it is elusive. It is unclear whether with the participle δικαιούμενοι in 3:24 the syntactic construction that precedes it is continued over the new syntactic construction. Then it is unclear whether the new syntactic construction just consists of the participial construction or whether this participial construction is part of a main clause with a finite verb. These are the possibilities. It is also observed that 3:24 seems to go against the negative statement in the previous verse. Nor is it evident to what masculine plural δικαιούμενοι refers. Sanday and Headlam and Cranfield have pointed to five mutually exclusive possibilities regarding 3:24:97 (1) it can be understood as portraying the details of the situation described by ὑστεροῦνται; (2) “ὑστεροῦνται δικαιούμενοι” is taken as “ὑστεροῦνται καὶ δικαιούμενοι” or as “ὑστερούμενοι δικαιοῦνται”;98 (3) δικαιούμενοι can be considered as the beginning of an independent sentence;99

97

98 99

Sanday and Headlam, EpistletotheRomans, 85; Cranfield, Romans, 205. It is followed by the double qualifiers: δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι. The association of these terms needs closer examination, which is taken up in the sixth chapter (see pp. 239-244). Sanday and Headlam, EpistletotheRomans, 85. For example, J. E. Frame, “Paul’s Idea of Deliverance,” JBL 49 (1930): 1-12, esp. 9, holds that δικαιούμενοι is the beginning of a new sentence which is connected with 3:27. The obvious difficulty here is the lengthy digression of 3:25-26.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

139

(4) it modifies πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας in 3:22 when scholars regard 3:22b-23 as a parenthesis;100 or (5) it depends on and modifies πάντες in the previous verse and further clarifies οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή.101 The traditional approach has been to take δικαιούμενοι as modifying πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας in 3:22 (see option 4 in the preceding list). The problem is the distance separating them. This understanding does not do justice to the syntax. Nor does option 2 do justice to the actual word order and syntax. The first part of this suggestion assumes that there is a καί that is not expressed, but needs to be added. But the second part of this suggestion raises a serious problem: how can we take a finite verb followed by a participle as if it meant a participle followed by a finite verb? This seems to be arbitrary. The suggestion that 3:22b-23 be considered as parenthetic faces another difficulty, for the participle δικαιούμενοι in the nominative may go better with πάντες which is also in the nominative. Hence the suggestion of taking 3:24 as a new sentence needs to be seriously considered. The best option seems to be to consider the participle δικαιούμενοι as continuing the preceding verbs ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται and modifying πάντες. This provides the most fitting antecedent for the participle in masculine nominative plural. As Moule has pointed out, “There are several examples in the New Testament of the use of the participle where normal Greek would have used a finite verb or imperative.”102 In this line, Wengst argues that the use of the participle is authentically Pauline, because it is Paul’s style to continue a finite verb by using a coordinating participle.103 A famous example in this regard is 2 Cor 6:3-4. We suggest 100

101

102

103

Sanday and Headlam, EpistletotheRomans, 85, consider it as a parenthesis. Similarly, Bremer,DeathofChrist, 44, considers 3:22-23 as a digression. See Campbell’s suggestion of a longer parenthesis above. Although these suggestions are attractive, as Cranfield EpistletotheRomans, 205, observes it seems to be too mechanical. Cf. Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 205. A similar view is held by Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 177, note 113; Jewett, Romans, 281; Hultgren, Letter to the Romans, 156; Wolter, DerBriefanDieRömer, 253. Charles F. D. Moule, AnIdiomBookofNewTestamentGreek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 179. An example is Rom 5:11 (also 2 Cor 5:12; 7:5) where Paul uses a participle where an indicative can be expected. This use of the participle raises serious questions for those who hold that Paul must be using the pre-Pauline material here (because of the syntax). Wengst, Christologische Formeln, 87. Some scholars favour taking the participle as concessive, because it “implies that the state or action of the mainverb is true inspite of the state or action of the participle.” Wallace, Greek Grammar, 634 (italics original).

140

CHAPTER THREE

that this can be considered as a parallel text, illuminating the issues at stake in Rom 3:24. In 2 Cor 6:3 we find a clause with a participle and a ἵνα clause following it. It is continued in 6:4, again with a participle followed by a long list of prepositional phrases. The participles employed in these verses must be used in place of finite verbs. This is the best way to understand the text. This parallel shows that it is much simpler to just admit that sometimes Paul uses a participle, in place of a finite verb, in a main clause. Accordingly, the best option is to consider δικαιούμενοι as modifying πάντες and as taking up and continuing the main theme of God’s δικαιοσύνη.104 God is the agent of the action (τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι) of this passive participle supports this reading. Taken in this sense, the participial construction here stands in parallel to the previous verse (3:23). Hence we favour considering that it is used in place of a finite verb. 3.4.5.2 Issueswithδιὰπίστεωςandἐντῷαὐτοῦαἵματιin3:25 Our understanding of the syntax affects our interpretation of the reference to the death of Christ in 3:25. We find here the strange wording διὰ πίστεως followed by ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι. What exactly do these two phrases modify? How are we to construe the relation of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι to what proceeds? The three options most generally recognized are that the phrase: (1) is linked to διὰ πίστεως, as the object of faith; (2) modifies ἱλαστήριον; or (3) modifies the verb προέθετο. Some explain this strange wording by suggesting that διὰ πίστεως is Paul’s redactional addition to a pre-Pauline formula. A further suggestion is that “Paul’s diction at this point is both halting and staccato, as though a phrase comes to mind that he wants included while composing the main thrust of what he wants to say.”105 The first option would connect διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι to the participle δικαιούμενοι, to get the sense of ‘being justified by faith in 104

105

See Cranfield, Romans, 205; Dunn, Romans 1-8, 168; Moo, Romans, 227; Jewett, Romans, 281. This reading has tremendous impact on our understanding of God’s δικαιοσύνη. The precise connection between δικαιούμενοι and the adverbial phrases in 3:24, τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι and διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ shall be treated in detail in chapter 6. Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 158.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

141

his death.’ In this case both are adverbial. The distance between the participle and the phrase makes this reading strained, although KJV and NIV favour it, with the translation “through faith in his blood.” ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι is unique in the NT. διὰ πίστεως followed by the preposition ἐν is also found nowhere else in the NT.106 Many scholars therefore suggest that the two prepositional phrases should be separated. ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι can then be taken either attributively, qualifying ἱλαστήριον, or adverbially, qualifying the verb προέθετο. Recent commentaries tend to favour taking ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι and διὰ πίστεως as separate, respectively modifying the verb and the noun. A similar syntactic construction can be observed in Gal 3:26, where two phrases next to one another modify the preceding noun.107 In Rom 3:25, the word order supports an adverbial understanding of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι. The distance between the verb and the adverbial phrase need not be an issue since, as Bailey notes, if we replace the divine passive ὁρισθέντος with the active ὥρισεν, this construction is stylistically parallel to Rom 1:4:108 Subject +Verb ὁ θεὸς ὥρισεν (Rom 1:4) ὁ θεὸς προέθετο (Rom 3:25)

Direct object αὐτὸν αὐτὸν

Complement υἱὸν θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως

Adverbial Adverbial prep. phrase prep. phrase κατὰ πνεῦμα ἐξ ἁγιωσύνης ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔνδειξιν αἵματι τῆς δικαιοσύνης…

The stylistic comparison with 1:4 is helpful. Bailey decides on exegetical grounds to include the prepositional phrases ἐν δυνάμει and διὰ πίστεως as part of the predicate complement. The attributive preposition phrase does not get a separate box because it is not syntactically relevant. In the case of 1:4 it is possible to take the two prepositional phrases as qualifying υἱὸν θεοῦ. However, we get a better sense if they are considered as adverbial prepositional phrases that modify the verb. Many commentators 106 107

108

Käsemann, AndieRömer, 98; Jewett,Romans, 288. Cf. Bremer, DeathofChrist, 46. By pointing to this parallel syntax, he also raises a significant question. If Gal 3:26 is Pauline, why should Rom 3:25 be considered as pre-Pauline on behalf of the syntactical difficulties? Bailey, Jesus as the Mercy Seat, 205-206. This table is the representation of how Bailey views the stylistic parallelism.

142

CHAPTER THREE

have shown that better sense can be made if we take the first prepositional phrase (ἐν δυνάμει) attributively with the noun.109 This helps with reading 1:4: Jesus was effectively established as ‘son of God inpower’ after his resurrection. In this light, in Rom 3:25 the first prepositional phrase, διὰ πίστεως, can be taken with the substantive ἱλαστήριον. God is the subject of the sentence, who set forth Jesus as the ἱλαστήριον. It seems to us natural that ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι relates to this action of God. It is important to take note that the prepositional phrases that follow ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι also qualify the verb προέθετο. This leads us to take ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι with the verb. We therefore favour taking διὰ πίστεως with the substantive ἱλαστήριον and ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι adverbially qualifying the verb προέθετο.110 The reasons and advantages of this reading will be made clear when we turn to the syntax relating the string of prepositional clauses. 3.4.5.3 ThePrepositionδιάwithAccusativein3:25 The next problem in Rom 3:25 is the meaning of διά with the accusative. The scholarly difficulty is how to construe διά with the accusative τὴν πάρεσιν with what it precedes and follows it. Moule shows the possible nuances of meaning of διά in this context, as he writes that it is of particular interest: “Rom 3:25 διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων, where it makes a difference whether διά is taken strictly as = because of, or more loosely as almost = by way of, involving, or even with a view to.”111 In NT and classical Greek, διά with the accusative mostly has a local or causal meaning.112 The ambiguity centres on whether it is here used in the standard Koine sense. BDAG presents a wide range of possible meanings for the preposition: ‘because of’; ‘on account of’; ‘in as much as’; and ‘since.’113 It is indeed very well possible 109

110 111 112

113

Lohse writes: “Die Wendung ἐν δυνάμει ist sicherlich zu der vorangegangenen Begriffsverbindung υἱὸν θεοῦ.” Lohse, DerBriefandieRömer, 65. See also Barrett, Romans, 20; Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 62; Schlier, Römerbrief, 24; Fitzmyer, Romans, 235. Fitzmyer, Romans, 348; Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 209. Moule, NewTestamentGreek, 54 (italics original). Cf. BDAG, 225: it indicates “the reason why something happens, results, exists.” See also LSJ, 389; BDF§ 222; Albrecht Oepke, “διά,” in TDNT 2 (1964): 70, notes that a purely causal sense of διά with acc. cannot be shown from the Koine; Turner and Moulton, NewTestamentGreek, 268; Zerwick, BiblicalGreek, 112. BDAG, 225. Campbell views that this account of BADG can be also confusing here, lumping purposive and causal meanings together, and suggesting a possible instrumental sense. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 193, note 2.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

143

that the preposition, as BDAG suggests, can have nuances of meaning.114 A grammatical analysis alone cannot, therefore, lead us to a definite conclusion on the meaning of the preposition, which has a flexible function. We need to look at the ways in which scholars have tried to understand the preposition in its context. The most common way to look at the meaning of διά is to consider its causal meaning. Unfortunately, in the sentence in question this causes trouble, because according to Kümmel πάρεσις is equated with ἄφεσις most of the time and is rendered as forgiveness. Thus, the translation would read: “who was instituted as ἱλαστήριον…because of the forgiving of the sins that happened before…”115 When we read the translation we may notice that the connection is unclear. The institution of Jesus as ἱλαστήριον must be the reason, not the ‘forgiving’ of previous sins.116 Käsemann therefore suggests that διά with an accusative be translated in this case by durch. This is to give the preposition an instrumental meaning. This helps Käsemann to manage the syntax and meaning of the sentence: “to demonstrate his δικαιοσύνη by the forgiveness of former sins.” However, if Paul wanted to communicate such a message, διά with a genitive would have been used. The serious problem with this reading is that it departs from the normal meaning of διά with the accusative. It is used, as Campbell says, “as something of an escape-hatch for the present passage (for example, by Käsemann), and should only be resorted to when all else fails.”117 Our first attempt should be, therefore, to try to understand its usual sense before we take such a stand, for it is debated whether διά with an accusative in this sense is encountered anywhere in the NT. Some translators have argued that διά can also have a prospective meaning (‘with a view to’), which they find to be appropriate here.118 Kraus challenges this. In his view, it is not demonstrated that a prospective sense of διά with the accusative is to be found in NT Greek. Even in classical Greek it is indeed rare.119 Rom 4:25; 8:20; 13:5; 1 Cor 11:9; 114 115

116 117 118

119

See also BDF § 222. “Der als ἱλαστήριον eingesetzt wurde… wegen der Vergebung der vorher geschehener Sünden… ” Kümmel, „Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις,“ 164,165. Cf. Kraus, TodJesu, 93. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 193-194, note 2. Douglas J. Moo, Romans1-8, ed. Kenneth Barker, The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1991), 241, mentions Calvin; Godet; Lietzmann; Wilckens. Kraus, TodJesu, 94. According to him, as collected and discussed by Sharp, Taylor und Meecham, only Plato, Politeia, 524c and Polybios, 11, 56, 11-12 seems to convey this sense for the preposition.

144

CHAPTER THREE

Phil 3:8; Mk 2:27; Jn 11:42; 12:30 have been pointed to in support of a prospective sense in the NT.120 But even these are debated. The only one really worth debating, according to Kraus, is Rom 4:25.121 Here the first διά could be causal, implementing the second prospective sense. Even here an interpretive problem arises, for it may be argued that δικαίωσις reflects a future sense, separate from the justification at the cross. Contrary to such a position stands at least Rom 5:9-10. We support Kraus in warning against drawing far-reaching conclusions from such a weak basis. As prepositions are noticeably fluid in Hellenistic Greek, there is no distinct evidence of a prospective sense, at most a tendency. Since it is used in a causal and retrospective sense in classical and Hellenistic texts, it is precarious to depart from that sense in these two Pauline passages (Rom 3:25; 4:25) and to support an exegetical conclusion on such a rare meaning of the preposition. We therefore believe that a causal sense of διά should be retained in this verse. There is a real difficulty in linking the prepositional phrase διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν with what precedes it in 3:25. For some, it is not tenable to say that God displays his δικαιοσύνη becauseofa deliverance from sins. In other words, it makes little sense to say that deliverance from sins causes God’s display of δικαιοσύνη. In our view, the difficulty of such an interpretation and association points not to the understanding of the preposition, but to the understanding of the meaning and syntax of the associated words. Our assessment of the scholarly studies shows how a small preposition can have a great impact on the interpretation of the text. A prospective or instrumental sense for the preposition is unlikely in this context and we conclude that διά with the accusative here has its usual causal sense, as in Rom 4:25. In 3:25, then, a link is established with the previous mention of Christ as ἱλαστήριον. We shall now show how concretely this link is established between the different prepositional phrases and clauses.

120 121

Cf. Turner and Moulton, NewTestamentGreek, 268; Kraus, TodJesu, 94. Cf. Kraus, TodJesu, 94-95. Oepke, “διά,” 70, makes a special reference to the meaning of διά in this context. The parallel with Is 53:5 demands a final sense in the first half of the verse, or conversely the causal interpretation destroys the parallel. On the basis of the analysis of the preposition and the contextual meaning, Oepke states that the attractive possibility is to take both parts of the verse causally. This gives a meaningful interpretation of the text even though there is still a slight interference with the parallelism. Rom 11:28 is particularly instructive in this respect. For here the parallelism is only rhetorical, and yet no doubts arise as in Rom 4:25.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

145

3.4.5.4 TheStringofPrepositionalPhrasesin3:25-26 How do the string of nine prepositional phrases in 3:25-26 relate to each other and to what precedes? 3:25 begins with the relative pronoun ὅν, a masculine accusative singular. This refers to Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ as its antecedent, where “the whole of 25 and 26 is a single relative clause depending on Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ in V. 24.”122 However, closer examination shows that this is not the only or, in our view, the best possibility. We find it important to note that the relative clause starting with ὅν is not talking about Jesus Christ, but about God’s action (προέθετο) of setting Jesus as ἱλαστήριον. Jesus is the direct object of God’s action. It is this action that is further explicated through the following clauses. The observation of BDF is relevant in this regard: Paul “is fond of continuing a construction begun with a finite verb by means of co-ordinated participles, sometimes in long series.”123 The relation of 3:25-26 to what precedes has been seen in one of two ways: (1) 3:25-26 further explains what is already stated in 3:24;124 or (2) 3:25-26 is considered as a parallel statement to 3:24, another way of explaining the death of Christ,125 with 3:24 containing categories of redemption and bondage, while 3:25-26 introduces new categories of wrath and propitiation.126 We follow those scholars who take 3:25-26 as further explaining 3:24, with 3:25α, 3:25β and 3:25γ explaining how the redemption happened and 3:25δ-26 explaining the reason and purpose of this redemptive action. Although 3:24 begins with the passive participle δικαιούμενοι its agent of action is God because αὐτοῦ in τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι clearly refer to God.127 The same action is further explained (θεός as subject) in 3:25. The difficulty is that the same sentence has God’s actions described in 122 123 124

125

126 127

Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 29. BDF § 468. For example, Rom 12:9-11; 2 Cor 5:12; 6:3-10; 7:5; 8:18ff.; 9:11. Kuss, Der Römerbrief, 115: “Das hier mit Loskaufung übersetzte griechische Wort (ἀπολύτρωσις) wird durch vv. 25. 26 interpretiert.” Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 77, maintains that Paul explains in 3:25-26 how death of Christ is redemption. Dodd, Romans, 80; Haacker,Römer 89-90. Similarly, Flebbe, SolusDeus, 105, notes that “V.25b.26ab aus zwei gleich gebrauchten, parallelen Aussagen bestehen. Diese Struktur ist selbst eine wichtige Aussage und von grossem Gewicht für das Textverständis, zumal bei Paulus, inbesondere im Römerbrief, solche Strukturen, die aus einer deutlichen Parallele mit zugleich spezifischen Differenzen der beiden Elemente bestehen, öfter vorkommen (1,3f; 3,30; 11,22.30.31a; 15,8.9).” Murray, Romans, 116-117. Cf. Bremer, DeathofChrist, 100.

146

CHAPTER THREE

the predicate as well: διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ. Moreover, the concrete relation between ἔνδειξις and πάρεσις, and whether God’s action of πάρεσις is taking place in the past or present, depends not just on the meaning of these words, but on how they relate to each other.128 Many translations begin a new sentence with εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ (see RSV, NRSV, REB, NIV) in 3:25. Some scholars favour connecting πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ in 3:26 with πάρεσις in 3:25.129 For others, this clause is simply a repetition, taking up the previous εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ.130 The advocates of the pre-Pauline material recognize the parallelism between these two clauses, but in the second clause see Paul adjusting his quoted material to reflect his own view.131 In our opinion, however, the best option is to consider this repetition as underlining ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, in contrast to “the first instance with the time of God’s forbearance, that is, with the past.”132 As Bremer points out, “The reiteration of τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ is a grammatical necessity, for, if it were omitted, the sentence would read ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ and thus erroneously link ἀνοχῇ and ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ.”133 In addition, it also seems to have rhetorical value, similar to any of the many rhetorical tropes of repetition. Thus, the repeated clause continues the same idea and carries it further. The use of the article τὴν with ἔνδειξιν in 3:26 supports this reading. We must also ask whether ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ modifies and continues the immediately preceding phrase τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων (JB), modifies and continues εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης 128

129

130

131 132 133

Dunn, Romans1-8, 173. Wolter, DerBriefanDieRömer, 244, constues that διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων is not to be directly connected to προέθετο, but to εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ. The meaning and concrete relation of these words will be discussed in detail in our seventh chapter. Knox, “The Epistle to the Romans,” 434; Sanday and Headlam, EpistletotheRomans, 90; David Hall, “The Interpretation of πρός in Romans 3:26,” TynBul 65 (2014):119123, esp. 120. Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Saint Paul: Épître aux Romains, Etudes Bibliques (Paris: Gabalda, 1950), 77; Hans Wilhelm Schmidt, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, THKNT 6 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962), 71; Herman Ridderbos, Aan deRomeinen, CNT (Kampen: Kok, 1959), 87: “Het πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν enz. In vs 26 moet gecoördineerd worden met εἰς τὴν ἔνδειξιν in vs. 25 (vgl. voor een soortgelijke herhaling bijv. Vs. 21, 22); het is niet gesubordineerd aan πάρεσις.” See also Theobald, Studien zum Römerbrief, 32, 39. Wonneberger, Syntax und Exegese, 261-262; Flebbe, SolusDeus, 105. See Käsemann, “Zum Verständnis,” 154. Barrett, EpistletotheRomans, 80. Bremer, DeathofChrist, 154.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

147

αὐτοῦ (NRSV, NEB, NAB), or continues the verb προέθετο.134 We can get a better sense if we connect it to the function of the participle προγεγονότων. This suggests that the past sins were dealt with by God’s forbearance, with the expression τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων referring to an era before the coming of Christ. It is also possible that the perfect tense may indicate not merely sins of a static past, but sins that are continued. As Meyer states, “the point and function of προγεγονότων in v. 25 remains opaque until it is seen in the light of the following ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ.”135 ἐν can be taken either as denoting the “motive” or as meaning “during.”136 God’s present action in Christ is then presented in contrast to his previous action in forbearance. Thus, ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ modifies the preceding words. Coming back to the string of prepositional phrases, it now becomes clear that they are all related to the verb. προέθετο is the only finite verb in 3:24-26. In our reading, along with ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, four constructions that begin with the prepositional phrases modify the finite verb προέθετο: εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ

The prepositional phrases are then to be understood as stating the purpose or the reason of God’s act in Christ. It is possible that the expression πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν in 3:26 is similar in meaning to εἰς ἔνδειξιν, because both the prepositions εἰς and πρός followed by the accusative can have a similar meaning.137 However, here as a logical continuation of the previous clause stating God’s πάρεσις of sins in the past, πρός could here mean ‘with a view to.’138 This reading will fit well as the continuation of 134

135

136 137

138

Wengst, Christologische Formeln, 87-90; Dieter Zeller, “Sühne und Langmut. Zur Traditionsgeschichte von Röm 3,24-26,” TheologieundPhilosophie 43 (1968): 51-75, esp. 56. For Wengst, ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ is the Grund for God’s setting forth of Jesus as ἱλαστήριον. Meyer, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 203. A similar view is held by 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), 736. Cf. Sanday and Headlam, EpistletotheRomans, 90. Herbert Weir Smyth, GreekGrammar, ed. and revised by Gordon M. Messing, revised ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), §1686d; Jewett, Romans, 291. With Sanday and Headlam, EpistletotheRomans, 90. Hall, “πρός in Romans 3:26,” 120, points out that in a number of NT passages a noun with πρός expresses a view to which the main action of the verb is performed. It has a similar force to Mk 10:5; Lk 12:47; Rom 8:18; 2 Cor 5:10; Gal 2:14; Eph 3:4.

148

CHAPTER THREE

the previous clause, because we have already shown that διά with the accusative will mean the reason for a particular action. εἰς could here be understood in the sense of a final or purpose meaning. Thus all these prepositional phrases modify the verb προέθετο, whose subject is God. This style of a long sentence with a string of prepositional phrases is typical of Paul.139 Whereas the εἰς and πρός clauses state the purposes of God’s act in Christ, the διά clause states the reason for doing so. Taken this way, there is a striking parallelism with the repetition of εἰς/ πρός τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ. The syntax supports the theocentricity of 3:24-26. 3.4.5.5 FunctionoftheConjunctionκαίin3:26 The relation between the adjective δίκαιον and the participle δικαιοῦντα in 3:26 depends on the force given to καί. Scholars have proposed the following uses of καί: (1) copulative, connecting the acts of demonstrating that God is just with his act of justifying believers;140 (2) intensive or concessive, denoting that God is just even when he justifies sinners;141 (3) instrumental, denoting that God is just by means of justifying people;142 (4) explicative (thatis), clarifying how God can be just while at the same time justifying the sinner, or showing that he is just precisely by his justifying the sinner.143

139

140

141

142 143

See Rom 1:1-7; 2 Cor 1:3-4, 9-11; 9:10-14; Gal 2:3-5; Phil 1:3-7. Cf. Hall, “πρός in Romans 3:26,” 122. BDF § 442; BDAG, 494; LSJ, 89.92; Godet, 158-159. Thus some scholars take δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα as virtual synonyms. See Kümmel, „Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις,“7; Ridderbos, AandeRomeinen, 87; Schmidt, AndieRömer, 71; Flebbe, Solus Deus, 189. BDAG, 495, 2; BDF § 442.8; Cyril Blackman, “Romans 3:26b: A Question of Translation,” JBL 87 (1968): 203-204; Schrage, “Römer 3:21-26 und die Bedeutung des Todes Jesus Christi bei Paulus,” 87; Williams, “The Righteousness of God,” 277-278; Schreiner, Romans, 198. Moo, EpistletotheRomans, 242; Wilckens, Römer, 198. BDAG, 495 (1); Zerwick, BiblicalGreek, 455. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 170; Jewett, Romans, 292; Douglas A. Campbell, TheDeliveranceofGod:AnApocalypticRereadingofJustificationinPaul (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 673; Ribbens, “Forensic-Retributive Justification,” 550.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

149

We find it is more plausible here to take καί in its most common use as a connective, so that the adjective and participle form a double predicate.144 The purpose of God’s action in and through Christ (3:24-25) then demonstrates that God is just (because of dealing with sin) and that he justifies everyone (because of his concern for all). This double predicate is necessary to address the issues Paul raised in 1:18-3:20. Taken together, the clause εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ serves as the most fitting conclusion for the longer discussions in 1:18-3:20 and the specific issues in 3:21-25. 3.5 THE ARGUMENTATIVE STRUCTURE OF ROM 3:21-26 In the light of the above, we now explore the structure of the argument of Rom 3:21-26. We will focus on its main subdivisions, its central theme and the line of thought. We will show how one thought flows logically from another. This will enable us to identify the main statement of this text, which all the others complement. We ask: what is Paul’s main point in this text? How is he making this point? Where is the climax? How do the arguments develop? The earlier parts of this chapter have prepared us to discern the structure of the argument of the pericope. Nevertheless, to some extent we are anticipating the results of our examination in the following chapters. Here we shall see the argumentative structure of pericope as a whole so that they are not lost in the detailed study of the words and phrases. 3.5.1 The Main Subdivision One of the questions that we need to address is whether Rom 3:21-26 is a unity or has sub-divisions. We shall begin by noting the way some of the scholars have seen the verse subdivision in 3:21-26. Fitzmyer notices that the theme of divine uprightness is systematically developed in this pericope. He sees this theme develop through its: 1) 2) 3) 4) 144

relation to Mosaic Law (3:21); universal destination (3:22); necessity (3:23); nature and gratuity (3:24a);

Cf. Lambrecht, “Two Brief Notes,” 736.

150

CHAPTER THREE

5) mode of revelation 3:24b-25) and 6) finality (3:25b-26).145

He also notices that there are three, perhaps four, effects of the Christevent formulated in this section: justification, redemption, expiation and, possibly, pardon. Campbell, as we have seen already, identifies a parenthesis in 3:22d-24a [Campbell’s verse subdivision].146 He suggests that the theme is introduced in 3:21 and is further explained by three διά with genitive clauses in 3:22ab; 24b-25b and 25c-26c.147 However, Jewett subdivides it as: declarations of the righteousness of God to all persons of faith (21-22c); the parenthetical denial of distinctions (22d-24a); citation of a hymn (24b-26a) and the resumption of demonstration of the righteousness of God through Christ (26b-e).148 Dominique Martens observes the parallelism in 3:21-22 and 25-26 and suggests an A and A’ structure, which are arranged in a concentric structure xyy’x’ with the central development B.149 Matera considers that the main theme is ‘righteousness accessible to all through faith [of Christ].’ He subdivides the text: (1) independently of the law (21-22b); (2) need for God’s saving righteousness (22c-23) and (3) God’s response (24-26).150 In dialogue with these scholars we shall present here our verse subdivision of the pericope. We shall discuss it in detail in the following sub-sections. We find a coherent unit whose parts are tightly bound together. However, structural markers and thematic peculiarities enable us to discern a threefold subdivision in 3:21-26. These three different parts of the text show the development of the main idea. Despite the difficulties of syntax, we can observe a clear flow of argument and a coherent development of 145

146 147

148 149

150

Fitzmyer, Romans, 342. For the verse subdivision in this structural analysis we have noted them the way each scholar sub-divides them. For our verse subdivision, see p. 113. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 86-101. Campbell, Rhetoric of Righteousness, 94-95. We have noted here Campbell’s verse subdivision. For the details of his sense line presentation of the pericope, see p.8. We have already seen that he suggests a structure that makes the progression of the argument here christocentric. We are of the opinion that he misses the main thrust of the pericope by identifying 3:22d-24a as a parenthesis. Jewett, Romans, 271. Dominique Martens, La justification par la foi dans Romains 3,21-26: Pas Sans Dieu,passansl’homme,passansleChrist, Connaître la Bible 52 (Bruxelles: Lumen Vitae, 2008), 63-68. He also notes (64): “A annonce le thème principal: la manifestation de la justice de Dieu, indépendamment de la loi. En effet, comme on va le voir dans le développement central B, la loi n’intervient pas en relation avec cette manifestation.” Matera, Romans, 95.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

151

thought. The pericope can be seen in three parts that enable us to follow its line of thought: 1) the new situation of the manifestation of God’s merciful justice (21-22a); 2) why all need of God’s merciful justice (22b-23); and 3) how and why God has manifested his merciful justice (24-26). Before we discuss our main subdivisions and the line of thought we note the main peculiarities and theme of this text. Here we give in outline the way in which the sections relate to one another. Paul uses repetition and contrast to heighten his arguments, which also help us to understand the subdivisions. There is a coherence that is brought about by repetition. The pericope begins with a contrast with the previous section: ‘But now.’ The repetition of the main theme (God’s δικαιοσύνη) in 3:21-22 finds a parallel in 3:25-26. Moreover, the contrast is underlined in this pericope, between ‘the law’ that discriminates and ‘the faith’ that is all-embracing. God’s ‘merciful justice’ is mentioned in each of the three sub-divisions, pointing to its centrality to the pericope, an issue to which we now turn. 3.5.2 The Central Theme Scholars differ in their identification of the main point of 3:21-26. In turn, this affects the way in which the subsidiary points flow from it. We have already seen how the syntax hints at the main topic of the text. We will now point to what is, in our opinion, its central point, giving our reasons for this conviction. It is our perception of the central theme and its relation to the various parts of the text that makes our interpretation different from others. The central theme of the pericope is the manifestation of God’s δικαιοσύνη. This theme is introduced in the first clause of 3:21. It is then repeatedly re-asserted, in particular through the δικ- words that appear seven times in this pericope. In particular, Paul sandwiches a theocentric interpretation of the death of Christ between the two statements of the manifestation of God’s merciful justice, or of its demonstration, that are found in 3:21-22 and 3:25-26. We have already remarked how this repetition forms an inclusio. Paul opens the pericope in 3:21 with God’s δικαιοσύνη, now made known (νυνί) and concludes it by stating the purpose for which God’s δικαιοσύνη was made known at the present time (ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ). This, together with the repeated emphasis on manifestation, through the verb φανερόω in 3:21 and the noun ἔνδειξις

152

CHAPTER THREE

in 3:26, convinces us that the main theme of the pericope is themanifestationofGod’sδικαιοσύνη. God’s δικαιοσύνη is to be understood as his merciful justice. Although God’s δικαιοσύνη is expressed in many times in Romans, Paul never defines what he means by it.151 Yet, it is our contention that the entire section is intended to express the meaning. We will discuss our reasons for holding this more fully in the next chapter. When considered as the central theme of the pericope, it contrasts with what has been going on before (1:18-3:20), explaining the ‘but now’ at the start of the pericope. Along the lines we indicated in our last chapter, it then stands as the climax of Paul’s characterisation of God. We have also introduced the significance of the relational understanding of justice. The relational understanding of justice, which we introduced earlier, can here be observed with God, the central character, revealing his merciful justice to all, through Christ. Mercy is implied “by his grace as a gift,” by “mercy seat” in 3:24-25, and by the context of sin in which there is no discrimination, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.152 The only possible justice in such circumstances, other than universal punishment, is mercy. The beneficiaries of this mercy can have no merit. For all who receive it, the gift is gracious. It is altogether underserved. This means that Paul is not putting forward an atonement theology, expounding the meaning of Jesus’ death. Indeed, Paul only briefly mentions the achievements of the cross. What matters most for him is how it manifests God’s merciful justice for it is in this manifestation that God treats both Jews and Gentiles impartially. This so demonstrates his merciful justice. The passage opens with the declaration that God’s merciful justice is revealed to all persons of faith (21-22). It concludes in the same way. The line of thought of the pericope makes this central theme clear.

151 152

Cf. Martens, LaJustification, 12. Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “The “Glory of God” in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in InterpretationandtheClaimsoftheText:ResourcingNewTestamentTheology, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker Jason A. Whitlark, et all (Waco: Texas Baylor University Press, 2014), 29-40, esp. 32 asks: “Would anything be lost to the letter if Paul had simply said ‘God’ rather than the ‘glory of God’? Is the phrase anything more than a loquacious way of saying ‘God’?” This statement underlines that the main point at discussion is the breaking of relationship with God. For various postions on the issue, see note 171 below.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

153

3.5.3 The Line of Thought What exactly is Paul trying to get at in Rom 3:21-26? What is he trying to say and in what order? Why does he say it as he does? Why does he say much more than he seems to? How do the individual parts of the text contribute to the whole? What is the contribution of what he is saying to his broader line of argument? By our examination of the internal coherence and line of thought of the pericope, we shall demonstrate that much of what Paul says flows from what he says about the manifestation of God’s merciful justice. The νυνὶ δέ which begins Rom 3:21 shifts the argument away from the negative tone of Rom 1:18-3:20. χωρὶς νόμου is in contrast with the διὰ νόμου of 3:20. The contrast is sharp. In 3:20 we read: “no human being will be justified in God’s sight by deeds prescribed by the law.” νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου shifts the line of reasoning into a new stage, where salvation, with new criteria, is open to all. In 3:21 we find two different aspects of νόμος.153 This is a new stage in Paul’s argument, and it is central to the concerns of the whole letter. “Since no one will be justified before God on the basis of doing the works of the law, God has intervened in a decisive new way, manifesting his saving righteousness ‘independently of the law’.”154 Yet this manifestation, says Paul, is not totally new. It is already attested in the Scriptures. In other words, this new way of God’s manifestation of his love and mercy through Christ has been foreseen in scripture. In the past, law emphasized God’s distributive justice. Now, God is manifesting his merciful justice, in and through Jesus Christ. Paul has already made clear that the period marked by ‘the law’ could not deal with the sins of ‘all.’ Now begins his exposition of a ‘fresh interactive paradigm’155 that focuses on the interaction between God’s δικαιοσύνη and human πίστις.156 To comprehend what Paul says in this pericope, we must grasp the relational aspect of these concepts. God’s δικαιοσύνη and 153 154

155 156

Cf. Flebbe, SolusDeus, 69. Matera, Romans, 96. Notably, in 3:21 human beings are not mentioned. Rather, focus here is on God. See the discussion in Flebbe, SolusDeus, 68. Cf. Lee, Paul’sGospelinRomans, 213. Many of the words and their semantic domains have been the topic of scholarly debate. The debate concerning some of the important exegetical issues are discussed in the first chapter. We will take up the issues in detail in the following chapters. Here, anticipating the findings of our research, we make some exegetical choices regarding the issues raised, so that we can portray Paul’s argument and line of thought in this pericope.

154

CHAPTER THREE

human πίστις are interacting and relating in and through Christ. That is the core of the text. It underlines the constancy and reliability of God and the need to respond to this initiative of God through Christ. It is therefore the means of salvation specified by διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (3:22). The contrast is between διὰ νόμου and διὰ πίστεως. In contrast to the previous situation, this manifestation is for all who place their trust in Christ. We assert, on the basis of our investigations, that God is the central character in this pericope. However, he is brought into relation with humanity by means of Jesus Christ. God takes the initiative for this interaction through Christ. He does so for the justification and salvation of humanity. God is the implicit actor of the passive verb πεφανέρωται in 3:21 and the passive participle δικαιούμενοι in 3:24, the subject of the finite verb προέθετο in 3:25. All that follows relates to the action of God. Jesus is referred to five times: three times directly (22, 24, 26) and twice indirectly, through a relative pronoun (ὅν) and a pronoun (ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι). On each occasion, the reference is in relation to God’s activity. The impact on our understanding of the argumentation of the pericope is tremendous. In 3:22, Paul makes clear that the interaction of which we have spoken takes place when humans respond, by means of their πίστις, to God’s manifestation. This is nothing but the human act of trust, whether directly in God or in God as made known in Christ. The object of faith is twice specified as Christ (3:22, 26), who in our understanding is the agent of God. However, in 3:25 it is used as an absolute, ‘accessible through faith.’ Here too, because of the force of the prepositional phrase and the repetitive pattern, it must be referring to faith in Christ. In Romans, faith in God cannot be separated from faith in Christ. An alternative understanding of πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in 3:22, 26 has been used to favour a different understanding of the pericope. The progression of the argument was seen as coming through the πίστις phrases, which some understand as speaking of the faithfulness of Christ. We reject this argument. This text, as we have shown, does not present Jesus Christ as a dynamic figure. The flow of Paul’s argument is best sustained when we treat the phrase as referring to human trust in Christ as a means of relating to God. Paul then goes on to speak, in 3:22b-23, about the reasons behind this manifestation of God’s merciful justice. He uses two motivating clauses, connected with each other and with what precedes by γάρ. First, God is impartial (a theme already reflected in the argument (2:1-16), making no

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

155

discrimination. Second, in continuity with this, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The sins of ‘all’ here can be read with Paul’s statement in 3:25 that in the time of God’s forbearance in the past God has graciously passed over former sins. Reading these together, it becomes clear that the ‘former sins’ are those before the Christ-event. Because of the ‘sin of all,’ none, no group, can claim an honourable superiority.157 Paul is saying that, before the coming of Christ, Jews and Gentiles alike have sinned. Therefore ‘all’ need God’s mercy if they are to be redeemed. ‘Glory’ here would mean the image and likeness of God in which we are created.158 It may refer, as Cranfield understands, to the glory that humans possessed before they “fell away from [their] true relationship to God.”159 One of the puzzling issues here is the meaning of ὑστερέω.160 Paul says that human sin affects that image and likeness 157 158

159 160

Cf. Jewett, Romans, 279. There are differences in how scholars understand δόξα here. Because of its rendering for the Hebrew ‫ כבוד‬in the LXX, many of the commentaries understood it as participation in divine radiance or splendour: Cranfield, Romans, 204; Dunn, Romans 1-8, 167-168; Fitzmyer, Romans, 347; Lohse, DerBriefandieRömer, 131; Flebbe, Solus Deus, 82-84; Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 156; Wolter, DerBriefanDieRömer, 252. Quite differently, Jewett, Romans, 280, considers it as a social status (honor) issue. A few others understand it as the ethical likeness with God: Dodd, Romans, 50-51; Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 226. Very recently, Gaventa, “The “Glory of God”,” 31 argued that it cannot refer to fall of Adam and Eve: “When Paul says that humanity is deprived of God’s glory, then, he refers not to humanity’s own original state of glory but to the loss of its proper, worshipful relationship to God.” See, Ben C. Blackwell, “Immortal Glory and the Problem of Death in Rom 3.23,” JSNT 32 (2010), 285-308, for a detailed study of the various positions. Cranfield, Romans, 204. The common translation of ὑστερέω is ‘to fall short.’ See, for example, KJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, RSV, NRSV, YLT and NET. Most commentaries follow this translation of the term; see for example, Barth, Romans, 100-101; Bruce, Romans, 97; Moo, Epistle totheRomans, 226-27; Jewett, Romans, 279-80. Nevertheless, ὑστερέω can also communicate the idea of “the lack of what is needed or desirable.” BDAG, 1044. Following this sense of the term in 3:22 some argue that it can be better translated as “all have sinned and are lacking the glory of God.” Steven E. Enderlein, “To Fall Short or Lack the Glory of God? The Translation and Implications of Romans 3:23,” JSPL 1 (2011), 213-224, esp. 213, argue that that Paul already refers here a contrast between Adam and Christ, which has significant impact to πίστις Χριστοῦ in 3:22, 26. He assert this point in another article, Steven E. Enderlein, “The Faithfulness of the Second Adam in Romans 3:21-26: A Response to Porter and Cirafesi,” JSPL 3 (2013), 11-21. Similarly, Wally V. Cirafesi Stanley E. Porter has argued that we must reconsider the meaning of ‘fall short’ in 3:23. However, they question the likelihood of Paul alluding to Adam in 3:23 and that a christocentric reading of πίστις Χριστοῦ finds no linguistic evidence. See, Wally V. Cirafesi, “’To Fall Short’ or ‘to Lack’? Reconsidering the Meaning and Translation of ὑστερέω in Romans 3:23,” ExpT 123 (2012), 429-434; Stanley E. Porter and Wally V. Cirafesi, “ὑστερέω and πίστις Χριστοῦ in Romans 3:23: A Response to Stewen Enderlein,” JSPL 3 (2013), 1-9. Challenging the

156

CHAPTER THREE

of God, alienating us from intimate fellowship with God. This image and likeness of God “reduces the difference between Jew and Gentile to the same level of their common creatureliness.”161 Yet again we see that Paul’s main concern is how God restores his relation with a humanity that is lost in sin. It is clear from these verses that we see that salvation and redemption are only possible by God’s mercy. This merciful act of redemption is depicted in 3:24-25. Rom 3:24-26 makes it clear that the only way to be restored to a right status and to communion with God is through his merciful action. 3:24 opens with the passive participle δικαιούμενοι, continuing the main theme of 3:21. God is the agent of the action of the passive, while humanity is the beneficiary of his action. The statement, in 3:24, is placed in apposition to 3:23, to underline that justification and salvation is God’s gracious gift. For many traditional readers, 3:24-26 is about how a human person can be justified. For others, it is about how Christ justifies and redeems humanity. We hold, however, that in this text Paul states God’s unconditional salvation. Such a declaration cannot have anything less than a central place in the flow of Paul’s argument. We are arguing that 3:24-25 is about God’s unconditional salvation. This needs to be underlined. This unconditionality has a tremendous impact when we consider the theocentricity of Paul’s argument, as we shall do in the following chapters. Paul is here employing three central metaphors for salvation: justification; redemption; and the mercy seat. The importance of these metaphors is that they unfold Paul’s understanding of the death of Christ. Regarding the first metaphor, we have already stated that God is the subject of the act of justification in 3:24. The second metaphor is ἀπολύτρωσις. Some understand this as implying a ransom to be paid so that God can justify humans. Jesus’ death on the cross is then understood as the price paid for human redemption. However, we argue that the two adverbial phrases in 3:24, τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι and διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, are connected to δικαιούμενοι. Once this connection is recognized, it is not possible to understand justification and redemption as something purchased. Rather

161

christocentric readers of πίστις Χριστοῦ, they also note that it is difficult to argue that obedience and πίστις are synonymous in Romans. We consider that it is important to see that in 3:22-23 the question is how human sin affects that the human person is in the image and likeness of God. We favour considering that Paul as having an optimistic anthropology in which we continue to be in the image and likeness of God. Dunn, Romans1-8, 168.

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

157

it comes through God’s χάρις, an undeserved favour.162 The definite article τῆς with the prepositional phrase ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ point to the way God has justified and redeemed humanity: ‘through’ Christ Jesus.163 ἀπολύτρωσις is in and through the person of Jesus Christ. The third metaphor is ἱλαστήριον, which we understand as the [new] mercy seat set forth by God himself. Many scholars have understood this verse as Christ offering a propitiatory or expiatory sacrifice to God (ἱλαστήριον and ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι). However, as we shall later argue, the evident theocentric thrust of 3:25 rules out sacrificial interpretation. It is God who put forward Christ as ἱλαστήριον, thus revealing his plan to redeem everyone unconditionally. αἷμα here stands for the death of Christ. The text conveys therefore that the new mercy seat is set forth by means of the death of Christ. If we understand προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως as one syntactic unit, this implies the accessibility of God’s mercy in Christ to all those who have faith. The novel element in the mercy seat here is that it can be appropriated by all. By means of our faith we all can benefit from the act of God in Christ. This faith is not to be taken as a condition for salvation. It is the means that implies our readiness to rely on God or on Christ. Paul views salvation as an unconditional gift of God that everyone can appropriate by relating to God. Paul uses a string of nine prepositional phrases in 3:25β-26 to explain the purpose of this redemption and salvation though Christ. In addition, he explains why this unique act of God was necessary. There are two parallel assertions of the demonstration of God’s merciful justice: in the past (3:25); and in the present (3:26). Between these parallel assertions, Paul argues that, in the past, God has been overlooking human sins in his forbearance. This raises questions about God’s justice. Accordingly, an important clause in the theocentricity of the argument is διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων. As we have already seen, it has sometimes been argued that διά with the accusative is to be understood in an instrumental sense, with πάρεσις as the remission. This leads some to argue that Paul is talking about the present remission of sins by means of Christ’s death. However, as we have observed, on grammatical and lexical grounds, it is best to render this prepositional phrase as referring to God’s action of passing over the sins committed before the Christevent. Thus, God’s action of πάρεσις took place in the past, a time of 162 163

BDAG, 1079. Wilckens, Römer, 190; Käsemann, AndieRömer, 90; Cranfield, Romans, 208; Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 156.

158

CHAPTER THREE

God’s forbearance. This action in the past was with the intention of the manifestation of his unconditional love and mercy towards all of humanity, in and through Jesus. The pericope concludes by reiterating the two-fold purpose of the demonstration of God’s merciful justice. Not only does it deal with the problem of sin in the past. It also manifests God himself, because he has handled the problem of sin once and for all, justifying everyone who trusts in Jesus. As Lambrecht observes, both the adjective and the verb are inherent in the noun δικαιοσύνη: “by δίκαιον Paul focuses his attention on God while by δικαιοῦντα the believer comes more to the forefront.”164 In the place of law, which discriminates, God promises to justify and save everyone without discrimination, by means of their willingness to trust the one whom God put forward. The ultimate purpose of God’s manifestation in Christ is to save everyone. Theology, christology and anthropology are well balanced in this relational framework. God is the source and the initiator of salvation; Christ is the means of salvation; and humanity is its beneficiary. 3.6 OUR TRANSLATION OF ROM 3:21-26 On the basis of what we have done in this chapter we now propose our own translation of the pericope. We put our translation in synopsis with the NRSV to highlight some points that need to be considered. NRSV But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

164

Lambrecht, “Two Brief Notes,” 736.

Our Translation But now, God’s merciful justice has been manifested apart from the law, although [it was] attested by the law and the prophets–God’s merciful justice through trust in Jesus Christ to all who trust. For there is no discrimination, because all have sinned and come short of God’s glory; they are being justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

TEXT, SOURCES AND SYNTAX OF ROM 3:21-26

whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.

159

whom God set forth publically in his blood as the [new] mercy seat [accessible] through trust; to demonstrate God’s merciful justice because he passed over the former sins in [the time of] his forbearance; in order to demonstrate his merciful justice in the present time, that he himself is just and [that] he justifies the one who trusts in Jesus.

The text-critical and syntactic decisions that we have made in this chapter are reflected in our translation of 3:21-26. Our translation has also taken into consideration of our examination of the immediate and wider context of the pericope in the previous chapter. To certain extend, we are also anticipating the results of our study in the following chapters. Accordingly, our deviation from the NRSV translation of some words and phrases will be clarified in detail in the successive chapters. Our exegetical analysis of these terms and phrases will defend by showing how these translations can better suit the context. CONCLUSION Having looked at the many exegetical issues that complicate Rom 3:2126, we have now proposed that the pericope should be read theocentrically. By doing so, many of these issues will be addressed. This chapter has helped us see the literary unity of 3:21-26, with its connection to, and independence from, what precedes and follows. We have gained insight into its rich theology with God as the central character, revealing his merciful justice to all, through Christ. Further, the analysis of the textual variants has helped us establish the text that we are studying. At the same time it has underlined its theocentricity, as can be seen from the theological relevance of many variant readings. The integrity of the text is challenged by the complex syntax, the change in style, and the presence of new ideas in 3:24-26. This led to the hypothesis of the insertion of pre-Pauline material in the text. We have shown that there is not sufficient reason to sustain such a hypothesis. Rather, the text shows integrity, with 3:24-26 as the essential part of Paul’s argument. We have also seen that how we read the argument, or interpret the theology of

160

CHAPTER THREE

these verses, depends on how we understand their syntax – the relationship between the words, the clauses and the string of prepositional phrases that make them up. Clarification of these issues has helped us to see the structure of the argument of the pericope, its central theme and the line of thought. This has brought the insight that the main theme is the manifestation of God’s merciful justice. This is the merciful justice that offers unconditional salvation to all who trust in Christ. We have also provided our translation of 3:21-26. A detailed study of the main exegetical and theological issues in the pericope in the following chapters will defend our translation of the text. The critical issues that we have discussed in this chapter provide us with a hermeneutical key. With this key we will address and resolve many of the exegetical and theological issues raised by the pericope. With the insights gained from this chapter we shall now examine the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, which we consider as central to the passage.

CHAPTER FOUR

A THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ IN ROM 3:21-22 AND 3:25-26 In this chapter, we will offer an extensive analysis of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. Our aim is to clarify its meaning in Romans and especially in 3:21-26. In fact, the unique concentration of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, in 3:21, 22, 25, 26, is pivotal to our discussion. Whereas the exact phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ appears in 3:21, 22, and with a pronoun in 3:25, 26, δικ- words in the form of a participle occur in 3:24a and 3:26c and in the form of an adjective in 3:26b. Outside this pericope, the exact phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ only appears in the Pauline corpus at Rom 1:17; 3:5; 10:3 (twice) and 2 Cor 5:21.1 As we have seen in the history of interpretation, there are various problems associated with the phrase. Bieringer rightly observes, “Der Schwerpunkt des Ausdrucks mag dann auf dem Geber, auf der Gabe oder auf beiden zugleich liegen.”2 Our task is to examine the meaning of the phrase as used in Romans. In what follows, we shall investigate the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 3:21-26, first, by looking at the background of the Pauline usage of the phrase. Second, we shall look into the impact of Paul’s citation of Ps 142:2b in Rom 3:20 and examine uses of the phrase outside Romans. Third, on the basis of these analyses, we shall undertake a theocentric reading of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Romans. By making a contextual exegetical analysis of all the occurrences of the phrase, we call into question the common translations of the phrase, suggesting instead a translation that takes the context and the background into consideration. We shall also show that this proposal is most fitting to the two uses of the verb δικαιόω 1

2

Outside the Pauline letters δικαιοσύνη appears 42 times. However, the exact expression δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ occurs only thrice (Mt 6:33; Jac 1:20 and 2 Pet 1:1). Notably, out of the fifty uses of δικαιοσύνη in Pauline letters, 34 are in Romans. This gives us a hint that the central theme of Romans is related to God’s δικαιοσύνη. Perhaps the first chronological occurrence of the exact phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul is in 2 Cor 5:21. Bieringer, „Sünde und Gerechtigkeit,“ 496- 505, makes a detailed analysis of this text. Bieringer, „Sünde und Gerechtigkeit,“ 497.

162

CHAPTER FOUR

in 3:24, 26c. The theocentric reading sees δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as an attribute of God, an attribute that establishes a trusting relationship between God and humanity. We shall begin this study by examining the most likely background to Paul’s uses of the phrase. 4.1 THE LXX BACKGROUND OF δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ In Rom 3:21, Paul states that the revelation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is attested by Scripture. This gives us a hint that the expression δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is not Paul’s invention.3 But where in scripture is it attested? In a major portion of Romans, Paul quotes and elucidates Scripture. Considering this fact, Francis Watson has rightly held that the doctrine of justification by faith is Paul’s venture in interpreting Scripture.4 Many of Paul’s quotations are from the Psalms and Isaiah, where he seems to cite the LXX. The exact number of quotations may differ depending on the criteria chosen to identify a citation.5 Our approach will be to look into what Paul gained from the Psalms and Isaiah, both theologically and linguistically. As we have seen in the history of interpretation many scholars, following Käsemann, have viewed it from an apocalyptic framework and identified a number of texts in the Hebrew Bible and its LXX translation where it may refer to God’s saving activity. Background studies have been mostly focused on the Hebrew equivalents ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬or ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬and their derivatives in the OT and in extra-biblical literature. These background studies were particularly helpful in showing how δικαιοσύνη has inherited a relational meaning from the Hebrew root ‫צדק‬.6 Hill, for example, shows on the basis of his discussion of LXX usage, that “it will be obvious that the δίκαιος-words underwent considerable expansion and change of

3 4 5

6

Cf. Käsemann, Questions, 172. Watson, PaulandtheHermeneuticsofFaith, 53. Using more lenient criteria, Geoffey Turner has recently portrayed twenty four quotations from Psalms in Romans. Turner, “Righteousness of God,” 286, note 3. Hill, GreekWords, 82-109; Ziesler, MeaningofRighteousness, 18. Hill (p. 82) writes: “In the Septuagint the δικαιοσύνη word group represents words derived from the Hebrew root ‫ צדק‬over four hundred and sixty times. This fact suggests that in the estimation of the translators the extent of semantic overlap between the two-groups was very great.” Recently, Irons, Righteousness of God, 109-119, calls into question the relational understanding of ‫ צדק‬by showing counterexamples where it conveys penal judgment.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

163

meaning through being consistently used to render the Hebrew ‫צדק‬.”7 What is all the more interesting in the development of δικαιοσύνη is that it has also been employed in some instances to render the Hebrew noun ‫ח ֶסד‬. ֶ “Perhaps we may find in this translation evidence that ‫ ֶח ֶסד‬was not conceived of as entirely a spontaneous feeling, but in terms of what could be expected within a relationship: if so, the idea would be more adequately conveyed by δικαιοσύνη than by a word ἔλεος.”8 This shows the potency of δικαιοσύνη to express a dimension of mercy. This aspect, of mercy, is particularly evident in some of the LXX passages that deal with God’s attitude towards his people. Scholars have not paid sufficient attention to the peculiarities of the uses of God’s δικαιοσύνη in Psalms and Isaiah, trying to see δικαιοσύνη either from the perspective of the Pentateuch or of apocryphal and extrabiblical literature. While admitting that those studies have been helpful for understanding various nuances of δικαιοσύνη and how such a concept could have been understood at a time closer to Paul, they were not able to consider the peculiarities of Paul’s talk in Romans about God’s δικαιοσύνη in the context of human sin. In general, it cannot be denied that there are instances where δικαιοσύνη or the Hebrew root ‫ צדק‬might carry juridical or ethical nuances.9 What we argue is that these nuances give way to a relational and merciful justice when Paul speaks about God’s δικαιοσύνη in Psalms and Isaiah. It is often suggested that in some instances the Hebrew equivalent has a punitive or retributive meaning. Moreover, the anthropological interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ further complicates the background studies by introducing the various meanings of δικ- words into the discussion of the disputed phrase. As Käsemann rightly suggests the expression δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ “is not to be subsumed under the general concept δικαιοσύνη and deprived of its peculiar force.”10 While following the basic findings of Käsemann, we 7 8

9 10

Hill, GreekWords, 108. Hill, GreekWords, 106. There are nine instances in the LXX where it stands for ‫ח ֶסד‬. ֶ For an analysis of these texts, see Irons, RighteousnessofGod, 157-162. See, for example, the argument of Irons, RighteousnessofGod, 109-131. Käsemann, Questions, 172. For an evaluation of the Hebrew backgrounds of the concept of justice and righteousness, see Hill, Greek Words, 82-95; Ziesler, Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, 17-34; John Reumann, Righteousness in the New Testament: Justification”intheUnitedStatesLutheran-RomanCatholicDialogue (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1982), 12-22. As we have seen in the first chapter, scholars have already studied various Hebrew terms that stands for justice, justification and righteousness. We are aware that LXX rendering of δικαιοσύνη for different Hebrew terms may reflect different nuances of the term. However, considering the limited scope of this study and fact that we are interested in δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, our study focuses on the LXX

164

CHAPTER FOUR

deviate from his conclusions on two points: (1) his interpretation of the term from an apocalyptic framework, and (2) his interpretation of the term as a subjective genitive referring to God’s power or activity. We now turn to the background of Paul’s δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. We will examine the instances where δικαιοσύνη is used in relation to God. In strict terms, the concrete expression δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ never occurs in the LXX. However, in Deut 32:21 we find δικαιοσύνην κύριος ἐποίησεν, which is often considered as the background of the term. In the same way, we twice find the expression δικαιοσύνη κυρίου (1 Sam 12:7; Mic 6:5). There are 42 instances11 where δικαιοσύνη is used with pronouns (σου, αὐτοῦ, μου) referring to God, while there are over 50 instances where δικαιοσύνη is “ascribed to God or where God is said to do or speak [δικαιοσύνη], or the like.”12 A close observation of these instances reveals that most occurrences of δικαιοσύνη with pronouns referring to God and ascribed to God are in Psalms and Isaiah. This is particularly important for Romans, because in this letter Paul often quotes these books and builds argument based on those citations. Viewing it particularly from the point of view of Romans, we restate the salvific and relational nuance of the phrase and we propose that Paul was attracted by the inclusive, universalistic vision of some of the uses of δικαιοσύνη in Psalms and Isaiah. To substantiate this proposal we shall make a close look at the references to God’s δικαιοσύνη in these books. In this way, we shall show that what Paul communicates in Romans is in essential agreement with the theological content of these books on this point.

11

12

background of this phrase. Since our purpose is to see the meaning of the phrase in Romans, we are enlightened by the fact that most of its occurrences are in the Psalms and Isaiah, the two books that Paul frequently cites in Romans. This takes us to look into what Paul might have gained from these books and whether they can clarify the meaning and sense of the phrase in Romans. The exact number may vary depending on how one considers its various nuances in the each context. Moo, EpistletotheRomans, 81, mentions 48 occurrences. We limit this number to 42, because we do not include one instance of τὸ λόγιον τῆς δικαιοσύνης σου in Ps 118:123 and five instances of τὰ κρίματα τῆς δικαιοσύνης σου in Ps 118:7, 62, 106, 160, 164. In most instances, the LXX renders δικαιοσύνη for Hebrew ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬or ‫צ ָד ָקה‬. ְ Thus, in most instances δικαιοσύνη carries the Hebrew saving nuance. Since our focus here is to look into what Paul would have gained from the LXX, all references to Greek OT in the following section follow LXX, unless otherwise specifically mentioned. Moo, EpistletotheRomans, 81.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

165

4.1.1 Δικαιοσύνη as an Attribute of God in the Psalms While δικαιοσύνη is frequently used in the Psalms, there are 29 instances where it appears with a pronoun referring to God. As Turner observes, δικαιοσύνη “is a central theme of the Psalms but the dominant issue is whether God will prove his righteousness by vindicating his righteous ones in times of persecution and suffering.”13 Some of the issues that we want to discuss can be already perceived in the chart below where we present the variations in three representative translations. These leading translations draw attention to both the unity and the variety in their translation of this expression and the nuances of their translations. The following chart presents translations of δικαιοσύνη with pronouns (σου, αὐτοῦ, μου) referring to God in the Psalms: [God’s] δικαιοσύνη in translations Righteousness Saving justice Justice Saving help Salvation Other

KJV

NJB

NRSV

29 0 0 0 0 0

0 27 2 0 0 0

20 0 0 2 2 5

These representative translations reflect the essential scholarly differences, as well as the unity in rendering a positive nuance to the term. Perhaps, these translations also convey how translators are guided by their theological convictions. The chart shows the remarkable consistency of the KJV in rendering the term with ‘righteousness’ while the NJB shows consistency in rendering it as ‘saving justice.’ In spite of rendering it as ‘righteousness’ in a majority of instances, the NRSV also employs stylistic variations. In the five instances marked as ‘other,’ the term is translated as vindication, acquittal, deliverance, righteous act and righteous help. The NJB is consistent in showing the term, when used as an attribute of God, as having saving significance. It is reasonably observable in these texts and their translations that God’s δικαιοσύνη does not 13

Turner, “Righteousness of God,” 290. But Turner could not see the unique meaning of δικαιοσύνη when used as an attribute of God. He mixes up all the δικ- words in Psalms and reaches the conclusion that Paul takes over the doctrine of ‘righteousness through faithfulness’ from Psalms and christologizes in Romans. If his theory with regard to ‘faithfulness’ is correct Paul should have used ἐλπὶς, which is more often used in Psalms rather than πίστις.

166

CHAPTER FOUR

imply strict retributive justice. We have examined each of the 29 instances to confirm that there is nothing in the context that suggests a retributive justice. In most instances it is relational, embracing also God’s mercy. It also reveals the inadequacy of defining God’s δικαιοσύνη as his conformity to a norm. The punitive aspect is not explicit in any of these texts. This goes well with Gerhard von Rad’s finding that ‫“ צדקה‬bestowed on Israel is always a saving gift. It is inconceivable that it should ever menace Israel.”14 As an attribute, δικαιοσύνη in these texts points to God’s very being. For that reason, God’s δικαιοσύνη can neither be merely his activity nor his power to save. Rather, it is God’s nature or quality that is shown in his willingness to look after and to redeem humanity. It designates, in the words of Williams, “that ‘aspect’ of the divine nature according to which God persists in willing and doing that which is right and fitting in the context of his relationship with those who obey his will.”15 The fact that there is not a single case where it is translated as justification enables us to see this point clearly. This is probably because justification is much more of an action, whereas most of the translations that we have shown in the chart are much more of an attribute. Irons is right when he shows some examples from Psalms where God is presented as righteous judge or where God’s distributive justice is discussed.16 But these are not the instances where the psalmist discusses God’s δικαιοσύνη as such. This underlines our main argument that we cannot equate all that is conveyed by δικ- words to the nuance of the psalmist’s talk about God’s δικαιοσύνη. Those instances where the psalmist addresses God directly in prayer for help ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου are significant. We observe seven such instances, and in each of them he asks to do something favourable and salvific: ὁδήγησόν με (5:9); ῥῦσαί με καὶ ἐξελοῦ με (30:2; 70:2); εἰσελθέτωσαν ἐν (68:28); ζῆσόν με (118:40); ἐπάκουσόν μου (142:1); ζήσεις με and ἐξάξεις ἐκ θλίψεως τὴν ψυχήν μου (142:11). Similarly, the clause κρῖνόν με κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου in 34:24 has a positive connotation, which is evident in NRSV translation ‘vindicate me.’ What God is asked to do in his δικαιοσύνη never has a retributive or a punitive nuance, but has rather positive and saving nuance. In other words, psalmist is praying to God to show his merciful nature. All the more, a strong 14 15 16

Rad, OldTestamentTheology, 377. Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 241-290, esp. 262. See Irons, RighteousnessofGod, 136-137.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

167

relational aspect is evident in these texts as these prayers for help reflect the psalmist’s trust in God. Hence, what the psalmist prays for ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου is not for him to do justice, but for him to show loving compassion and mercy. These prayers might be based on his own experience of God as the one who protects and saves him. Typical are those texts where God’s δικαιοσύνη is reinforced by other soteriological terms. An analysis of the 10 occurrences of τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου, which in most instances are paralleled by other soteriological terms,17 points in this direction. We analyse some of these texts with a view to clarifying the salvific and relational aspect of the expression. παράτεινον τὸ ἔλεός σου τοῖς γινώσκουσίν σε καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου τοῖς εὐθέσι τῇ καρδίᾳ (35:11)

This text needs special attention, as here it is parallel to God’s mercy (τὸ ἔλεoς), a term Paul uses in Romans when he speaks of the salvation of the Gentiles. The NRSV translation of τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου as ‘your salvation’ rightly shows a salvific connotation in this context. What is more striking is that a similar comparison can be seen in Ps 102:17-18: τὸ δὲ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐπὶ τοὺς φοβουμένους αὐτόν καὶ ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ υἱοὺς υἱῶν. A few words earlier (102:10) we read: “He does not deal with us according to our sins.” God’s intervention for his people is to show them mercy and to save them.18 We consider another example: τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου οὐκ ἔκρυψα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου καὶ τὸ σωτήριόν σου εἶπα οὐκ ἔκρυψα τὸ ἔλεός σου καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου ἀπὸ συναγωγῆς πολλῆς (39:11)

In this text, God’s δικαιοσύνη is placed in parallel with his ἀλήθεια, σωτήριoν and ἔλεoς. κύριε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ τὸ ἔλεός σου καὶ ἡ ἀλήθειά σου ἕως τῶν νεφελῶν (35:6) ἡ δικαιοσύνη σου ὡσεὶ ὄρη θεοῦ τὰ κρίματά σου ἄβυσσος πολλή ἀνθρώπους καὶ κτήνη σώσεις κύριε (35:7)

Here it stands in parallel to God’s ἔλεος, ἀλήθεια and κρίματα. The positive aspect is particularly evident when it lined with these other qualities. God’s ἔλεος parallels δικαιοσύνη in each of the above texts, which 17

18

See Ps 34:24; 35:11; 39:11; 50:16; 70:15, 16, 18, 24; 71:1. See also Bailey, Jesus astheMercySeat, 185-187. With Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 53-54. Contra, Irons, RighteousnessofGod, 164-165.

168

CHAPTER FOUR

shows that the meaning might be closely associated with it. Strikingly, all three texts are universal in thrust and inclusive in nature. Although these parallels may not help us define the meaning of God’s δικαιοσύνη itself, they give us a hint of the connotation of the term. Occasionally God’s δικαιοσύνη parallels his κρίματα, which has led to the conclusion that they are close to each other in meaning. We will show later in this chapter that God’s δικαιοσύνη is not the same as his κρίματα, but rather that it is an aspect of it. One thing that can be asserted with confidence is that δικαιοσύνη and its parallels are intended to designate God’s nature as experienced by the psalmist in his own relationship with God. Rather than an activity of God, it points to the being of God or God’s own nature. It principally conveys God’s very quality of intervening to save those who trust in him. Neither of these instances denotes an absolute norm to measure humanity nor is a punitive meaning present in either of these texts.19 All the more, these parallel expressions show that God’s δικαιοσύνη is “a flexible and adaptable expression.”20 Although that is the main line of thinking in the psalms, it must be admitted that the gift aspect of δικαιοσύνη is revealed in some texts, with a special focus on human vindication by conferring a right status. As Moo points out, the clearest instance is Ps 34:27-2821: “Let those who desire my δικαιοσύνη (vindication) shout for joy and be glad… and my tongue shall tell of your δικαιοσύνη.” Similarly, in 36:6 we read: “And he shall bring forth your δικαιοσύνη (vindication) as the light.” We do not claim that the psalmist does not talk about God’s righteous judgement and distributive justice. What we argue is that such issues are not inevitably present when he speaks about God’s δικαιοσύνη. These instances do not undermine the predominance of God’s δικαιοσύνη as his relational and compassionate justice. Ps 68:28, where the psalmist prays against his enemies, is particularly interesting in this regard: πρόσθες ἀνομίαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν αὐτῶν καὶ μὴ εἰσελθέτωσαν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ σου. By this statement, the psalmist asks God not to let them enter into his δικαιοσύνη, but rather to increase their iniquities. This goes

19 20 21

Cf. Rad, OldTestamentTheology, 370-377. Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 187. Cf. Moo, EpistletotheRomans, 82. Seeing it from the Hebrew background Reumann, Righteousness in the New Testament, 15, 17, considers that the concept of justice as God’s activity is present in Ps [MT] 9:5; 40:11; 119:7.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

169

against understanding δικαιοσύνη as distributive justice or ethical righteousness.22 In short, δικαιοσύνη when used as an attribute of God is relational, with saving connotations. It is not an activity of God; rather it points to God’s love and mercy towards humanity. 4.1.2 Δικαιοσύνη in God’s Relation to Humanity in the Psalms There are also a number of texts in the Psalms where the psalmist speaks of δικαιοσύνη in relation to God’s relation to humanity. When it stands to God’s relation to humans it has some peculiarities. In most of these instances the psalmist prays on his own behalf, for personal benefit. However, there are many texts where a universal dimension of God’s δικαιοσύνη is present. δικαιοσύνη is used in these texts in a context where God deals with everyone, without discrimination. We observe that the concrete contexts of these texts are often neglected in background studies. A close examination of their context shows their inclusive dimension that might have influenced Paul when he writes about God’s δικαιοσύνη in Romans. The context of each occurrence of God’s δικαιοσύνη in Romans has an inclusive statement.23 They already hint at why Paul chose this terminology to communicate his inclusive message. A number of significant passages in the psalms talk about God’s δικαιοσύνη from an inclusive perspective. In 10:7 we read ὅτι δίκαιος κύριος καὶ δικαιοσύνας ἠγάπησεν εὐθύτητα εἶδεν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ. The inclusive dimension of the text is evident in the context, especially in 3:4 where we read “his eyes behold, his gaze examines humankind.” Similarly, in 21:32 καὶ ἀναγγελοῦσιν τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ λαῷ τῷ τεχθησομένῳ is used in an inclusive context. The occurrences of δικαιοσύνη in 35:6-11 are not only inclusive, but are followed by a statement that “all people may take refuge in the shadow of your wings.” While 47:11 uses in the context of God’s name reaching to the ends of the earth, 64:5 affirms the same by stating “you are the hope of all the ends of the 22

23

With Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 14-15, 57. Contra, Irons, RighteousnessofGod, 167-168. In its first occurrence in 1:16 we find a reference to ‘everyone: Jews and Greek.’ Similarly, in 3:21-23: ‘all have sinned;’ in 10:3 ‘everyone’ as climax of Paul’s argument in 9:30-10:3. In 10:12-13 Paul writes “there is no distinction. The same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Thus, the immediate context of each occurrence of God’s δικαιοσύνη in Romans has an inclusive statement.

170

CHAPTER FOUR

earth and of the farthest seas.” In 95:10-13 and 97:9, it is used in contexts of God’s judgement highlighting the all-inclusive character by stating λαοὺς ἐν εὐθύτητι.24 Two other occurrences arise in 93:14-15, where πάντες οἱ εὐθεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ διάψαλμα and 96:6 where πάντες οἱ λαοὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ follows it. Finally, ἐγνώρισεν κύριος τὸ σωτήριον αὐτοῦ ἐναντίον τῶν ἐθνῶν ἀπεκάλυψεν τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ in 97:2 is the only instance where the psalmist speaks of the revelation of God’s δικαιοσύνη in the sight of the nations. Notably, here δικαιοσύνη is used in parallel to God’s σωτηρία and therefore it can be understood as “an attribute of God that stands metonymically for God’s salvation.”25 This text is all the more attractive because of the clear reference in the context to God’s vindication of all nations along with Israel and the references to God’s ἔλεος and ἀλήθεια in the following verse (97:3). Although not exhaustive, this list is sufficient to show that there are a number of texts where this all-inclusive dimension of God’s δικαιοσύνη is present. We consider that this context of the text might have influenced Paul’s all-inclusive argument of God’s δικαιοσύνη in Romans. While noting this observation we postpone the discussion of its implications at a later stage in this chapter. Having examined these texts, we now turn to Isaiah, also quoted by Paul in Romans. 4.1.3 Δικαιοσύνη as an Attribute of God in Isaiah Just as we have seen in many of the Psalms above, Isaiah too contains instances of δικαιοσύνη with pronouns (σου, αὐτοῦ, μου) referring to God. We have identified 9 instances where it is used as an attribute of God. The following chart represents the figures of how three leading translations render these uses: [God’s] δικαιοσύνη in translations Righteousness Saving justice Deliverance Other

24

25

KJV

NJB

NRSV

7 0 0 2

0 5 0 4

1 0 3 5

The term εὐθύτης or its cognates are often used in Psalms either as a synonym of δικαιοσύνη or in combination with δικ- words. In the Psalms, it is a positive term and is often translated as ‘righteousness’ or ‘uprightness.’ Burk, “Righteousness of God,” 357-358.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

171

All of the representative translations in the chart employ stylistic variations. Nevertheless, the KJV renders it with ‘righteousness’ in the majority of instances. The two other translations are ‘truth’ and ‘judgment.’ Although the NJB translates it with ‘saving justice’ in five instances it also translates the term as ‘faithful love,’ ‘uprightness,’ ‘justice,’ and ‘constancy.’ Surprisingly, the NRSV translates it with ‘righteousness’ only once and maintains stylistic variation with ‘deliverance,’ ‘steadfast love,’ ‘vindication,’ ‘faithfulness,’ ‘justice’ and ‘vindicator.’ Despite the saving nuance of the term in most instances, these stylistic variations show the adaptability of God’s δικαιοσύνη to various contexts. There are some significant texts where God’s δικαιοσύνη and his salvation are practically interchangeable (46:13; 51:5-6; 7-8). Special attention needs to be paid to 46:13 where we read: ἤγγισα τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου καὶ τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ οὐ βραδυνῶ and 63:1 ἐγὼ διαλέγομαι δικαιοσύνην καὶ κρίσιν σωτηρίου. Again, by placing God’s δικαιοσύνη in close parallel to his σωτηρία, these texts rule out any possibility of understanding God’s δικαιοσύνη as a strict retributive action. In the case of 46:12-13, the text clearly states that they were stubborn of heart and far from deliverance (46:12), yet God shows them compassion by bringing near his δικαιοσύνη.26 It must be understood as God’s relational justice that shows his merciful nature by saving them. It is sufficient for our present purpose to note on this point that we find salvific connotation in most of the texts. Similarly, a more active and relational meaning is present when it is used as an attribute of God. Most instances also connote divine love. As a flexible term, δικαιοσύνη may stand as an alternative to the mercy, kindness and love of God. 4.1.4 All-Inclusive Dimension and the Coming of δικαιοσύνη in Isaiah In addition to the foregoing passages, which explicitly speak about God’s δικαιοσύνη, there are a number of cases where δικαιοσύνη is used in the texts where Isaiah speaks about God. In other words, there are some texts where δικαιοσύνη, while not referring explicitly to God’s δικαιοσύνη, is used in contexts where Isaiah speaks about God. We highlight

26

Hill, GreekWords, 91, notes in this regard that that in Isaiah’s theology God’s deliverance of Israel is not based on their merit “but on the character of Yahweh himself” (emphasis original).

172

CHAPTER FOUR

some of those texts that reflect the all-inclusive view of Isaiah. The following texts reflect Isaiah’s inclusive outlook: κατ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω ἦ μὴν ἐξελεύσεται ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου δικαιοσύνη οἱ λόγοι μου οὐκ ἀποστραφήσονται ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ καὶ ἐξομολογήσεται πᾶσα γλῶσσα τῷ θεῷ (45:23) ἐγγίζει ταχὺ ἡ δικαιοσύνη μου καὶ ἐξελεύσεται ὡς φῶς τὸ σωτήριόν μου καὶ εἰς τὸν βραχίονά μου ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν (51:5) ἡ δὲ δικαιοσύνη μου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἔσται τὸ δὲ σωτήριόν μου εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν (51:8) τὸ σωτήριόν μου παραγίνεσθαι καὶ τὸ ἔλεός μου ἀποκαλυφθῆναι (56:1, see especially ἀλλογενὴς used in 56:3) ἀνατελεῖ κύριος δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀγαλλίαμα ἐναντίον πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν (61:11)

In these texts, δικαιοσύνη is used in the context of God’s concern for all and his plan to save everyone.27 Whereas in 51:5 God’s δικαιοσύνη and his σωτήριον are presented in close parallels, 51:8 states that God’s δικαιοσύνη shall be there forever and to all generations. Again, 56:1 it is used in close association with God’s σωτήριον and ἔλεος in an inclusive context, which can be seen in 56:3. Finally, in 61:11 all the nations are said to be the beneficiaries when God shows his δικαιοσύνη. Thus, these texts from Isaiah exhibit his all-inclusive view, his view of a God who is concerned with the salvation of all. There are some passages in Isaiah that speak of the future revelation or the coming of God’s δικαιοσύνη. These texts need special attention as in Rom 1:17 and 3:21 Paul speaks about the revelation of God’s δικαιοσύνη. In a number of the texts, especially in Deutero-Isaiah, δικαιοσύνη is used in situations of the future (eschatological) coming of salvation (Isa 45:8; 46:13; 52:5, 6, 8; 54:5-8).28 Isa 59:2 states categorically that our iniquities are barriers to reach God and our sins have hidden God’s face. After further elucidation in the following words, we read in 59:9 that because of this, δικαιοσύνη does not reach us. In Isa 56:1 we read about the revelation of God’s σωτήριον and ἔλεος (see also Ps 97:2). Paul uses these terms when he deals with the salvation of the Gentiles (see esp. 11:31; 15:9).

27

28

Shiu-Lun Shum, Paul’sUseofIsaiahinRomans: AcomparativeStudyofPaul’sLetter totheRomansandtheSibyllineandQumranSectarianTexts, WUNT 2, 156 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 202, observes that most of Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans 1-8 are quotes within Isa 40-55. “This seems to imply that Paul was more influenced by the thought of the so-called Second Isaiah.” Cf. Kertelge, “δικαιοσύνη,” 328.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

173

It is also possible that Paul might have associated the coming of the Messiah with Isa 11:1-2, 5 (see also Jer 23:5-6) and 62:1-2. If this assumption is correct, then God’s merciful and saving nature is uniquely revealed in the death of Jesus. In other words, God’s δικαιοσύνη is made available to everyone in the person of Jesus Christ. Strikingly, Paul does not quote or refer to the text of the suffering servant in Isa 53:4-6 anywhere in his letters. This, in our view, is precisely because of Paul’s theocentric focus. If he wanted to highlight the obedient death of Christ, the suffering servant text would have been the most appropriate one. To conclude our discussion of the background of God’s δικαιοσύνη at this stage, it is useful to summarise our main findings. We have examined above the most likely background texts that might have influenced Paul’s use of God’s δικαιοσύνη. While many scholars have contributed by their study of the background by Hebrew equivalents or δικ- words in biblical and extra-biblical literature, we have attempted to contribute to the discussion by focussing on Psalms and Isaiah. In the Psalms and Isaiah, God’s δικαιοσύνη stands close to his salvation and merciful love. It is very important to see that these books present δικαιοσύνη as an attribute of God, not as an activity of God. As Burk rightly underlines, “if the LXX translators of Psalms and Isaiah had intended verbal action, then why did they not employ the noun δικαίωσις (which indicates nominalized action)?”29 Many of those passages present God’s δικαιοσύνη as a quality by which he vindicates people. It is also closely linked to other divine qualities, especially with ἔλεος and ἀλήθεια. Thus in almost all instances this expression carries a positive connotation. Each time psalmist prays for help in God’s δικαιοσύνη he asks not for retributive justice, but merciful justice that does something favourable and salvific. We shall show later in this chapter that this might have influenced Paul at a number of points: first, the salvific dimension evident in the context, especially in parallels used in some of the texts; second, the all-inclusive nature of some of the texts highlighting God’s mercy towards all; third, the strong relational aspect evident in the texts; and finally, God’s bringing near of his δικαιοσύνη. We shall substantiate it further by showing some of Paul’s citations, particularly his citations of Ps 142:2 (and Isa 66:23) in Rom 3:20.

29

Burk, “Righteousness of God,” 353.

174

CHAPTER FOUR

4.2 CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING GOD’S δικαιοσύνη IN PAULINE LETTERS Before going into the details of this understanding of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Romans, it is useful to have an overview of the other uses of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in the Pauline letters and of the question of the type of genitive. The nuanced view of regarding the background of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ that we suggest for Romans may not be applicable to all its uses elsewhere in the Pauline letters. There are many uses of δικαιοσύνη in Pauline letters that do not relate to God. We are not arguing that all Paul’s uses of δικαιοσύνη have a uniform meaning. Nor do we claim that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ has the same nuance of meaning in all the instances. Rather we argue that Paul has a refined view of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Romans. 4.2.1 God’s δικαιοσύνη Outside Romans The exact phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ only occurs once in Paul’s other letters, in 2 Cor 5:21. We have seen in the first chapter that there are several possible meanings for δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. In 2 Corinthians, it is associated with a participatory theme. That theme is almost absent in Romans 1-3 and 9-11, where the other occurrences are to be found. The interpretation of the clause ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ in 2 Cor 5:21 is rather strained. It has traditionally been interpreted as a righteousness that God imparts to believers. For example, F. F. Bruce writes that it here means a “sweet exchange whereby sinners are given a righteous status before God.”30 However, Käsemann and Stuhlmacher argue that it has to be read from the background of apocalyptic Judaism and that it is associated with the power with which God establishes the covenant.31 Wright considers that it is a technical term for God’s covenant faithfulness and 5:21 reads then that “we might become God’s covenant-faithfulness.”32 Southall argues that in 2 Cor 5:21 δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ can stand for Christ because “at some points in 30

31

32

F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1971), 211. Margaret E. Thrall, TheSecondEpistletotheCorinthians, ICC (Edinburgh: Clark, 1994), 446, consider it as a reference to “the Believer’s becoming the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in terms of Paul’s doctrine of justification.” Käsemann, Questions, 162-182; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 27. See also the discussion in Victor Paul Furnish, 2Corinthians AB (London: New York: Doubleday, 1984), 340; Bieringer, “Sünde und Gerechtigkeit,” 496- 505. Wright, “On Becoming the Righteousness of God,” 206.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

175

1 and 2 Corinthians, δικαιοσύνη functions as an equivalent term for Christ.”33 We will point to the difficulty of some of these interpretations when we address the issue of the genitive in the following section. In our view, a very important fact is that in 2 Cor 5:21 δικαιοσύνη is used with γίνομαι. It is in a construction ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη. The meaning of δικαιοσύνη here is clearly characterized by this construction with γίνομαι. In this construction where γίνομαι is used with a predicate complement, it means ‘become.’34 In that way, this is syntactically and semantically different from that of Romans. In Romans, there are no comparable passages. Since this is the earliest use of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul, we find it quite reasonable that his usage should have become more refined by the time he came to Romans. A close parallel is 1 Cor 1:30, where we find Christ becoming our δικαιοσύνη. While many scholars argue that Paul is here personifying wisdom by identifying it with Christ,35 some argue that such identification is less likely as wisdom is not a divine being.36 In any case, in 1 Cor 1:30 δικαιοσύνη is connected to other qualifiers, which are not associated with it in Romans. It is not about God’s δικαιοσύνη. Phil 3:9 contains a reference to δικαιοσύνη that comes from God through πίστεως Χριστοῦ. The majority view is that Paul is here contrasting the human righteousness achieved by good works with the status of δικαιοσύνη that God imparts on those who have faith.37 Wright cautions those scholars who have “referred to this passage as though it could be the yardstick for uses of dikaiosune theou,” declaring that “this is impossible… This is a righteous status from God, not God’s own 33 34

35

36

37

Southall, RediscoveringRighteousness, 301. A paper presented by Reimund Bieringer, “The δικαιοσύνη of God and the δικαιοσύνη of the Corinthians (2 Cor 9:9-10)” in section Second Corinthians: Pauline Theology in the Making, SBL Annual Meetings, San Diego, CA, November 24, 2014 hinted at this point. He also observes, as against the fact that Paul uses elsewhere only the genitive θεοῦ with δικαιοσύνη, in 2 Cor 9:9-10 he employs δικαιοσύνη twice with genitives that refer to human beings. Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians, ANTC (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1998), 49; Barrett, FirstEpistletotheCorinthians, 59-60; Southall, RediscoveringRighteousness, 295. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 84; Dunn, Christology, 177; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 192. Veronica Kperski, TheKnowledgeofChristJesusmyLord:TheHighChristologyof Philippians3:7-11 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996), 192-202; Moisés Silva, Philippians, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 160; Southall, Rediscovering Righteousness, 303. Despite agreeing to this view, Southall also considers that τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην is a title for Christ.

176

CHAPTER FOUR

righteousness.”38 Since δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is here combined with πίστεως Χριστοῦ, we will come back to this text in more detail in the next chapter. These usages have different contexts from those in Romans. We do not consider them as offering a sound basis for understanding δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in that letter, any more than we will argue that all the occurrences of δικαιοσύνη in Paul have to be understood from the specific background of Romans. It may be, as Käsemann has argued, that these texts can best be read against the background of apocalyptic Judaism. But Paul’s uses of δικαιοσύνη cannot just be equated with God’s δικαιοσύνη, any more than we argue that it has a uniform meaning throughout Paul’s usage. δικαιοσύνη in Paul is more flexible than any one of the paradigms suggested by scholarship. We shall come back to this issue later in this chapter. 4.2.2 Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ: The Question of the Type of the Genitive As we have seen in the first chapter,39 when considering the history of interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, one of the issues that confronts scholars is how to interpret the genitive construction. Scholars have warned to be very careful in interpreting the genitive constructions and that mastering the genitive case is not easy because of the various ways it can be treated.40 Accordingly, the choice between treating a construction as, for instance, an objective genitive, a genitive of origin, a subjective genitive or a possessive genitive can lead to competing accounts of Pauline theology. In the case which primarily interests us here, however, debate has been limited to the choice between a subjective or an objective reading: “Es bleibt also nur die Wahl zwischen gentivus subiectivus und obiectivus.”41 While an objective genitive reading understands this δικαιοσύνη as from God, in the sense of its being an attribute of the people redeemed by God, a subjective genitive reading understands it as of God, in the sense of being an attribute or activity of God himself.

38 39

40 41

Wright, WhatSaintPaulReallySaid, 104. See the summary of different positions in the debate in our first chapter (pp. 6-16). There is no need to repeat here the various positions and the literature. Hence we deal here only the grammatical state of the phrase and the probability of this reading will be exposed in the following sections. Robertson, GrammaroftheGreek, 495; Wallace, GreekGrammar, 73. Flebbe, SolusDeus, 73.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

177

In recent research, scholars have called into question this traditional dispute between objective genitive and subjective genitive. Challenging these two sides of interpretation at a grammatical level, scholars have shown that the question of objective or subjective genitive is not applicable. Wright points out that the genitive here is misunderstood as if the noun it governs carries a verbal sense.42 Further in this line, Denny Burk observes – with the support of grammars43 – that the choice between objective and subjective understandings only arises when “the head noun δικαιοσύνη implies a verbal idea.”44 Burk examines the way genitives work and the significance of the -συνη suffix in δικαιοσύνη. He argues that the nominalized form of the verb δικαιόω is not δικαιοσύνη, but δικαίωσις. δικαιοσύνη then has to be considered as a noun derived from the adjective,45 as a nominalization of an attribute. Thus he concludes that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is to be understood as referring to an attribute of God and the debate on the subjective/objective genitive loses its ground. As we have seen, our background analysis supports this reading, since δικαιοσύνη is used as an attribute of God in the texts that we have examined in the Psalms and in Isaiah. The above understanding of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as a nominalization of an attribute helps us to partly solve the problems associated with understanding it as an ‘activity of God’ in Rom 3:21-22.46 For we see that ‘activity of God’ in 3:21 is expressed, not in the phrase as such, but in the verb φανερόω. Thus this attribute or nature expressed in the phrase, as we read it, is to be specifically manifested in the person of Jesus Christ (3:22). This reading is supported by the use of the same phrase in 3:5, where it is clearly an attribute of God, is evident from its place among other attributes used there as synonyms. This helps us narrow down the possible meanings of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in the context of Rom 3:21-26. How this grammatical understanding of 42 43

44 45 46

Wright, “On Becoming the Righteousness of God,” 201. See Moule, New Testament Greek, 39-40; James Hope Moulton and Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: Clarke, 1963), 207, 210; Wallace, GreekGrammar, 112-113. See BDF § 89-100 on these issues and the uses of other genitives. Burk, “Righteousness of God,” 349. See Burk, “Righteousness of God,” 350-351. As we have seen in the history of interpretation of the phrase, many following Käsemann continue to understand it as the saving activity of God. According to Fitzmyer, Romans, 257, θεοῦ in this phrase is to be understood “as a possessive or subjective gen., descriptive of God’s upright being and of his upright activity, and not as a gen. of author or origin. When δικαιοσύνη is called an attribute or quality, nothing static is implied; it is an aspect of God’s power, whence proceeds his acquitting and salvific activity in a forensic mode.”

178

CHAPTER FOUR

δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ fits in all its uses in Romans will become clear in the following sections. Before investigating the meaning of God’s δικαιοσύνη in Romans, it will be helpful to consider the impact of a significant Pauline citation in Rom 3:20. 4.2.3 Impact of Ps 142 [LXX] on the Pauline Understanding of δικαιοσύνη In the previous section we have demonstrated that Paul’s use of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is most likely influenced by its role as an attribute of God in Psalms and Isaiah. This point can be reinforced by one of Paul’s significant citations. It is widely acknowledged that in Rom 3:20 Paul is citing Ps 142:2b.47 His purpose is to conclude his long discussion of human sinfulness in 1:18-3:20, to wrap up his argument and to make a smooth transition to the following section.48 The context of the citation is relevant to our discussion, for a number of remarkable factors in this psalm might have influenced Paul. Hays, helpfully suggests that the scriptural echo “requires the reader to interpret a citation or allusion by recalling aspects of the original context that are not explicitly quoted.”49 Ps 142:1-2 runs as follows: καταδιώκει κύριε εἰσάκουσον τῆς προσευχῆς μου ἐνώτισαι τὴν δέησίν μου ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σου ἐπάκουσόν μου ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου καὶ μὴ εἰσέλθῃς εἰς κρίσιν μετὰ τοῦ δούλου σου ὅτι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν

Although Paul only cites 142:2b, we find God’s δικαιοσύνη in close conjunction with this. It is likely that Paul had this context in mind. Just as we observed in some of the background texts in the previous section, God’s δικαιοσύνη is placed here too in parallel to God’s ἀλήθεια. These 47

48

49

While Hans-Jürgen van der Minde, SchriftundTraditionbeiPaulus:IhreBedeutung undFunktionimRömerbrief (München: Schöningh, 1976), 54-58, views it as a clear citation, Edward Earle Ellis, Paul’sUseoftheOldTestament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), 153, consider it as an allusion. An argument against these common views can be seen in Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 18, 145. Cf. Hays, “Psalm 143,” 107-115, esp. 113. Most commentators are considering 3:20 as the conclusion of 1:18-3:19. For example, NygrenDerRömerbrief, 107, notes, “Wir stehen nun am Schluss des Gedankenganges, der seinen Anfang mit Kap. 1,18 nahm.” Richard B. Hays, “On the Rebound: A Response to Critiques of EchoesofScripture intheLettersofPaul,” in PaulandtheScripturesofIsrael,ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, JSNT SS 83 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 43.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

179

parallels reinforce what we have argued in chapter 2 that Paul’s characterisation of God in Romans 1-3 is based on Scripture. As Hays observes, “these terms are strikingly reminiscent of the discussion in Rom 3:3-7.”50 In this context ἀλήθεια may refer to the trustworthiness or dependability of God, a theme Paul develops in the first part of Rom 3. We have here both the noun δικαιοσύνη and the verb δικαιόω both of which Paul employs in Rom 3:21-26. δικαιοσύνη is used in the psalm as an attribute of God, which suggests that it might be also an attribute of God in Rom 3:21-26. There are striking linguistic and conceptual resemblances between Rom 3:20-21 and Ps 142:1-2. Both passages are in the context of sin and depict the need for help and redemption. The research of Hays suggests that the whole of Romans 3 must be read against the background of Psalm 142.51 The psalm provides Paul with “the expectant language of prayer that looks to God’s righteousness as the source of salvation.”52 According to him “the most significant elements of intertextual correspondence between old context and new can be implicit rather than voiced, perceptible only within the silent space farmed by the juncture of the two texts.”53 Although it can be disputed whether whole of Romans 3 must be read against the background of Psalm 142, we think that at least Ps 142:1-2 helps us clarify Rom 3:2021. We find this is most useful especially to establish the link between Rom 3:20 and 3:21. Very recently, Turner has argued that “Paul has kept the framework of the doctrine of righteousness that he found in the Psalms but everything is now christologized. This is his one change to the psalmist’s doctrine of righteousness but it is the change that changes everything.”54 We agree in principle with the first part of his statement. However, we argue against the proposal that everything is chistologized 50

51

52 53 54

Hays, The Conversion, 59. Desta Heliso, Pistis and the Righteous One: A Study of Romans1:17againsttheBackgroundofScriptureandSecondTempleJewishLiterature, WUNT 2, 235 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 108, notes that “[i]t would be wrong to suggest that Paul transposed such a notion to his declaration in Rom 3:21-22. But it would equally be wrong to deny that his new thinking could have been informed and, to an extent, shaped by the psalmist’s expression of the presence of the righteousness of the Lord in terms of the presence of the Lord himself.” Cf. Richard B. Hays, EchoesofScriptureintheLettersofPaul (London: Yale University Press, 1989), 52. Most commentators perceive this clause is from Ps 142:2 [LXX]. Dunn, Romans1-8, 158, for example, notes that “the assertion is certainly drawn from Ps 143[2]:2.” Hays, EchoesofScripture, 52. Hays, EchoesofScripture, 155. Turner, “Righteousness of God,” 297 (emphasis original).

180

CHAPTER FOUR

by showing that what Paul argues in Romans is in agreement with the psalmist’s view of God’s δικαιοσύνη. We propose that Paul is influenced not only by Psalms but also by Isaiah. In our opinion, although Paul is primarily drawing on Ps 142:2b, he is also influenced by the vocabulary of Isaiah. Psalm 142:2b οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν

Isaiah 66:23b πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιόν μου

Romans 3:20b οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ

As we see in the chart, Paul modifies his sources, making changes that may serve his argument. Despite the minor changes in vocabulary the text is similar in meaning to Ps 142:2b. The same psalm also underlies Gal 2:16 which reads οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ. Whereas αὐτοῦ is often commented as a stylistic modification, the change of πᾶς ζῶν to πᾶσα σάρξ considered either due to Paul’s quoting from memory55 or he is making this deliberate change for theological emphasis.56 Against these views, we propose that Paul is merging Ps 142:2b with Isa 66:23b. This goes well with our findings in the previous section that Paul’s sources of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ are Psalms and Isaiah. While primarily drawing upon Psalm 142, the influence of Isaiah is reflected in this change. The strong universal thrust evident in the context of Isaiah might have influenced him. Accordingly, σάρξ is selected by Paul “because it includes the entirety of the human race.”57 By this citation, Paul is underlining here that no one can be regarded as righteous in God’s sight. Thus, the focus is on the equal standing of everyone before the impartial righteousness of God. Shifting the direct address to God into the third person singular ‘no one,’ Paul universalizes the psalmist’s thought with a general condemnation. This is supported by the preceding πᾶν στόμα and πᾶς ὁ κόσμος in 3:19 both of them underlining the inclusive nature. Having noted this, we now demonstrate that all that we have shown regarding δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in the foregoing section is present in Psalm 142. Most of the parallel words that we discussed appear in close association with God’s δικαιοσύνη in this psalm too: κρίσις (v 2), ἀλήθεια 55 56

57

Cf. Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 198. Cf. Turner, “Righteousness of God,” 288. For a comparative analysis and the theological motives behind σάρξ in this context, see Waetjen, LettertotheRomans, 106-107. Jewett, Romans, 266. See also the use of πᾶσα σάρξ in the expression ὄψεται πᾶσα σὰρξ τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ in Isa 40:5.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

181

(v 1), ἔλεος (v 8, 12) and the verb ἐξαιρέω (v 9). Furthermore, in 142:7 he prays ‘do not hide your face’ and the urgency is revealed by using the phrase ταχὺ εἰσάκουσόν μου. When applied to Rom 3:21 it implies that “God’s saving righteousness for which the psalmist had hoped has at last appeared.”58 Above all, 142:1-2 shows the inadequacy of defining God’s δικαιοσύνη in terms of his distributive justice. In 142:2 we read μὴ εἰσέλθῃς εἰς κρίσιν. The prayer in these words may not sound reasonable if God’s δικαιοσύνη is understood in terms of distributive justice. Rather, it refers to “that aspect of the divine nature from which issues a judgment, a relationship, other than the one deserved by the petitioner.”59 In that sense, it must be an aspect of God’s justice, not the equivalent of it. His plea that God should not judge him, but should save him in his δικαιοσύνη shows how God’s δικαιοσύνη includes mercy, so helping us to disregard any punitive connotation in this context. At this point it is useful to recall the helpful distinction between the Greek and Hebrew understanding of justice that we discussed in the second chapter. It is this relational justice, not a justice based on law-suit, what the psalmist is asking God. In line with our earlier findings, God’s δικαιοσύνη here entails a strong salvific tone and reveals its relational character. The text calls for a dependence on God for salvation. The psalmist repeatedly admits that he is incapable of vindicating himself, he is pleading therefore for God’s δικαιοσύνη, ἀλήθεια and ἔλεος. In 142:9 he asks God to save (ἐξαιρέω) him for he has fled to him for refuge. 142:11 where God’s δικαιοσύνη occurs again in this chapter suggests that this phrase may here include deliverance of the afflicted. The grounds on which he claims God’s deliverance reveal the strong relational nature of the text. Thus the psalmist reveals his dependency on and strong relation to God by using four ὅτι clauses: “for in you I put my hope” (v 8); “for I take refuge in you” (v 9); “for you are my God” (v 10); and “for I am your servant” (v 12). Moreover, the verb δικαιόω, used in the citation, in itself is

58 59

Hays, “Psalm 143,” 114. Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 271. Many commentaries underline the importance of one’s reliance on God’s mercy so that one might be saved. For example, Leslie C. Allen, Psalms101-150, WBC 21 (Waco: Word, 1983), 285, observes its link with Paul’s talk about God’s saving righteousness in Rom 3:20-21. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101-150, ed. Klaus Baltzer, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011), 573, notes the richness of these verses “with its specific balancing of the divine characteristics of mercy and justice.”

182

CHAPTER FOUR

relational.60 Thus God’s basic nature and commitment to restore those who set their hope (ἐλπίζω) on him is expressed in his δικαιοσύνη. The citation also shows the inclusive nature of the text. In Rom 3:20 it becomes the climax of the string of quotations in 3:10-18 which show that all have sinned. Hence πᾶσα σάρξ in Paul’s argument stands for ‘all humanity.’ If no one is justified before God, all stand on equal footing. He makes the same point in Gal 2:16, citing the same psalm. Again the context is inclusive, concerning the justification of both Jews and Gentiles. The fact that Paul cites the psalm in order to clarify the Antioch confrontation shows that this was a significant text for the Jewish Christians. Evidently, Paul underlines the inclusive nature of the text. He uses first person plural verbs or personal pronouns both in Rom 3:19-20 and Gal 2:15-16 (οἴδαμεν, ἡμεῖς, ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν) to indicate inclusiveness. Thus, the universal indictment found in the Ps 142:2b is used by Paul to state the equal stance of everyone before God. The foregoing analysis has important implications for our study of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 3:21-26. First of all, Paul’s use in Rom 3:20 of Ps 142:2b, combined with the vocabulary of Isa 66:23b, indicates the source of his terminology. Ps 142:1-2 in its context throws light on the words of Rom 3:20-21 and their meanings. “If Psalm 143 implicitly spans verse 20 and 21 of Romans 3, then the righteousness of God proclaimed by Paul is the same righteousness invoked by David’s prayer, and Israel’s scripture becomes a positive witness to God’s righteousness rather than a negative foil to it.”61 Notably even the word ὑπόδικος in Rom 3:19 employs the same δικ- root. By analysing the implications of Psalm 143, we gain the assurance that a number of peculiarities of the text are reflected in Paul’s words and Paul’s argument. In this psalm, we find two references to God’s δικαιοσύνη with strong relational sense and salvific overtones. As Hays shows, this psalm is one in which the psalmist admits his personal sinfulness and his inability to vindicate himself and appeals for vindication through God’s δικαιοσύνη.62 Most significantly, what Psalmist pleads to God is not for distributive justice, rather for a merciful justice. These themes are crucial for Paul because he deals with them in the central pericope Rom 3:21-26.

60

61 62

See more on the meaning of the verb δικαιόω in 3:24, 26 later in this chapter on pp. 178-180. Hays, EchoesofScripture, 52. Cf. Hays, EchoesofScripture, 52.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

183

So far we have shown that God’s δικαιοσύνη has a number of peculiarities in the Psalms and Isaiah. Among these peculiarities, the dimension of ‘mercy’ and the inclusive context of these occurrences have gone unnoticed. If these observations are correct, then we will be able to show the richness of Pauline δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, especially in Romans where he often quotes from these books. Drawing on the foregoing background analysis, we will now investigate the meaning of the phrase in Romans.

OF

4.3 THEOCENTRIC READING δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ IN ROMANS

The notion of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Romans is one of the challenging problems for the interpreter of Rom 3:21-26.63 In the foregoing background examination, we have shown how Paul’s notion of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is drawn from the scriptures, in particular from the Psalms and Isaiah. “What prophets and Judaism generally looked forward to in the future, at ‘the end,’ Paul experiences hereandnow.”64 Our examination up to this point shows that in the LXX God’s δικαιοσύνη has a number of characteristics, where it is used as an attribute of God. We try to show in the following examination how these characteristics are also present in Romans. Moreover, Paul deepens the theme of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ by stressing its inclusive nature. We therefore examine the precise meaning of this key phrase in this context in the light of our background analysis. Our argument is that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ has a consistent meaning in all its eight occurrences in Romans. Further, we shall show that translators and exegetes have tended to overlook the element of ‘mercy’ inherent in the phrase. We propose therefore to translate the term as God’s merciful justice. 4.3.1 Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as God’s Merciful Justice Translating δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is both elusive and challenging. It is challenging partly because of its various shades of meaning. Although in the 63

64

Much of the literature on δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ has already been listed in our history of interpretation of the phrase in the first chapter. We do not consider it necessary to repeat it in entirety. Hence, in this part of the study we will only give reference to the literature that is significant for our present analysis. John Reumann, “Justification and Justice in the New Testament,” HBT 21 (1999): 26-45, here 34.

184

CHAPTER FOUR

LXX God’s δικαιοσύνη relates to many other terms, it is difficult to find one word that covers all its nuances. This difficulty is reflected in the attempts of translators to render it into English. Leading attempts include: righteousness of God; justice of God; uprightness of God; God’s rectifying act; God’s act of covenant faithfulness; saving justice of God; saving act of God. Not only do these translations convey different meanings, but the shades of meaning are incomprehensible to the reader. Thus it is difficult in translation to represent the various shades of meaning that are appropriate to the context. Since the Reformation, justification by faith has generally been considered as the centre of Pauline theology. This has coloured the understanding of the phrase as well. Dunn considers that “Luther’s movement from the ‘justice of God’ to ‘justification by faith’ needs now to be reversed in some measure.”65 We draw attention to the need for a revision in the light of the foregoing analysis. It is difficult to settle on an English rendering that covers all the dimensions discussed in the previous section. As Roger L. Omanson observes, in English we “do not have an equivalent single term for the Greek word [δικαιοσύνη].”66 Part of the problem is that “English can use either ‘justice’ derived from the Latin or ‘righteousness’ from the Anglo-Saxon.”67 Strangely, most English translations use two different words for Greek words from the same stem: the noun δικαιοσύνη (righteousness) and the verb δικαιόω (to justify). Thus English struggles not only to represent the theological content of the phrase but also to sustain an adequate translation. This is relevant to our discussion because in Rom 3:21-26 Paul uses the noun δικαιοσύνη, the verb δικαιόω and the adjective δίκαιος. Indeed, in 3:26 he uses all three of them. It would therefore be appropriate if cognate English equivalents could be found for these cognate Greek terms. As we have discussed ‘righteousness’ and ‘justice’ have different stems in English. Scholars hold that ‘to right’ as a translation for the verb does not bear what Paul conveys in the text. Thus the ‘just’ word group seems to be the better option to overcome the awkwardness of translation. The most common translation of the phrase is “righteousness of God.” Derived from the Old English riht, ‘righteousness’ in general “refers to the quality of being righteous, right, or just, as well as rightfulness as 65

66 67

James D. G. Dunn, “Justice of God,” JTS 43 (1992): 1-22, esp. 21. In what follows we demonstrate this point and the related issues in translation. Omanson, “Righteousness,” 339-348, esp. 347. Reumann, “Justification and Justice,” 28.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

185

such.”68 Although this term seems to be an appropriate rendering of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as an attribute of God, in Romans it may not communicate all that Paul means. In the first place, the term with its ethical connotations may not be apt in the soteriological context, especially when Paul associates it with law. Further, as Fitzmyer suggests, “righteousness’ has a peculiar ring in English, suggesting to many something like self-righteousness, which is the last thing that Paul would mean by it.”69 Equally problematic is the definition of the phrase as ‘God’s justice.’ “In the Vulgate it appears as iustitia Dei, and in many Bibles that depended on the Vg tradition it became ‘the justice of God.’”70 This might mislead by pointing to the distributive justice of God with its punitive aspect. This aspect is neither evident in the background analysis of the phrase nor in the context of Rom 3:21-26. In common English usage ‘justice’ is defined as ‘getting what one deserves,’ whereas Paul seems to communicate “getting precisely what one does not deserve.”71 It is probably the relation to this Latin iustitiaDei that it is often interpreted as ‘distributive justice.’ Its emphasis on the judicial background with its punitive connotation might stand in contrast to God’s mercy. With such a meaning the term implies in Rom 3:21-26 quite the opposite of what Paul wants to communicate. Those who hold that Paul is influenced by his Greco-Roman background often translate the term as ‘God’s justice,’ taking it as a term used in a judicial process. But it is not very helpful to narrow the theology of the cross to a legal system. Moreover, our studies have shown that Paul is influenced by the Hebrew background reflected in the LXX. Here it is useful to recall the distinction between the Greek and Hebrew understanding of justice that we have noted in chapter two. In the GrecoRoman world, δικαιοσύνη is viewed as a norm against which individual behaviour can be measured. In the Hebrew background “it is a more relational concept – ‘righteousness’ the meeting of obligations laid upon the individual by the relationship of which he or she is part.”72 Nevertheless, justice is Paul’s concern in Romans 2-3. This is made clear by the rhetorical question in the beginning of the chapter 3: “is God unjust to 68

69 70 71 72

Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer, “Righteousness in Early Jewish Literature,” in NIDB 4 (2009), 807-813, here, 808. Fitzmyer, Romans, 258. Fitzmyer, Romans, 258. Reumann, “Justification and Justice,” 29. Dunn, TheologyofPaul, 341. See the discussion in Kertelge, “δικαιοσύνη,” 326. See also our discussions on the issue in chapter 2 (p. 85).

186

CHAPTER FOUR

inflict wrath on us?” (3:5) and “for then how could God judge the world?” (3:6). Our concern is to come up with a translation that gives these issues serious consideration. The greater drawback in the usual translations is that none of them covers the dimension of ‘mercy’ that is quite evident both in our background studies and in the context of Romans 1-3. In the background texts, we observed that God’s mercy is often used in conjunction with God’s δικαιοσύνη and this association is often reflected in Paul’s use of the phrase as well. For example, a clear link between mercy and God’s δικαιοσύνη can be found in the LXX Ps 114:5 where we read: ἐλεήμων ὁ κύριος καὶ δίκαιος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐλεᾷ. In the same way, in many of the texts we analysed in the precious section, mercy is an aspect of God’s justice. Perhaps seeing this background Barclay has recently noted: Paul “wants to redefine God’s justice not as something otherthan God’s mercy.”73 Without altering the basic notion, Paul is emphasizing that God is merciful to the weak and intervenes with his merciful justice. Taking into consideration that existing translations do not cover one or another significant dimension of the phrase, we propose to translate it with ‘God’s merciful justice.’ When we speak of characteristic human qualities of mercy and justice, they are often considered as distinct and even contradictory. Accordingly, God’s attributes of mercy and justice are also often considered contradictory. God is often presented either as judging people and punishing them, or as mercifully forgiving them. This is also partly because justice is often seen as distributive justice. We will show that mercy is an important part of God’s justice towards sinful humans. Paul wants to draw attention to this aspect of God’s nature, for all are guilty. Therefore ‘God’s merciful justice’ is not discriminatory, but aims rather to redeem. In the Christ-event, God’s justice and God’s mercy are bound together. By graciously abandoning any punishment or condemnation, God justifies everyone in Christ. Thus in Rom 8:1 we read “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Paul also notes in Rom 10:3 that this merciful justice of God was earlier unknown to the people. This verse connotes the period before the coming of Christ where law prevailed as a norm for justice, pointing to God’s 73

John M. G. Barclay, “Constructing a Dialogue: 4Ezra and Paul on the Mercy of God,” in AnthropologieundEthikimFrühjudentumundimNeuenTestament:Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen,ed. Matthias Konradt and Esther Schläpfer , WUNT 322 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 15 (italics original). However, apart from this casual remark, he does not explain how and why God’s justice entails God’s mercy.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

187

just action in history. The question is also that of acceptability before a just God. Moreover, the adjectival qualification ‘merciful’ shows also the relational aspect, pointing to God’s compassionate nature towards humans. The understanding of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as ‘God’s merciful justice’ has supporting evidence from the context of Rom 3:21-26. It has significant implications for Paul’s statements ‘all have sinned’ (3:23) and ‘God passed over former sins’ (3:25). This is an appropriate translation of 3:26, where Paul states that God shows his δικαιοσύνη and he is just and justifies. As we will argue later in this chapter, our translation can resolve the issue of two distinct meanings in the same pericope. Moreover, we have already shown how 3:20 (where Paul cites Ps 142:2b) denotes mercy, not justice. As we see in this text what accounts for justification is not human actions, but God’s δικαιοσύνη. In 3:21 where God’s δικαιοσύνη is now manifested, Paul shows that what was promised in the messianic era is taking place. In sections that follow we continue our exploration of the meaning of the phrase in Romans and the viability of translating it with ‘God’s merciful justice’ through contextual analyses. 4.3.2 God’s Merciful Justice in Romans 1-3 As we have seen in chapter 2 the relational framework and the logic of Paul’s argument in the first three chapters supports our interpretation. Romans 1-3 show how all humanity is in need of God’s merciful justice. In 1:18-2:16, he describes how the Gentiles are in need of God’s merciful justice. Similarly, 2:17-3:20 show how Jews need God’s merciful justice. Accordingly, all humanity stands equal before God. Hays makes this point when he remarks: “In Rom. 1:18-3:20, even where Paul uses scriptural allusions to underscore the message of God’s judgment, the texts themselves whisper the countertheme of God’s mercy.”74 As the climax of this demonstration of the need for God’s mercy, Paul explains in Rom 3:21-26 how this merciful justice is manifested to all humanity. By the very fact that God judges by mercy and not by merit, God’s compassionate love was “extended to all creatures–those excluded by the requirement of the law and those condemned by sin.”75 Accordingly, 74 75

Hays, EchoesofScripture, 46. Elsa Tamez, TheAmnestyofGrace:JustificationFromaLatinAmericanPerspective, trans. Sharon H. Ringe (Nashville TN: Abingdon, 1993), 114.

188

CHAPTER FOUR

Paul’s purpose in these chapters is the inclusion of the excluded. By stating that in the gospel God’s merciful justice is revealed, Paul’s aim is to extend it to everyone, without exception. It is important to observe that in Rom 1:18-2:29 Paul speaks about human injustice and sins as the breaking of the law. Seeing it from the perspective of law, he speaks about God’s just judgement against those who break the law. Accordingly, God’s judgment on the basis of law is the focus of 2:1-16. This is particularly evident in the repeated use of the verb κρίνω and the noun κρίμα in 2:1-5 and 16. The increase of injustice and sin question the justice of God. Thus Paul is looking retrospectively to history and prepares the readers for God’s ultimate solution of this problem. The solution is God’s definitive revelation of his merciful justice to all, in Christ. God’s retribution, revealed in the law, stands in contrast to his mercy, revealed in Christ. That is why Paul begins his exposition of this revelation in 3:21 with “but now apart from law.” Whereas justice revealed in the law is punitive with the limitations, God’s merciful justice revealed in Christ neither condemns nor excludes anyone, but transcends these limitations. In 2:5 the rare compound δικαιοκρισία is used here, which might connote “condemnatory judgement stressing the equality of the divine sentence to be issued on the day of the Lord.”76 Hence God’s eschatological judgment, expressed in the clause ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ, stands in contrast to his present manifestation of merciful justice in Christ, expressed in 1:17 and 3:21. As these texts show, God’s merciful justice revealed in the gospel establishes the “present as the time of repentance”77 where everyone is invited to trust in Christ. 4.3.2.1 SignificanceofRom1:16-18 A careful analysis of the occurrence of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 1:16-18 clarifies Rom 3:21-26, which is generally considered to be an extension or unpacking of the former summary statements, taking up the same theme and key phrases. For our present purpose, we will postpone detailed discussion of some of the disputes relating to this text and will focus on those aspects that help clarify δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. It is notable that Paul does not explain δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ at this first use in 1:17. Rather, he introduces it in a way that assumes that his readers are familiar 76 77

Fitzmyer, Romans, 301. Waetjen, LettertotheRomans, 87.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

189

with it. This suggests that he expects his readers to be familiar with the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Scripture, which is consistent with our suggestion in the previous section. A number of scholars have observed that 1:16-17 echoes Ps 97:2-3 [LXX].78 If Paul is alluding to this psalm, it has implications for our proposal. Ps 97:2-3 runs as follows: ἐγνώρισεν κύριος τὸ σωτήριον αὐτοῦ ἐναντίον τῶν ἐθνῶν ἀπεκάλυψεν τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ ἐμνήσθη τοῦ ἐλέους αὐτοῦ τῷ Ιακωβ καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας αὐτοῦ τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ

Although not a direct quotation, Paul is probably informed by this text, which exhibits a number of significant features, as we observed in our background analysis. Firstly, Ps 97:2-3 contains the three central words that are also found in Rom 1:16-18, namely, δικαιοσύνη, σωτήριον and ἀποκαλύπτω. Secondly, there is a clear reference to the σωτηρία of everyone, that is, Gentiles along with Israel. Thirdly, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἀποκαλύπτεται in 1:17 communicates a similar message by reversing the order of Ps 97:2-3. Campbell too observes that there are noticeable “phraseological, lexicographical, and thematic” indicators to establish echo of the psalm here.79 What is more significant is that later in Romans Paul deals with the themes that we see in the above text. A theocentric reading of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ can be inferred here, because the two parallel expressions δύναμις θεοῦ (1:16) and ὀργὴ θεοῦ (1:18) are clearly God’s own attributes as well. However, the suggestion that God’s δικαιοσύνη means God’s power itself80 is misleading because it is not δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ that is described as God’s power, but the gospel. This phrase is neither precisely referring to God’s power nor to his activity. Such an interpretation may lead to “the absurd statement that the activity of God (i.e., δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) is being revealed in the power of God.”81 The activity therefore is not δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in itself, but its revelation. Nevertheless, the very fact that Rom 1:17 speaks about the revelation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ does not mean that the emphasis is on the gift aspect. Williams helpfully distinguishes between δικαιοσύνη 78

79 80 81

Among those who suggest that Paul is echoing Ps 97:2-3 are: Cranfield, Epistletothe Romans, 96; Hays, EchoesofScripture, 36-37. Hays notes that similar material is also found in Isa 51:5-6, 8. Matera, Romans, 35, suggests that Isa 51:5-6 stand behind the text. Campbell, DeliveranceofGod, 689. See Stuhlmacher, GerechtigkeitGottes, 27. Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 258.

190

CHAPTER FOUR

θεοῦ and δικαιοσύνη in Romans. He observes that “what Paul says about δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ–it is revealed, “shown up,” manifested, demonstrated, and can be known (Rom 1:17; 3:5, 21, 25; 10:3)–he does not say about δικαιοσύνη.”82 Thus, God’s δικαιοσύνη here means God’s own merciful justice that he reveals in Jesus Christ. As Waetjen observes, “the gospel as the power of God, salvation, God’s justice, and their relationship to each other will be the quintessence of his theological testament that he will elucidate in his letter.”83 The purpose of the gospel as σωτηρία for everyone in 1:16 also definitely nuances δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ to a soteriological sense.84 The deliberate parallelism of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ with ὀργὴ θεοῦ may show that they are two contrasting aspects of God’s justice.85 Since the use of ὀργὴ θεοῦ is followed by a long description of human injustice, this phase may connote the punitive justice of God. Where, then, is this wrath of God revealed against injustice? In our understanding, retributive justice is implied in the law. For example, in 4:15 Paul writes ὁ γὰρ νόμος ὀργὴν κατεργάζεται. Tamez seems to have this in mind when she asks: “But are not perhaps to the injustices committed by human beings what provoke God’s wrath, and is it not perhaps to the cry of the oppressed that the justice of God responds?”86 By taking “from heaven” as a contrast, we understand that the wrath of God is not revealed in the gospel.87 Thus, here revelation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Christ stands in contrast to the revelation of ὀργὴ θεοῦ in law. Taken together, these phases reveal two complementary dimensions of God’s justice. The gospel discloses God’s merciful justice. Justice originates from God and God’s very nature is justice. Why does Paul say that in the gospel God’s δικαιοσύνη is revealed? How does it differ from God’s justice revealed in the law? Without doubt, justice is the goal of the law. God’s justice seen from the perspective of the law lays emphasis on 82

83 84 85

86 87

Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 259. We find this distinction useful, for as the study progresses we will show that the source of Paul’s δικαιοσύνη might be different one. We show that δικαιοσύνη when it refers to humans may point to one’s state of being in right relation to God. Waetjen, LettertotheRomans, 50. Cf. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 160. The reference to God’s ὀργή can be found in Rom 2:5 (twice), 8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22 (twice); 12:19; 13:4, 5. It can be also found three times in other letters of Paul: 1 Thess 1:10; 2:16; 5:9. See the discussions on the topic in Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 110; Stephen H. Travis, “Wrath of God (NT),” in ABD 6 (1992): 996-998, esp. 997; Matera, Romans, 48; Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 89-90. Tamez, TheAmnestyofGrace, 104. Cf. Reumann, „Righeousness,“ 765

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

191

God’s punishment. Quite the opposite, God’s merciful justice disclosed by the gospel lays emphasis on God’s compassionate love towards all. This is accessible to all and reveals God’s plan to save everyone without exclusion. This reading maintains the two-edged character of judging and showing mercy simultaneously, so construing the gospel as God’s way of reaching out his people to set them right with himself. 4.3.2.2 ΔικαιοσύνηθεοῦinRom3:5andPaul’sArgumentinRomans3 It is important to consider how Paul constructs his argument in Romans 3. Just as we have seen in our chapter 2, Rom 3:1-8 has considerable implications in the interpretation of Rom 3:21-26. We need to consider the flow of the argument in this chapter, especially the sense of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 3:5, to make the meaning clear. The identity of the dialogue partner of Paul in 3:1-8 is vexing. Whereas some scholars think Paul is writing here the view of his opponents,88 others consider it as Paul’s use of a diatribe.89 We follow those who consider it as a diatribe style, in which Paul ask some possible objections to sharpen his argument.90 Paul is wrestling here with the question of God’s truthfulness and trustworthiness, and thereby God’s integrity. This question of God’s integrity and together with his equal treating of ‘all’ dominate the discussion of the whole chapter. The occurrence of God’s δικαιοσύνη in 3:5 seems to be one of the challenging texts for our present interpretation of the phrase as God’s merciful justice.91 The text reads as follows: 88

89

90

91

Wilckens, Römer, 163: “Nirgendwo im Neuen Testament kommt der jüdische Gegner des Paulus so deutlich und auf so hohen Reflexionsniveau theologischer Polemik sebst zu Wort wie hier.” See also, Haacker, Römer, 80-81. Campbell, QuestforPaul’sGospel, 246-253, holds that 1:18-3:20 is Paul’s responds to certain Jewish Christian teachers. Stowers and others consider Rom 3:1-8 as a diatribe. Stowers, Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 119-120, 133-137, 148-151; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 118-120; Changwon Song, ReadingRomansasaDiatribe (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), 94-95; Lee, Paul’sGospelinRomans, 188; contra Hall, “Romans 3,” 184-185. See the literature in the previous footnote. The change of style in these verses are noted by some scholars: “Es fehlt sowohl die dort vorhandene 2.Person wie auch die explizite Benennung von fiktiven Gespächpartnern (ἄνθρωπε 2,1; σύ 2,17)”: Flebbe, Solus Deus, 27. See also the discussion in Lee, Paul’sGospelinRomans, 188. Dunn regards it as pointing to God’s covenantal fidelity: Dunn, Romans 1-8, 134; Similar view is held by Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 86; Flebbe, Solus Deus, 42-43. Hall, “Romans 3,” 184-185, argues that it should be understood as God’s judgment of sin; Watson, Paul,JudaismandtheGentiles, 146, sees it as referring to God’s saving righteousness.

192

CHAPTER FOUR

εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην συνίστησιν, τί ἐροῦμεν; μὴ ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν; κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω

To unlock the complexities of 3:1-8, especially 3:5, we need to understand significance of Paul’s quoting Ps 50:6 [LXX] in 3:4 where we find δικαιωθῇς. We have also the word κρίνω in the same verse. Reference to δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ follows immediately on this quotation, which suggests that God’s δικαιοσύνη goes along with δικαιωθῇς. Psalm 50 [LXX] is well-known as a penitential psalm, which significantly begins by calling on God’s mercy. Notably, this psalm contains also a reference to God’s δικαιοσύνη (v 16) where psalmist also addresses God as ‘God of my salvation’ (ὁ θεὸς τῆς σωτηρίας μου). The striking element is the psalmist’s strong trust and reliance on God. In a similar manner, Paul seems to communicate that anyone who trusts in God will be justified in God’s merciful justice, in spite of any injustice that person may have committed. Thus, the implication of 3:5 in the light of the psalm is that despite human injustice God shows up his merciful justice. By this citation Paul seeks to reconcile the apparently inconsistent ideas of God’s judgement and mercy that he describes in the previous chapter.92 God’s relationship with Israel along with the Gentiles is the main point of the section. The expression δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 3:5 is often interpreted to mean God’s distributive justice, by showing it punishing the injustice. Such an interpretation is not tenable. Scholars have shown that it occurs here as functionally corresponding to God’s πίστις (3:3) and ἀλήθεια (3:7).93 Here δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ that stands in contrast to ἀδικία ἡμῶν is clearly an attribute of God. Cranfield is right in showing that the verb συνίστημι here means ‘show up.’94 Seeing this point, Stowers comments that δικαιοσύνη here “does not signify strict justice but quite specifically a redeeming merciful justice.”95 Moreover, Hall shows that if we “interpret the passage as Paul’s own exposition of the implications of Ps 51. 4, we can see how relevant the passage is to the problem created by chapter 2, and to the main theme of Romans – the relationship of Jews and Gentiles 92 93

94 95

Cf. Hall, „Romans 3,“ 183. See Stuhlmacher, GerechtigkeitGottes, 86; Kertelge,‚Rechtfertigung‘beiPaulus, 67. Irons, RighteousnessofGod, 227, argues that the meaning of the phrase must be understood by orienting to 3:4-8, which speaks about God’s judgement. Käsemann, AndieRömer, 77, translate it ‘to prove.’ Stowers, RereadingofRomans, 196.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

193

to the saving righteousness of God.”96 It is very likely that Paul had in mind the original context of Psalm 50 [LXX] because it goes along with what Paul wants to communicate. Paul means that just as the psalmist’s iniquities led to God’s manifestation of his mercy, so does human sins and injustice. This reveals God’s character as the one who shows mercy even to the undeserving. Yet another significant observation is that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is followed by a reference to wrath of God. As we observed in the Rom 1:1618, here too this co-relation shows that each of these expressions marks two distinctive aspects of God’s justice revealed in human relation to God. The phrase is not likely to contain any punitive idea here either. This is evident in the precise formulation of the sentence. Moreover, to acknowledge such an idea “would be to upset all the gains of recent decades in the interpretation of Romans.”97 On the contrary, this text shows how it is contrasted to it and the close relation of it with God’s trustworthiness. In what follows Paul asks: “Is God unjust to bring wrath upon us?” By adding immediately that he is speaking merely in a human way and “certainly not,” Paul leaves us in no doubt that he does not agree with this suggestion. The argument works only if we consider God’s δικαιοσύνη here as his merciful justice. 4.3.3 God’s Merciful Justice in Romans 9-10 We now briefly examine how an argument based on God’s merciful justice is present in the context of Romans 9-11. In fact, the final two occurrences of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 10:3, call for serious consideration because in the recent past scholars increasingly considered Romans 9-11 as an integral part of the letter contrary to those who think it is an interlude.98 In our opinion, the thrust of Rom 9-11 is on God’s mercy and salvation to all through πίστις. These two themes were introduced in the first three chapters of the letter. Within this broader unit, 9:30-33 is considered either as the beginning of an independent section99 or as 96 97 98

99

Hall, “Romans 3,” 195. Fitzmyer, Romans, 329. For a review of the different views on the relation of 9-11 to 1-8, see Elizabeth E. Johnson, TheFunctionofApocalypticandWisdomTraditionsinRomans9-11, SBL DS 109 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1989), 110-147. Johannes P. Louw, ASemanticDiscourseAnalysisofRomans, vol. 2 (Pretoria: University of Pretoria Press, 1979), 103-104, shows the semantic links to join it with 10:1-4.

194

CHAPTER FOUR

concluding the argument of chapter 9.100 In any case, even those who consider it as the conclusion of the argument do not deny the evident parallelism between 9:30-33 and 10:2-4.101 In view of this, we maintain that 9:30-33 is more likely to serve both as the conclusion and transition for what goes before and what follows. Taken together, in Rom 9:33–10:4 the noun δικαιοσύνη occurs 11 times including the two genitive construction δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 10:3. The expression δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is often understood as synonymous to other uses of δικαιοσύνη. Southall, for example, argues that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 10:2-3 has the same meaning as δικαιοσύνη in 9:30-33 and chapter 6.102 The search for a uniform meaning for all the occurrences of δικαιοσύνη in this section has led to contrasting interpretations. The difficulty is reflected in Campbell’s statement that “δικαιοσύνη seems to shift subtly in meaning throughout this section.”103 Nevertheless, his assertion seems to strengthen our argument that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Romans is a unique expression distinct from other δικ- words. Hence, the meaning of this phrase should neither be mixed up with δικαιοσύνη nor inferred from it. In fact, the meaning of Paul’s δικαιοσύνη with human person as referent must be understood from his frequent expression δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως (9:30).104 However, before we examine the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 10:3 and the feasibility of translating it as God’s merciful justice, we will look into its broader context. In chapter 9 Paul posits his argument for universal mercy and salvation through πίστις. The frequency of the use of God’s ‘mercy’ in this chapter (3: 15, 16, 18, 23) is very instructive. Indeed, it is the only section in the entire Pauline corpus where we find an extensive treatment of God’s mercy. Moreover, just like chapter 3 God’s mercy is placed in contrast to his ‘wrath’ (19-29). Similar to 3:5, at 9:14 Paul asks: “Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!” This again highlights Paul’s concern to establish God’s impartial justice towards all. It should be noted that this argument on God’s mercy and

100

101

102 103 104

Most commentators regard it as a conclusion of the argument. See Jewett, Romans, 607, esp. note 2. Jan Lambrecht, “The Caesura between Romans 9.30-3 and 10.1-4,” NTS 45 (1999): 141-147, esp. 145. See Southall, RediscoveringRighteousness, 216-217. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 161-162. The source and meaning of this expression will be addressed in the next chapter. This has tremendous impact on how one understands Pauline πίστις, especially the disputed πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases in Romans.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

195

justice towards Jews and Gentiles is brought to a conclusion in 9:30-33. In 9:15 Paul explains God’s mercy by quoting Ex 33:19 (LXX): “I have mercy on whom I have mercy.” When compared to 10:3, Israel failed to see this point for they were ignorant of inclusive nature of God’s mercy. We should not forget that it is quoted to answer the question in 9:14 “is there injustice (ἀδικία) in God’s part.” So God’s mercy is connected to his justice. Paul also speaks of God’s mercy in 11:30-32 and 15:9. In 15:9 Paul is also quoting Ps 17:50 also with universalistic thrust. Thus we observe the steady broadening of the arena of God’s mercy based on the quote in 15:9. This is the key point that he develops in the section. More still, these points are further clarified in 10:1-4, especially by using the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 10:3. As scholars have observed, we cannot neglect the close correlation between Rom 10:1-4 and Rom 9:30-33. There are remarkable thematic and verbal similarities between them.105 The use of σωτηρία in 10:1 shows the thematic link with 1:1617 and the soteriological dimension of the text. Thus, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 10:3 refers back to Rom 1:17 and 3:21-26. We shall now turn to the text of Rom 10:3 where Paul writes: ἀγνοοῦντες γὰρ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν ἰδίαν [δικαιοσύνην] ζητοῦντες στῆσαι, τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ὑπετάγησαν

Paul draws here a clear contrast between ἡ δικαιοσύνη τοῦ θεοῦ and ἡ ἰδία [δικαιοσύνη]. Moo’s observation that [δικαιοσύνην] is omitted in some manuscripts suggests that it was added for clarification.106 In this regard, Southall maintains that “even if it was originally omitted, δικαιοσύνη is still clearly the referent which Paul had in mind.”107 The more significant question is: what does the expression δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ mean here. As our history of interpretation of the phrase shows, scholars have

105

106 107

It is sometimes argued that the interruption of the section may be indicated by the use of ἀδελφοί in 10:1, which is the customary mark of transition. However, it could also specify the intensity of Paul’s feeling. See Lambrecht, “Caesura,” 141-147. Barrett, EpistletotheRomans, 196, observes μέν here with its restrictive force links these two sections. Moo, Romans, 630. Southall, RediscoveringRighteousness, 222.

196

CHAPTER FOUR

understood it either as God’s saving activity from a subjective genitive point or as an imputed status from an objective genitive point.108 It is worth mentioning that a number of scholars share the view that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ here connotes Christ. For example, E. P. Sanders underlines the link between verses 3 and 4 by the use of γάρ in verse 4. In his opinion, “the fact that the Jews did not submit to God’s righteousness is grounded by the statement that Christ is the end of the Law. That is God’s righteousness is defined by reference to Christ.”109 In the same vein, Humphrey asserts that “the underlying major premise, which explains Israel’s ignorance of God’s righteousness, is that Christ is the righteousness of God, both the goal toward which Torah was pointing and the unequivocal end of any misplaced search.”110 Southall presents a christological interpretation of the phrase: In Rom 10:1-4 Paul again personifies Δικαιοσύνη and makes it the functional equivalent of Christ. He does so at 10:3 in the righteousness of God phrases to highlight the nature of Israel’s failure. She has not submitted to Christ, sought her own way, and, therefore, failed to come to a knowledge of the messiah.111

The problem with Southall’s reading is that he depicts all the occurrences of δικαιοσύνη as having the same meaning and often equivalent to Christ. Southhall’s interpretation of δικαιοσύνη does not only create tension in 10:1-4 and but also elsewhere in Romans. Nor is it so clear why Paul uses δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη and Christ in 10:1-4 if all of them mean the same. Paul also says elsewhere in Romans that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is manifested and shown in Christ. Thus, such a christological reading complicates the understanding of the term elsewhere, especially places like 3:22 and 3:26 where both Christ and δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ occur together. Moreover, it underscores the evident theocentric thrust of these texts. For that reason, the equivalent to Christ in this text and elsewhere

108

109

110

111

For a subjective genitive reading, see Moo, Romans, 633 and for an objective genitive reading, see Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 515. More bibliographical references can be found in the first chapter (pp. 7-13). See also the history of research on the other possible readings on pp.14-16. E. P. Sanders, Paul,theLaw,andtheJewishPeople (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1983), 41. Edith M. Humprey, “Why Bring the Word Down? The Rhetoric of Demonstration and Disclosure in Romans 9:30-10:21,” in RomansandPeopleofGod:EssaysinHonor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. S. K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 141. Southall, RediscoveringRighteousness, 214.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

197

in Romans is not δικαιοσύνη. Rather Christ is the representative of God himself. God’s own merciful nature is therefore revealed in Christ. Another issue that needs attention is how to understand ἡ ἰδία [δικαιοσύνη]. One may say that to a certain extent, the interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ depends on how one conceives the contrast with this expression. By emphasizing this contrast, some scholars argue for an anthropological reading of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, meaning God’s gift to humans.112 Over against these scholars, Williams argues that “Paul’s contrast is not exactly between the righteousness of God and righteousness of Jews. It is rather between the Jews’ attempt set up their own righteousness and a willingness to subject themselves to the righteousness of God.”113 Accordingly, there are two trends of reading. The first trend, it refers to the pious activities and attempts of Jews to attain a right status before God. The second trend is to see it as Israel’s ethnic attitude of excluding the Gentiles.114 We are more inclined to the second trend, especially following Sanders’ suggestion that it refers to the attitude “thatJewsaloneareprivilegedtoattain” God’s δικαιοσύνη.115 In contrast to this exclusivistic attitude, the two references to God’s δικαιοσύνη express his merciful justice that includes everyone. The problem indicated in 10:3 is not with Israel as a whole, but with the exlusivistic tendency. We would like to highlight that the two verbs with each occurrence of God’s δικαιοσύνη in 10:3, namely ἀγνοέω and ὑποτάσσω, point to the aforementioned failure of Israel. Some scholars suggest that ἀγνοέω here means ‘disregarding,’ whereas Jewett maintains that its previous uses in Romans (1:13; 2:4; 6:3; 7:1) have a more neutral meaning of ‘not knowing.’116 Taken in this sense ‘they did not know God’s δικαιοσύνη’ means that they failed to see God in Christ and his merciful dealing with Gentiles. Similarly, the verb ὑποτάσσω in the meaning ‘submit’ points to Jewish claim of the superiority of the law over against God’s mercy revealed to ‘all’ in Christ. The statement ‘they did not submit’ therefore

112

113 114

115 116

Barrett, EpistletotheRomans, 196; Bultmann, “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ,” 12-16, esp. 13; Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 97. A similar contrast is emphasized in the work of Kertelge who, however, sees 10:3a as anthropological and 10:3b as theocentric. See Kertelge, ‘Rechtfertigung’beiPaulus, 95-96. Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 282 (italics original). See Ziesler, MeaningofRighteousnessinPaul, 256; Sanders, Paul,theLaw, 44-45; Dunn, Romans, 2:597. Sanders, Paul,theLaw, 38 (italics original). Jewett, Romans, 617.

198

CHAPTER FOUR

refers back to ‘they stumbled’ in 9:32 which is substantiated by quoting Isaiah. This takes us to the mention of Χριστός in 10:4. The statement, ‘Christ is τέλος of the law,’ does not suggest that Paul uses τέλος in a negative sense of ‘cessation’ in the sense of ‘end’ or ‘climax.’117 Rather it means that the ‘goal’ of the law is to lead one to Christ/God. In Christ, therefore, God shows that the ultimate goal of the law is to show mercy and justice to everyone. This is evident on the fact that Gentiles by trusting in Christ have benefited from God’s merciful justice, while the Jews due to their lack of trust in Christ could not avail themselves of God’s merciful justice. In sum, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ can be better translated as God’s merciful justice here too. Paul’s use of this phase in 10:3 is preceded by conflated quotation from Isa 28:16 and Isa 8:14 in Rom 9:33. Paul wants to communicate that Israel sought for justification through the law (9:31), but failed to see the justice aimed by the law. In this context, Paul brings his interpretation of God’s merciful justice. He says in 10:3 that Israel was ignorant of God’s merciful Justice (towards all) and therefore they did not submit to it. The exclusive nature of the law stands in contrast to the inclusive nature of God’s merciful justice. Whereas δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ must be understood from a theocentric perspective, all other occurrences of δικαιοσύνη in the section must be understood from an anthropocentric perspective. In our opinion, 10:3-4 is close in meaning to Rom 3:21-26. Just like here, in 3:21-26 the manifestation and demonstration of God’s merciful justice is to justify and redeem everyone who trusts in Christ. Thus far we have studied the different occurrences of God’s δικαιοσύνη in background texts and in Romans outside 3:21-26. Although we have analysed these texts and contexts in relation to Rom 3:21-26, we now turn to this pericope to address the various issues and to highlight the benefits of this translation in the pericope. 4.3.4 Has δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ Distinct Denotations in 3:21-22 and 3:25-26? In the foregoing sections, we have examined the external evidence for understanding δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as God’s merciful justice in Romans.118 117 118

Cf. Jewett, Romans, 619. It is to be noted that an attributive sense is evident from all the three NT occurrences outside Pauline corpus in Mt 6:33; Js 1:20 and 2 Pet 1:1. See the discussion in, Bruce

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

199

We will now focus on Rom 3:21-26. Our aim here is to demonstrate with internal evidence that the phrase means God’s merciful justice. Some scholars argue for two distinctive denotations for the phrase in this pericope.119 In their view, the concept of God’s δικαιοσύνη in 3:25-26 takes a different meaning over against 3:21-22.120 While the former (21-22) is considered either as God’s gift to humans or as God’s saving activity, the latter is considered as an attribute of God showing his integrity. This distinction is partly due to the hypothesis of Paul’s use of traditional material in 3:24-26. This hypothesis prompted a search for the meaning of the inserted pre-Pauline formula neglecting the context. This tendency resulted in two distinctive understandings of the phrase within the pericope. Challenging this hypothesis, we shall affirm that all occurrences of God’s δικαιοσύνη in 3:21-26 mean God’s merciful justice. Continuing on our exegetical analysis and syntactical relations that we have shown in the previous chapter, in what follows we shall further affirm unity of the pericope and a uniform meaning of God’s δικαιοσύνη. 4.3.4.1 TheCorrelationbetween3:21-22and3:25-26 In view of what has been said above, we note that Rom 3:21-22 uses the exact expression δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ and 3:25-26 employs δικαιοσύνη with the pronoun αὐτοῦ. We will explore the relationship between these usages. We will also demonstrate the uniformity of their meaning. As indicated in the chart below, 3:21-22 and 25-26, are related in manner that both connote the same meaning and explain one another. Rom 3:21-22 νυνὶ δὲ δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

Rom 3:25-26 ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ

Each row of the chart clearly displays the verbal and conceptual similarity between the two parts of the pericope. This remarkable similarity shows, on the one hand, that Paul is less likely to use traditional material

119

120

W. Longenecker, IntroducingRomans:CriticalIssuesinPaul’sMostFamousLetter (Grand Rapids, MN: Eerdmans, 2011), 304. Käsemann, “Zum Verständnis,” 150-154; Piper, “Righteousness of God,” 3-10; Stuhlmacher, GerechtigkeitGottes, 40-41; Theobald, StudienzumRömerbrief, 44-45; Irons, RighteousnessofGod, 323-324, 328. Kuss, DerRömerbrief, 117; Irons, RighteousnessofGod, 323-324.

200

CHAPTER FOUR

in 3:25-26. On the other, if the latter uses of God’s δικαιοσύνη are God’s attribute, which is less disputed, the former might mean the same. As is evident from the chart, both sets of phrases communicate three important details with regard to its meaning. First of all, in both instances the emphasis is on the ‘present.’ Secondly, they communicate the idea of the disclosure of God’s δικαιοσύνη. Thirdly, this disclosure is through πίστις in Jesus (Christ). In connection to this, Campbell states that “Paul is lexically nuancing the same point, namely, God’s righteousness is being set forth in a tangible and observable fashion.”121 These factors support that God’s δικαιοσύνη is the core of what Paul communicates in this section and the phrase cannot have two distinctive denotations in both instances. Just as we have seen in the delimitation of the pericope in the previous chapter, the similarity in vocabulary and the usage constitutes an inclusion in Rom 3:21-26. We shall continue this discussion, first, by showing the feasibility of this interpretation of the phrase in 3:21-22 and then in 3:25-26. 4.3.4.2 ManifestationofGod’sMercifulJusticein3:21-22 In the previous chapter, we highlighted the theocentric thrust of Rom 3:21-26 with ‘manifestation’ of God’s δικαιοσύνη as its central theme. Further, we observed in our analysis of Rom 1:16-17 that 3:21-26 is an expansion of the theme stated there. The verb φανερόω used functions as a synonym of ἀποκαλύπτω in 1:17. The repetition of the phrase in 3:21-22, as Fitzmyer observes, is to emphasize “that the divine initiative stems from an aspect of God himself.”122 God’s δικαιοσύνη itself may not communicate an activity here, rather the activity is ‘manifestation.’ We understand, therefore, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ designates God’s own salvific and merciful nature. It describes, therefore, God’s justice and compassionate love towards whole humanity. In 3:29, Paul asserts that God is not only for the Jews but also for the Gentiles. Hence, God justifies all of them on the basis of their πίστις. In that way, God’s merciful justice is brought into relation with human response in πίστις, which is essential to relate to God.

121 122

Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 158. Fitzmyer, Romans, 345.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

201

4.3.4.2.1 Significance of νυνὶ δέ and ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ Paul begins the pericope with the two particles νυνὶ δέ, which is typical Pauline formulation that brings about a contrast either with the time period mentioned earlier or with foregoing argument.123 As we have argued in the previous chapter, a logical contrast with the preceding argument is more likely here because it is followed by the phrase χωρὶς νόμου in contrast to ἔργα νόμου in the previous verse. By standing in parallel to ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ in 3:26 it forms an inclusion in the pericope. Although νυνὶ δέ as such introduce in 3:21 a logical contrast with the preceding argument, the content of the pericope with an emphasis on the redemption and justification of all in 3:24-25 and ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ in 3:26 makes clear that Paul is speaking about a new period in which God manifests his merciful justice to all. Taken together, Rom 3:21-26 marks not only a logical shift but also a temporal shift by introducing Christevent for the first time in the letter to the Romans. It could be said that the expressions, νυνὶ δέ and ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ accentuate the ‘present’ as the time of mercy. As we have observed in the previous section, Paul’s argument up to this point is that God’s wrath towards injustice is revealed in the past by the law. The future dimension of God’s just treatment of all the injustice is hinted by the use of δικαιοκρισία in 2:5. In contrast to these two aeons, Paul depicts the ‘present’ as the era of mercy where God invites everyone in Christ to re-turn to him. This is the time God seeks to restore the broken relationship with humanity. In this ‘present,’ God’s wrath gives way to his mercy and love. The present manifestation of God’s merciful justice is unique in a number of ways: Firstly, the purpose of this manifestation is not to punish, but to show mercy and thereby save. Secondly, it is not exclusively for the sake of Jews, but inclusive of the whole humanity. Thirdly, it is relational and χωρὶς νόμου because the law failed to restore the broken relationship. Finally, this present manifestation is unique because it is in and through Christ. This final point needs some clarification to which we turn now.

123

Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 201; Dunn, Romans 1-8, 164; Fitzmyer, Romans, 344; Jewett, Romans, 272; Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 154. The same expression is found in Rom 6:22; 7:6, 17; 15:23, 25; 1 Cor 12:18; 13:13; 15:20; 2 Cor 8:11, 22; Phlm 9:11.

202

CHAPTER FOUR

4.3.4.2.2 God’s Merciful Justice Manifested in Christ A challenge to our understanding of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as God’s attribute is the question: how can God’s attribute be communicated? It is at this point that a right understanding of Paul’s πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases becomes decisive. In the following chapter, we will deal with this phrase in detail. We therefore limit ourselves here to the role of Christ in relation to δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. Nevertheless, contrary to those scholars who stress the faithfulness of Christ, our theocentric reading views Christ as the representative of God. Thus, God’s merciful nature is historically manifested in Christ. The present disclosure of God’s compassionate nature in Christ aims not only to restore justice, but also to save everyone. Thus God’s justice and mercy are fused together in the Christ-event, which Paul communicates by the expression δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. This expression must therefore include both these aspects, clarifying the divine and human dimensions of justice. Whereas in the past God’s just punishment of the injustice was highlighted, in Christ God’s merciful nature is revealed. This is why Paul claims that there is no punishment for those who are with God in Christ. In Romans, Christ’s activity cannot be completely separated from God’s activity. There are references both to God who is acting through Christ and Christ who is acting on behalf of God. Thus the stress in the present passage is not on the activity of Christ over against God, but on God’s manifestation of love and mercy distinctively in and through Christ. 4.3.4.3 DemonstrationofGod’sMercifulJusticein3:25-26 Up to this point, we have seen that in Rom 3:21-22 Paul’s description of God’s definite manifestation of his merciful justice in the present is through Christ. After stating how concretely God manifested this through Christ in 3:24-25α, Paul concludes by showing the purpose of God’s disclosure in 3:25δ -26. One of the problems in the interpretation of 25δ26 is the meaning of ἔνδειξις. According to Kümmel, the use of ἔνδειξις in 3:25-26 corresponds exactly to φανερόω in 3:21. Accordingly, it means here a ‘demonstration’ or ‘showing’ rather than a ‘proof.’124 Taken in this sense, 3:25δ-26 can be considered as spelling out the reasons for the demonstration of God’s merciful justice. In the words of Schreiner, 124

Kümmel, “Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις,” 160-161. We shall further discuss the meaning of the term in this context of God’s πάρεσις of sins in our seventh chapter.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

203

3:25-26 solve the problem: “How do the saving and judging righteousness of God relate to each other? How can God mercifully save people without compromising his justice?”125 For some scholars, the two occurrences of God’s δικαιοσύνη in this text denote God’s distributive justice with a special emphasis on the punitive aspect.126 Despite minor differences, these scholars seem to follow the ‘Anselmic’ interpretation that God’s justice and wrath must be satisfied. While we postpone a detailed discussion of this interpretation and the problems associated with it, we hold that such an interpretation does not take into consideration Paul’s argument in Romans 1-3. We have already shown Paul’s argument and the problems in this pericope associated with such an interpretation. The greatest drawback is that it portrays Christ as the one who pays the price to God. This interpretation deviates from the central thrust of the pericope. Moreover, as we said before, Paul’s use of God’s δικαιοσύνη elsewhere does not express any punitive aspect. For example, in 5:16 Paul differentiates these two concepts by stating that judgment (κρίμα) brought condemnation, whereas free gift brought justification (δικαίωμα). The uses of God’s δικαιοσύνη here too mean merciful justice. If Paul states “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23) and “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23), the only way to save humans and restore the relationship is to show them mercy. Thus, Paul’s primary concern here is not to bring God’s δικαιοσύνη into agreement with a standard of justice, rather to restore the relationship with humanity. By displaying his compassionate nature in Christ, God is inviting everyone to himself. Thus Paul’s stress on justification is not on Christ’s death, but on God’s initiative and human response in faith. Kertelge underlines the theocentric nuance of the phrase as he writes: “The use of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ presupposes the question, Who is God? The God that Paul proclaims is the God who has revealed himself in abiding faithfulness to himself and to his people in Jesus Christ.”127 Thus, this theocentric thrust of the text rules out any interpretation of the text as Christ paying the price. This point becomes all the more apparent when we discuss the ἀπολύτρωσις and ἱλαστήριον in the final chapters of this study.

125 126

127

Schreiner, Romans, 198. See Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 208-218; Schreiner, Romans, 198; Lambrecht, “Two Brief Notes,” 733-737; Ribbens, “Forensic-Retributive Justification,” 549-550. Kertelge, “δικαιοσύνη,” 328.

204

CHAPTER FOUR

Four reasons are found in 3:25-26 why God demonstrated his merciful justice in the present: – First, in the past God has passed over the former sins, which explains why sins need to be dealt with now; – Second, the increase of sins and injustice, and God’s passing over of sins questions the justice of God. This demonstration therefore clarifies the issue and shows that God is just; – Third, δικαιοσύνη in these verses is God’s attribute which suggests that the present solution to the problem is God’s own initiative to which all are invited; – Fourth, this demonstration is to justify all who respond to this divine initiative in Christ. By spelling out these grounds, Paul declares that God in his mercy has once and for all dealt with the problem of sin and restored the relationship with humanity. We shall now show that the two uses of the verb δικαιόω in 3:24, 26 support this interpretation. 4.3.4.4 Supportfromtheverbδικαιόωin3:24,26 Before concluding this chapter, we want to check that the two uses of the verb δικαιόω in Rom 3:24, 26 support the above interpretation of God’s δικαιοσύνη. In other words, the uses of the verb δικαιόω in 3:24, 26 must be consistent with the understanding of δικαιοσύνη that we have just described. δικαιόω is used here twice, in the form of participles: δικαιούμενοι in 3:24 and δικαιοῦντα in 3:26c. Here we only want to confirm that the way the verb is used supports our relational understanding of δικαιοσύνη: that it can be understood in the same semantic framework of God’s relational justice to the humans. We have already seen various theories regarding Paul’s theology of justification. What we now show is that δικαιόω is unlikely here to carry a forensic or covenantal tone.128 Its leading translations as ‘justify,’ ‘to 128

For some recent discussions in this line, see Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’sVision, 86-108; Longenecker, IntroducingRomans, 301-306; Thomas D. Stegman, “Paul’s Use of Dikaio- Terminology: Moving Beyond N. T. Wright’s Forensic Interpretation,” TS 72 (2011): 496-524, esp. 514-518; David E. Aune, Jesus,Gospel TraditionandPaulintheContextofJewishandGraeco-RomanAntiquity, WUNT 303 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 472-523; Wright, PaulandtheFaithfulnessofGod, 925-953. The relational framework is also evident in Rom 4:5 where God is depicted as the one “who justifies the ungodly.” This is underlined by the repeated statements in the immediate context on the need of laying one’s trust in God.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

205

make right,’ ‘rectify,’ ‘vindicate,’ ‘acquit,’ and ‘make free’129 reflect particular theologies. Over against those who argue for a forensic or judicial connotation, we maintain that it is to be understood from the viewpoint of the relational framework of God’s justice. The context of 3:24-26 strongly supports that its setting is not juridical, rather how God involves redeeming everyone through Christ. To translate δικαιόω as ‘justify’ is consistent with what Paul means: that “persons are set or declared to be in right relation to God.”130 In the light of our definitions of justice and justification in the second chapter we consider that it is as misconception to hold that these terms have always a forensic meaning. We hold that these terms can well be used in a relational sense. Louw and Nida’s definition of δικαιόω supports this: “to cause someone to be in a proper or right relation with someone else, to put right with, and to cause to be in a right relationship with.”131 Along the same lines, we believe that δικαιόω in 3:24, 26 is to be seen in the relational context that we have developed since our second chapter. We understand Paul’s argument in Romans 1-3 as setting forth God’s way of restoring the broken relationship with humanity. In Paul’s citation of Ps 142:2b in Rom 3:20, δικαιόω carries a relational sense. Campbell observes that when Paul speaks about salvation in Christ “a forensic or declaratory translation of δικαιόω like ‘declared right’ is too weak, and that, at least, the more active ‘set right’ must be supplied. God is actively involved by means of Christ, to save the believer.”132 We shall give additional reasons for this understanding in both uses of the term. As we have seen in the previous chapter, the passive participle δικαιούμενοι in Rom 3:24 refers to πάντες in 3:23, with God as the agent of the action. In the context of humanity’s alienation from God (1:18-3:20) and the preceding statement “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” this act of God (δικαιόω) must contain an element of God’s merciful action. It does not contain any element of punishment because the context is all about how God redeems. All the more, God’s act is specified as God’s gracious gift (δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ 129

130 131 132

See these and various other nuances of the term in LSJ, 429; L-N, 1:452; BDAG, 249. See a brief discussion of the difficulty of translating the verb in Katherine A. Grieb, “The Righteousness of God in Romans,” in ReadingPaul’sLettertotheRomans, ed. Jerry L. Sumney , SBLRBS 73 (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012), 67-68. Hays, “Justification,” 1129-1133, esp. 1129. L-N, 34.46 (1:452). Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 170. However, he does not give a specific translation of the verb, rather roughly translates it as “save.”

206

CHAPTER FOUR

χάριτι).133 Whereas God’s δικαιοσύνη is used as an attribute, the verb δικαιόω communicates his action. It is precisely through this communicative act that God’s merciful justice is shown to everyone by means of Christ’s death. In this way, the pericope maintains its balance, communicating not only God’s merciful and just quality, but also how that quality is active in Christ. More specifically in 3:24, justification is by God’s grace as a gift (double statement is for emphasis) that set men and women right in relation with God. As we can see, δικαιόω here is theocentric and relational. Its use supports the relational framework of God’s merciful justice. In 3:26 δικαιόω appears again, as a participle, in Paul’s concluding statement: εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ. 3:1-8 raises the questions about God’s justice and trustworthiness, because of the increase of human sins and injustice. Paul answers these charges in 3:24-26 and concludes it in the above statement. The questions regarding God’s long patience and the problem of the increase of sins are addressed in these verses. The advantage of this reading, as Campbell notes, “is to suggest that the revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ is not simply some passive form of display–it is not a revelation that floats with impressive objectivity in history.”134 It reveals the dual purpose of God’s manifestation of his merciful justice through Christ. By repeating ‘present time’ (νυνί in 3:21 and νῦν καιρῷ in 3:26) Paul wants to show that in the new era, where God manifests his merciful justice in Christ, he has handled the problem of sin. This reveals not only that God justifies everyone by dealing with sin, but also that he himself is just. God has shown mercy towards humanity in justifying them in spite of their sins. God has also demonstrated that he is a just God because he has definitively dealt with the problem of sin. The concluding statement therefore underlines God’s new way of establishing a just relationship with everyone in a new era where he manifests himself in Christ. CONCLUSION The outcome of the foregoing analysis can be summed up as follows. Our background analysis has demonstrated that most studies are focused on the Hebrew equivalents of δικαιοσύνη or δικ- words in biblical and 133 134

Cf. Käsemann, Questions, 170. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 170.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ

207

extra-biblical literature. For our part, we propose that Paul is most likely influenced by the LXX uses of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in the Psalms and Isaiah as an attribute of God. Not only do these uses connote God’s mercy and justice with relational meaning, but the context of these texts also exhibits an inclusive nature. In most cases, this expression carries a positive connotation of redemption or deliverance in the sense of vindication. The probability of influence can be established because each of the occurrences of the phrase in Romans has a citation either from a psalm or Isaiah in the context. We have also seen how this point can be reinforced by one of Paul’s significant citations, Ps 142:2b in Rom 3:20, where we find also vocabulary similar to Isa 66:23. What Psalmist pleads to God in this psalm is not for distributive justice, rather for a merciful justice. Further, we observe that common translations of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ fail to cover the dimension of mercy, which is evident in the texts that we analysed. We have also shown that all the eight occurrences of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Romans have a strong relational meaning embracing mercy. This led us suggest that the phrase be translated as God’s merciful justice. What has gone unnoticed is that each of the eight occurrences has a relational verb associated with it: reveal, demonstrate, come from, submit to, which adds to the relational aspect of the term. More specifically, we argue that this understanding of the term can help us to address some of the other issues in Rom 3:21-26 and solve the tension of two distinct sense of the term in the same pericope. In this text we see God’s unique manifestation of his merciful justice to all in and through Christ. God’s δικαιοσύνη is an expression for God’s saving nature in Christ, which embraces his justice to the sinners. God’s saving justice, in turn, seems to be linked to God’s mercy, an important theme in the Letter relating to the salvation of the Gentiles (11:31; 15:9). Paul’s discussion of God’s merciful justice in Rom 3:21-26, therefore, presents the high point of his argument in 1:18-4:25, that God’s δικαιοσύνη requires equal treatment of Gentiles. We have also argued that the two uses of the verb δικαιόω in 3:24, 26 is consistent with the understanding of δικαιοσύνη. God’s δικαιοσύνη implies his will to treat Jews and Gentiles on an equal footing. It signifies God’s merciful justice highlighting his impartiality. Thus the interpretation of the term as God’s merciful justice serves as a key for a coherent interpretation of the pericope.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND THE ΠΙΣΤΙΣ (ΙΗΣΟΥ) ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE IN ROM 3:22, 25, 26 We saw in the first chapter how πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ has mainly been understood in one of two ways: as an objective genitive, meaning ‘faith in Christ,’ which leads to an anthropological reading, focused on what humans do; or as a subjective genitive meaning ‘faith(fullness) of Christ,’ emphasising Christ’s own faith(fullness) to God, which leads to a christological reading, focused on what Christ does.1 Until the beginning of the twentieth century, the phrase was almost universally read as an objective genitive. However, in recent years, a substantial number of studies have argued that it is a subjective genitive. While there is a comparatively large body of research related to the question of the genitive in Paul and other writings, relatively little has been written about the meaning of πίστις itself. Exegetes have been primarily concerned with the meaning of the genitive. Indeed, James Hope Moulton reminds us that “it is as well to remember that in Greek this question is entirely one of exegesis, not of grammar.”2 Most scholars have tried to clarify the meaning of πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ in Rom 3:22, 26 by looking at the other writings of Paul, at other New Testament writings, at extra-biblical literature and at the work of the fathers of the Church. We will address it in its context, for the key to the problem would seem to be neither in the genitive nor in other literature, but in Rom 3:21 itself, and in the source and meaning of Paul’s 1

2

For a recent summary of arguments on both positions, see Easter, “The PistisChristou Debate: Main Arguments and Responses in Summary,” 33-47. A collection of the articles by eminent scholars on the various possible reading of the phrase can be found in Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, eds., TheFaithofJesusChrist:Exegetical, BiblicalandTheologicalStudies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009). A few scholars suggest taking πίστις Χριστοῦ as a single entity (Christ-faith) rather than through its components. A synopsis of this ‘third view’ can be found in Preston M. Sprinkle, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ as an Eschatological Event,” in TheFaithofJesusChrist:Exegetical, BiblicalandTheologicalStudies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 165-184. James Hope Moulton, AGrammarofNewTestamentGreek, vol.1 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908), 72.

210

CHAPTER FIVE

use of πίστις. The goal of this chapter, therefore, is to explore this issue. We begin by drawing attention to the core issues in the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate. We will then search for the source of the Pauline πίστις. Finally, we will explore the meaning of πίστις in Paul, especially in Romans, which will lead us to suggest a uniform meaning for all occurrences of the noun and of the verb. This will enable us to do away with the excessive rationalization and overburdening of the πιστ- words and to clarify both πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ and Pauline theology. 5.1 UNDERSTANDING πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ IN ROM 3:22, 26 The term πίστις occurs in three prepositional phrases in Rom 3:21-26. These have become a cruxinterpretum of Romans and of Pauline theology. As we already said, to interpret πίστις with the genitive in 3:22 and 26 as the ‘faith(fullness) of Jesus,’ leads to a christological reading; while to interpret it as ‘faith in Jesus,’ leads to an anthropological reading. The traditional understanding has been that all four πιστ- terms in the pericope are to be understood anthropologically. Christological readers, on the other hand, insist that at least two of the πιστ- terms must refer to the faith(fullness) of Christ.3 Our theocentric reading of Rom 3:21-26 interprets this phrase as human trust in Christ, in whom God manifests himself. The interpretation of πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ affects our understanding of Paul’s theology, christology and anthropology and is essential for understanding his soteriology. The issue is not just grammatical, but concerns translation and exegesis. It can be seen in the different emphases of leading translations of Rom 3:22: NRSV: the righteousness of God through faithinJesusChrist for all who believe. KJV: the righteousness of God whichisby faithofJesusChrist unto all and upon all them that believe. Barth: the righteousness of God through his faithfulness in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe.4 3

4

Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 58-69, argues that all the three occurrences of the noun must be read as the faithfulness of Christ. Similarly, Schumacher, ZurEntstehung christlicher Sprache, 343-344, argues that all the three uses of πίστις in the pericope should be understood as Jesus’ ‘Treue’ or ‘Vertrauen.’ In his commentary on Romans Karl Barth favours translating πίστις as faithfulness of God (Treue Gottes) rather than faith. See Barth, Epistle to the Romans, 91. His

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

211

The issue, as can be seen in the above translations, is whether πίστις in 3:22 (and subsequently in 3:25, 26) refers to God’s faithfulness, to Christ’s faith(fullness) or to human faith. Different understandings have important consequences for the interpretation of the letter. Nor is the debate limited to Romans alone. It extends to similar expressions across the Pauline corpus, including Gal 2:16 (twice), 20; 3:22 and Phil 3:9. Considering the vast literature which these passages have evoked, we will focus on how the πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ phrases in Romans are to be understood. We first take up the challenges raised by christological readers and address them in context. 5.1.1 Challenges from the Christological Reading 5.1.1.1 Redundancy As we have seen in the first chapter, Hays provides a comprehensive list of arguments for the christological reading.5 The main one centres on Rom 3:22 and the apparent redundancy of the phrase εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. If believers’ faith is already included in the preceding πίστις Χριστοῦ formulation, this participial phrase would be a needless repetition. The christological reading seeks to overcome this apparent redundancy by interpreting the first πίστις as referring to Christ. In other words, we can avoid the redundancy if we read the phrase in question as ‘through the faithfulness of Christ’ for all who believe. Against this, we find that repetition is not a bad thing, indeed is to be found so often in Paul’s writing that we might call it one of his stylistic hallmarks. The point he wants to emphasise is often repeated (see Rom 5:18-19). In the anthropological reading it is therefore argued that Paul used the repetition for emphasis. If we accept (what is less disputed) that in Rom 3:21-26 Paul restates his thesis of 1:17, (which had an elaborate antithesis in 1:18-3:20) we notice three occurrences of the noun πίστις with a single occurrence of the verb in the thesis paragraph in 1:16-17. Paul develops these in the present pericope. By contrast, when Paul uses

5

translation, therefore, is characterised by a strong theocentric tone. Although his translation seems to have influenced the debate, his rendering of πίστις as faithfulness of God in Rom 3:22 was rejected for the grounds which will be evident in the discussion that follows. Hays, FaithofJesusChrist, 156-160. Although he admits that “Romans is from start to finish is thoroughly theocentric” (p. 156), he argues for a christological reading of the phrase in debate.

212

CHAPTER FIVE

νόμος four times in 3:19-20 his style of emphasis is evident. For example, in 3:19 we read ὁ νόμος λέγει τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λαλεῖ. A similar redundant formulation of the verb and the noun is found in 4:5. Besides, we find a similar style of emphasis in the other two disputed πίστις Χριστοῦ occurrences in Gal 2:16 and 3:22. Dunn concurs. For him, the emphasis in this so-called redundant prepositional phrase is on πάντας.6 The use of both πίστις and πιστεύω in Rom 3:22 is necessary to stress ‘all’ in ‘all believers,’ bringing out the sense that God’s merciful justice is for all, but can only be appropriated by believers.7 As Kraus observes, here as well as in 10:12 Paul makes clear that “der Glaube jegliche διαστολή zunichte mache.”8 This reading goes well with the argument of 1:18-3:20, that ‘all’ have sinned and are unable to justify themselves. All the more, it establishes a link with πάντες in 3:23. Hence through πίστις Jews and Gentiles are united rather than divided. In short, instead of creating redundancy in Rom 3:22 εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας throws light on the previous clause. As Eduard Lohse rightly notes, “Doch der Gedankengang, der mit εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας fortgeführt wird, läβt diese Deutung nicht zu.”9 The semantic relation between noun and verb is also in question here. This will be also considered when we analyse the meaning of πίστις. 5.1.1.2 TheManifestationofGod’sδικαιοσύνηthroughπίστις Douglas A. Campbell maintains that πίστις in 3:21-26 refers to Christ’s faith or faithfulness in all the three instances – a thoroughly christological reading. He argues that this reading solves various problems associated with the πίστις-clauses in the section.10 His argument is built around the three-fold use of διά in the passage. The δικαιοσύνη of God is revealed διά the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, διά the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, διά faithfulness in his blood.11 According to Campbell, an 6

7 8 9 10

11

See Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” 61-81, esp. 75. Dunn points to the other uses for emphasis in Rom 1:5, 16; 2:10; 4:11, 16; 10:4, 11-13. See also, Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 203. See Barth, EpistletotheRomans, 97-98. Kraus, TodJesu, 172, note 33. Lohse, DerBriefandieRömer, 131 note 6. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 58-68. This argument is followed by the recent commentary, Matera, Romans, 93. Campbell, Rhetoric of Righteousness, 90-95. We have a number of questions to Campbell’s interpretation of the pericope. What are the supporting evidence from the

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

213

anthropological interpretation will lead to the conclusion that believers’ faith reveals God’s righteousness, because 3:21 speaks about the revelation of the righteousness of God, and then 3:22 provides an explanation of this manifestation of God. They argue that believers’ faith cannot be the source of the manifestation of God’s righteousness. Under the christological reading interpretation, this revelation happens through the faith(fullness) of Christ himself, not though human response to Christ. The anthropological interpretation looks at the issue from a different angle. Campbell reads the passage as though πεφανέρωται was present in all these verses. A problem then arises in 3:22, namely, how can the believer’s faith reveal δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ? This does not so much provide an argument for the christological reading interpretation as highlight the pointlessness of importing the verb into the following verses. There is, Bailey observes, no reason to do this, as the noun phrases in 3:21 and 22 are in apposition.12 The absence of a verb confirms the dynamic force of the concept (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) itself.13 In our view, the solution to this problem lies in understanding the richness of Pauline πίστις. Is Paul always using the term in the same sense? Campbell seems to favour one particular understanding of πίστις, but an anthropological interpretation of the πίστις phrases does not mean that they all carry the single meaning that Campbell finds. All the more, as we have shown in the syntactic analysis of 3:22 in chapter three, Paul is repeating δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ because he thinks that this δικαιοσύνη needs some explanation. Paul wants to make it clear that the δικαιοσύνη he has just mentioned is the δικαιοσύνη of God, which is characterised by coming through faith in Jesus Christ and is for all those who trust in Christ. Accordingly, 3:22 is an apposition that qualifies δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. This explains the needlessness of supplying a verb. We have already argued that the word order suggests that it is more natural to read both the prepositional phrases διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας, as qualifying δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. As an apposition, in 3:22 Paul simply repeats a phrase from the previous sentence and he qualifies it with two prepositional phrases.

12 13

context to establish that the πίστις clauses in this section refer to the πίστις of Christ? More important is whether a christological reading of the pericope possible? Neither are we convinced by his syntactic and rhetoric analyses. Since our study is in critical dialogue with his arguments, many of the problems associated with his reading is dealt with in the previous chapters. Bailey, “Review,” 281. Dunn, Romans1-8, 166.

214

CHAPTER FIVE

5.1.1.3 OppositionbetweenἔργανόμουandπίστιςΧριστοῦ According to the christological reading the contrast is not between law and πίστις, but rather between law and Christ. The various possible understandings of these expressions are summed up by Luc De Saeger: De tegenstelling ἐξ ἔργων νόμου - ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ beoogt niet het menselijk handelen te plaatsen tegenover het goddelijk initiatief, noch het ene menselijke handelen te plaatsen tegenover een ander menselijk handelen. De tegenstelling is in de eerste plaats temporeel, en dit vanuit het inzicht dat in Christus het eschatologische heil is aangebroken. In het licht van πίστις Χριστοῦ als de total nieuwe en absolute bron van en weg tot heil, worden de ἔργα νόμου (h)erkend als achterhaald en ontoereikend.14

There is no doubt that christological readings “soften or dissolve Paul’s antithesis between ἔργα νόμου and πίστις Χριστοῦ.”15 From the anthropological side, scholars have argued that ἔργα νόμου is a human work. Hence πίστις Χριστοῦ must also involve a human response. Thus this contrast has a universal thrust, faith being open to all. This antithetical formulation refers, as Francis Watson has rightly pointed out, to “the bankruptcy of one way to righteousness and of the other way that God has opened up.”16 There is evidence from the context that the contrast in Rom 3:21-22 is not between law and faithfulness, but between law and faith. The appearance of faith in 3:21-22 as a substitute for the law in the immediately preceding 3:19-20 is a clear indication. Since the law is the key issue in Rom 2:12-3:20, the introduction of faith as the counterpart of the law can imply a shift of topic in Paul’s argument.17 This observation is also supported by the connection of Rom 3:21-22 to 1:16-17, where two important topics are found: 1) the universal scope of God’s salvation; and 2) the combination of human faith and God’s δικαιοσύνη. Thus, the introduction of faith points not only to a shift from 1:18-3:20, but also to a topical connection with 1:16-17.18 The same contrast is 14

15 16 17 18

Luc De Saeger, WatwijbehorentewetenofhoePauluschristelijkeidentiteituitzegt: Galaten 2,16 en 3,1-14 in context (Leuven: Unpublished Dissertation, KU Leuven, 2004), 254. Matlock, “Even the Demons Believe,” 217. Watson, PaulandtheHermeneuticsofFaith, 73. Lee, Paul’sGospelinRomans, 213. Cf. Lee, Paul’sGospelinRomans, 213.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

215

further emphatically stated in 3:28 and is highlighted throughout Romans 4. In addition, as Jean-Noël Alletti observes, when Paul contrasts “the obedient behaviour of Christ, it is to another’s behaviour, Adam’s.”19 Indeed, Dunn has shown that Paul does not develop the theme of Christ’s faithfulness even in Romans 4, where it would have been fitting.20 The specific term πίστoς does not even occur in Romans. In addition, Paul uses ὑπακοή when he speaks about the obedient behaviour of Jesus in 5:19.21 The power of these antithetical expressions is explained in Rom 9:3010:21, which once again sets justification by works in opposition to justification by faith. “Righteousness and salvation, then, are received by individuals, and are very closely linked as the dual benefits of faith in Christ.”22 Thus Paul’s aim is not to create polarity, but unity through faith. 5.1.2 An Anthropological Reading of the πίστις Phrases in 3:22, 26 In the previous section we have examined a number of challenges raised by the christological reading. At first sight, ‘faith of Christ’ seems to be a more natural English translation of the phrase. Scholars have, however, convincingly shown that most occurrences of πίστις require an anthropological reading. For this reason, it must be admitted that in the Pauline letters πίστις most often refers to the believer’s faith. Not a single one of the 42 instances of the verb πιστεύω in the Pauline corpus presents Jesus as its subject.23 Significant, in this regard, is the question of Fitzmyer: “Does the vb. pisteuein ever have Christ as the subject in the NT? Not even Heb 12:2 has that connotation.”24 Taking this into consideration, we will closely examine the pericope’s πίστις phrases in their context. The three uses of πίστις in Rom 3:21-26 are as follows: δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας (3:22a) διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (3:25αβ) δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ (3:26c) 19

20 21 22

23 24

Jean-Noël Aletti, God’s Justice in Romans: Keys for Interpreting the Epistle to the Romans, trans. Peggy Manning Meyer, SubBi 37 (Roma: Gregorian and Biblical, 2010), 112. Cf. Dunn, Romans1-8, 167. Fitzmyer, Romans, 346. Ben C. Dunson, “Faith in Romans: The Salvation of the Individual or Life of the Community?,” JSNT 34 (2011): 19-46, here 33. Tobin, Paul’sRhetoric, 132. Fitzmyer, Romans, 345.

216

CHAPTER FIVE

πίστις is used in 3:21-26 in prepositional phrases. Indeed, each time πίστις Χριστοῦ is employed in Paul’s writings, a preposition precedes it. This means that to interpret πίστις Χριστοῦ, we need to examine the prepositions themselves. A number of scholars have seen these prepositional occurrences and the lack of an article as pointers to an anthropological reading. However we consider that the source and meaning of Paul’s use of πίστις are likely to be sounder indicators. But before turning to them, we will analyse the arguments based on the definite article. 5.1.2.1 TheImportanceoftheDefiniteArticle As we have seen, both πίστις Χριστοῦ occurrences in 3:21-26 lack the definite article. This has been one of main arguments for the anthropological reading of this phrase. Importantly, as Hultgren observes, all the πίστις Χριστοῦ formulations in the Pauline corpus are anarthrous. Such formulations cannot, in his view be christological, for “when Paul uses the term πίστις followed by a genitive which is clearly to be understood as christological reading, the article is inevitably present before πίστις.”25 This grammatical rule was challenged when scholars pointed to ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ in 4:16. Matlock corrects the argument noting that “unless ‘God’ or ‘Christ’ is the ‘object’ in question, the possibility of the objective genitive typically does not even arise.”26 Recently Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts have reaffirmed this point in the light of word statistics based on lexical and semantic grounds. “Every time πίστις functions as an anarthrous head term preceded by a prepositional specifier, it has an abstract function unrelated (possessively) to an explicit participant in the discourse.”27 The structural analysis reaffirms that the anarthrous use indicates that a specific person’s faith is not in view. These results should be interpreted with caution because the Greek use of the article is delicate. Although not the decisive element, it has some force. While the presence of the definite article may indicate a subjective genitive, the implications of its absence are less clear. Moisés Silva notes this point: “The presence or absence of the definite article is motivated 25 26 27

Hultgren, “PistisChristou Formulations,” 254. Matlock, “Even the Demons Believe,” 304. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, “Πίστις with a Preposition and Genitive Modifier: Lexical, Semantic, and Syntactic Considerations in the πίστις Χριστοῦ Discussion,” in TheFaithofJesusChrist:Exegetical,BiblicalandTheologicalStudies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 51.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

217

by other factors (sometimes inscrutable) and is no clue to the semantic import of the genitival relationship.”28 Taking this into consideration, we do not think the issue can be settled at this level. What is more interesting is the presence of the preposition before most πίστις occurrences. This uniform pattern may offer a clue as to the source of Paul’s πίστις. 5.1.2.2 ScriptureastheKey The phrase μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν in Rom 3:21 is not widely discussed. Because the pericope lacks any explicit scriptural citation, scholars have been content to take it as pointing to the whole of scripture. However, we believe that this clause offers the exegetical key to the pericope and in particular to the πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases. Where in scripture is the revelation of God’s δικαιοσύνη attested? We propose that Paul had the opening words of the letter and two quotations in mind. In Rom 1:1-2 Paul speaks of the gospel of God promised through prophets in the Holy Scripture. The two quotations are Hab 2:4, which appears in 1:17; and Gen 15:6, which is referenced in 4:3. These are the pillars on which Paul builds his doctrine of justification by faith. As James A. Sanders rightly notes, “both the Old Testament statement of faith referred to in the New, and the New Testament claim based on that statement, must be taken equally seriously.”29 We must understand Paul’s concept of faith from his OT quotations. Indeed, Hab 2:4 and Gen 15:6 are the only instances in the OT which specifically link faith or believing with δικαιοσύνη.30 Paul wants us to understand that God’s merciful justice has been revealed from the beginning through πίστις and he seeks to demonstrate that from Scripture. In his analysis of the πίστις Χριστοῦ occurrences in Galatians, De Saeger demonstrates four methods that Paul uses to substantiate his argument. “Schriftcitaten, tegenstellingen, appositie, analogie: dit zijn de coördinatenstelsels die Paulus ons in deze brief aanreikt om πίστις Χριστοῦ nader te situeren en te

28

29

30

Moisés Silva, “Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians,” in JustificationandVariegatedNomism(Vol2):TheParadoxesofPaul, ed. Donald A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifred, WUNT 2, 181 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 227. James A. Sanders, “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament,” in Pauland theScriptureofIsrael, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, JSNT SS, 83 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 98-117, esp. 102. Cf. Steve Moyise, PaulandScripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 87.

218

CHAPTER FIVE

omschriven.”31 Nor is the method different in Romans. The opposition between works of law and the work of faith has been dealt with in the previous section. In what follows we examine the two significant quotations to which Paul alludes in Rom 3:21. 5.1.2.2.1 Habakkuk Quote in Rom 1:17 It is well established that in Rom 3:21-26 Paul explicates what he initially stated in 1:16-17. The Habbakuk quote may therefore be significant for our understanding. In the first use of ἐκ πίστεως in Romans, Paul clearly cites Hab 2:4. A number of scholars have therefore studied the text in detail. Campbell points out that Paul’s phrase ἐκ πίστεως appears only where he cites Hab 2:4, in Romans and Galatians. He argues, therefore, that Paul’s use of ἐκ/διὰ phrases, including the πίστις Χριστοῦ formulations, must be derived from Hab 2:4.32 Accordingly, “ἐκ πίστεως is an exegetical catchphrase that alludes to the Habakkuk text.”33 Similarly, Francis Watson has argued that διὰ πίστεως is a variant of ἐκ πίστεως and both these phrases originate from Hab 2:4.34 According to Watson, Paul draws from the quote in 1:17 not only ἐκ πίστεως, but δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως. This allows him to challenge the christological reading of the πίστις Χριστοῦ formulations. “If the scriptural citation underlies and generates all the relevant antithetical constructions, including the faith-of-Christ ones, and if for Paul the citation speaks of a generic individual and not Christ, there is no room for the christological reading of this phraseology.”35 If this observation regarding Paul’s use of ἐκ/διὰ phrases is correct, διὰ πίστεως in 3:25 is similar in meaning to the more debated prepositional phrases. In fact, all four occurrences of διὰ πίστεως in Romans are in Rom 3:21-31. But there are problems associated with a christological reading of the phrase in 3:25, and a christological reading of the other two διὰ πίστεως occurrences in 3:30 and 31 would make the text 31 32

33 34

35

De Saeger, Watwijbehorenteweten, 232. See Douglas A. Campbell, “Romans 1:17 - A CruxInterpretum for the πίστις Χριστοῦ Debate,” JBL 113 (1994): 265-285. Hays, “Πίστις and Pauline Christology,” 42. Francis Watson, “By Faith (of Christ): An Exegetical Dilemma and its Scriptural Solution,” in TheFaithofJesusChrist:Exegetical,BiblicalandTheologicalStudies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 149. Watson, “By Faith,” 149.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

219

unintelligible. On the other hand, the prepositional phrase ἐκ πίστεως is frequently employed in Romans 1:17; 3:30; 4:16; 5:1; 9:30, 32; 10:6; 14:23. All these instances of the use of the phrase without a further modifier refer to the πίστις of the believer. Hence the Habakkuk origin of the Pauline ἐκ/διὰ πίστεως phrases becomes vital in clarifying the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate. It is crucial for us to understand whether Paul reads Hab 2:4 messianically. The problem was clearly stated by Desta Heliso, “Christological interpreters have not provided us with any evidence from Second Temple Judaism where the ‘righteous one’ in Hab 2:4 is understood as a messiah.”36 The context of the Hab 2:4 clearly points to a generic righteous person. The only question remains then, whether Paul might have given it a christological nuance. Against this, we find neither that Christ is mentioned in the context, nor that Paul gives any contextual signal that Christ is meant by the expression. Indeed, Christ Jesus is only introduced in a significant way in Romans at 3:22-26. Rom 1:17 begins with γáρ, which follows the God’s Gospel for the salvation of everyone in 1:16. The Qumran text says about Hab 2:4: “Interpreted, this concerns all those who observe the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of Judgment because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness.”37 The text is relevant to the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate because here too the object of πίστις is a person. Moreover, a self-understanding of ‘righteous’ is particularly prominent in Psalms (1:5-6; 5:12; 7:9-10; 14:5), and in Wisdom literature (Pro3:3:32-33; 4:18; 9:9; 10:3, 6-7; Wis 2:10, 12, 16, 18 etc.).38 We need to keep in mind that the Pauline view of salvation is not a mere reconciliation between God and humans, but includes the eschatological dimension. Hab 2:4 is concerned precisely with the eschatological judgment of God. Paul is asking the Romans to trust in Christ while awaiting eschatological salvation (Rom 8:18-39). This argues against a christological reading of the passage. As we have already mentioned, both Hay and Campbell ask how believers’ faith can be a source of the revelation of God’s δικαιοσύνη. In Rom 1:17, the preposition ἐκ can communicate the idea of means instead of source. This is supported from the Hebrew, where the preposition –‫ ב‬in Hab 2:4 (translated as ἐκ in LXX) conveys the sense of means 36 37 38

Heliso, PistisandtheRighteousOne, 244. Geza Vermes, TheDeadSeaScrollsinEnglish, 3 ed. (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 239. Cf. James D. G. Dunn, “Faith, Faithfulness,” in NIDB2 (2007), 410.

220

CHAPTER FIVE

rather than source.39 We shall deal with this issue in more detail when we examine the root of Pauline πίστις. It is sufficient for our present purpose to show that the scriptural allusion in 3:21 does seem to refer back to the Habakkuk quote in 1:17. 5.1.2.2.2 The Parallel between Abraham and the Believers Paul’s thinking in Rom 3:21 is conditioned by Gen 15:6, a text he will cite in Rom 4:3 and which is crucial for understanding his use of πιστwords. We look here at the context surrounding Paul’s recall of the text at this point, postponing detailed examination to the next section. Paul’s use of this text raises a problem from an anthropological perspective. Hays has expressed this succinctly. First: “Abraham’s theocentric faith is not properly analogous to christocentric Christian faith.”40 Then: “If we are justified by believing in Jesus Christ, in what sense is Abraham’s theocentric faith a precedent for ours, or in what sense is our christocentric faith analogous to his? If Abraham could be justified by trusting in God, why should we believe in Christ to be justified? Why not simply put our trust in God, as Abraham did?”41 Koperski has responded that “Abraham, according to Paul, was justified by believing (=trusting) that God would fulfil the divine promise in the future, while the one who believes in Christ trusts that God has already acted in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So, Christian faith is belief in God, but precisely belief that God has been faithful in and through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.”42 At this point we recall our second chapter, where we pointed out that when we are following a theocentric reading of Romans, Christ can be seen as the representative of God.

39

40 41

42

Cf. Charles L. Quarles, “From Faith to Faith: A Fresh Examination of the Prepositional Series in Romans 1:17,” NovT 45 (2003): 1-21, esp. 18, note 52. Hays, “Πίστις and Pauline Christology,” 52-53. Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 165. A distinction between the theocentric faith and the christocentric faith in Romans is misleading. We have argued in our second chapter that in Romans Christ has to be seen as the representative of God himself. It is God’s merciful quality that is specifically and historically manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. Recently, Jermo van Nes, “’Faith(fullness) of the Son of God’?: Galatians 2:20b Reconsidered,” NovT 55 (2013): 127-139, argues for a similar view in Gal 2:20 by establishing on the basis of his text-critical analysis that ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ should be preferred here. He suggests that the immediate context then suggest reading it objective genitivally as ‘I live by faithinGodandChrist.’ V. Koperski, “The Meaning of Pistis Christou in Philippians 3:9,” LS 18 (1993): 198216, here 212.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

221

Does the structurally similarity between ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ in Rom 3:2643 and ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ in 4:16 help us? πίστις Ἀβραάμ is not about Abraham’s faithfulness, but about his faith, his faith in God’s promises (4:16-22). Paul does not present Abraham’s faith as parallel to Christ. If that was what Paul wanted to say, “we would have a rather fuller and rather different treatment of Abraham, focusing precisely on Abraham’s faith(fullness) in offering Isaac and paralleling it to Christ’s faith(fullness) in offering himself on the cross.”44 Hence ‘the faithfulness of Christ’ is not a tenable understanding in Rom 3:26. Hultgren translates πίστις Ἀβραάμ as “the Abrahamic faith,” which according to him “concerns the faith of the believer whose identity is marked by faith in the promises of God given to Abraham and (through him) to his descendents.”45 Further, when Paul uses Genesis 15:6 in Rom 4:3 and 4:9, he replaces the verb πιστεύω with the noun πίστις.46 We need to keep in mind that verb πιστεύω never has Christ as its subject in NT. In our view, Paul wants the Romans to do as Abraham did. Abraham trusted in God. At the same time πίστις itself is given to him as a gift (cf. 4:4, 16). Paul’s πίστις evokes both the trust and the gift in his use of πίστις Χριστοῦ in Rom 3:21-26. The parallel between Abraham and the Romans is not merely in the act of believing, but also in the object of πίστις. “De tegenwerping wordt gemaakt dat de analogie tussen het geloof van Abraham en het geloof van de Christus-gelovige net opgaat omdat het geloof van Abraham louter theocentrisch is.”47 This theocentric focus of πίστις Χριστοῦ is the more convincing because each occurrence of the phrase in Rom 3:21-26 is in a sentence where God is clearly the subject.

43

44 45 46 47

As we have seen in chapter 3, in manuscripts D, L, Ψ, 33, 614, 945, 1506 and 2464 replaces the genitive Ἰησοῦ for the accusative Ἰησοῦν. This reading is not considered because of later dating of these manuscripts. We follow the genitive reading because it is present in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts. As Ulrichs, Christusglaube, 194 notes, “Jesus ist damit Objekt des δικαιοῦν Gottes und wird als ἐκ πίστεως qualifiziert – liegt der Schreiberfehler zutage: ΙΥ wird zu ΙΗΣΟΥΝ aufgelöst; der Schreiber wurde wohl durch das bald folgende ΟΥΝ irritiert.” Cf. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” 76. Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 636. See Matlock, “Detheologizing the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” 13. De Saeger, Watwijbehorenteweten, 235.

222

CHAPTER FIVE

5.1.2.3 SupportingEvidencefromtheContext In Rom 3:21-26 πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases follow δικ- words, the meanings of which (as we already saw in the last chapter) are also disputed. Hence our understanding of δικ- words will also influence our understanding of πίστις Χριστοῦ. We observe that when Paul employs δικwords with πίστις in 1:17; 3:28, 30; 4:13, we do not find a reference to Christ. The substance of these texts is that God justifies humans through πίστις. Paul has consciously balanced human behaviour and divine grace.48 Unless πίστις here refers to human faith, we lose the topical connection in 3:27-31 and 4:1-8.49 Even when Paul writes about the significance of Jesus’ obedience to death in Rom 5, he never designates such obedience of Jesus as πίστις. In all the five occurrences of Jesus, Christ or the pronoun that relates to him in the pericope (3:22, 24, 25, 26), the subject of the sentence is either God or humans. It is God, not Christ, who acts, revealing his δικαιοσύνη (21), justifying (24, 26) and putting forward Christ as ἱλαστήριον (25). Each occurrence of Jesus/Christ is in relation to the process of God’s salvation. The contrast between the inability of humans to justify themselves (1:18-3:20) and the merciful justice of God towards all through Christ (3:21-26) is lost in a christological reading of πίστις. The role ascribed to Jesus is that of the mediator in whom God reveals his saving justice. Christ becomes the channel of divine manifestation to us, and our way to relate to God. Our text-critical study of Rom 3:22 has shown that the textual variant in Codex Alexandrinus provides yet more evidence to support the anthropological reading of the phrase. As we have noted in our third chapter, instead of the genitive πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, the scribe wrote the dative πίστις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. We notice two main changes here: the scribe consciously changes the case by adding the dative ἐν; and he changes the word order to stress Christ as the realm of faith.50 These changes indicate scribal awareness of the ambiguity of the phrase. By inserting ἐν, the scribe is making it clear that “it is not a faith that originates with Christ or his faithfulness, but faith that resides in Christ.”51 This supports 48

49 50 51

Jan Lambrecht and Richard W. Thompson, JustificationbyFaith:TheImplicationsof Romans 3:27-31, Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989), 70. On this point and more, see Lee, Paul’sGospelinRomans, 214. Cf. Porter and Pitts, “Πίστις with a Preposition,” 52. Porter, “Rhetorical Scribe,” 417. This argument is supported recently by Lee, Paul’s GospelinRomans, 220.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

223

the argument of anthropological readers that native Greek speakers of the time understood πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as an objective genitive and wanted to make this understanding clear for others. If Paul wanted his readers to give a christological reading to πίστις Χριστοῦ, he would have needed to be more explicit. As Matlock argues, “an account has to be given of what (linguistically, contextually) marks or signals that shift.”52 Since Paul’s πίστις refers to believers, we need some extra contextual support for a rendering of ‘faithfulness.’ But the context provides an anthropological reading. In Rom 1:5 Paul illustrates his mission to bring about obedience of faith (ὑπακοὴν πίστεως) among all Gentiles, including Romans (who are both Jews and Gentiles). The core of his proclamation of the gospel is to declare “the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith” (1:16). All the more, when we look to the five occurrences of πίστις in 3:27-31, it is implausible that they refer to Christ’s faithfulness. All these observations confirm the anthropological understanding of πίστις Χριστοῦ in the pericope. This takes us to a fuller consideration of the meaning and source of Paul’s πίστις, which support our reading and underline its relational meaning. 5.2 THE MEANING OF πίστις Much of the lack of clarity in the πίστις Χριστοῦ dispute is due to a narrow understanding of πίστις. The debate, as far as the meaning of πίστις is concerned, has been limited to ‘faith’ or ‘faithfulness.’ This has led to neglect of the nuances of πίστις. In our view, this debate has more to do with the ambiguity in the meaning of πίστις, than with the ambiguity of the genitive. The term πίστις can have many different meanings. In this section, we explore what meaning Paul gave to it. 5.2.1 Lexical Meaning The best way to start is by studying the meanings of πίστις that we find in the lexicons. LSJ53 gives the significant meanings of πίστις as: 1) ‘trust in others,’ or ‘faith’; 2) ‘that which gives confidence’; and 3) ‘that which is entrusted,’ ‘a trust.’ It is striking that ‘faithfulness’ is 52 53

Matlock, “Even the Demons Believe,” 216. LSJ, 1408. The meanings that are beyond our present concern are not considered here.

224

CHAPTER FIVE

not a meaning present in LSJ. BDAG, however, does include ‘faithfulness.’54 BDAG classifies the meanings as: 1) ‘that which evokes trust and faith:’ a. ‘faithfulness, reliability, fidelity, commitment’; b. ‘assurance, oath, troth’; c. ‘proof, pledge’; 2) ‘state of believing on the basis of the reliability of the one trusted, trust, confidence, faith’; 3) ‘That which is believed, body of faith/belief/teaching.’ The specific sense of πίστις is described under headings a-f in L-N: πίστιςa: that which is completely believable – ‘what can be fully believed, that which is worthy of belief, believable evidence, proof.’ 31.43 πίστιςb: to believe to the extent of complete trust and reliance. 31.85 πίστιςc: the state of being in someone in whom complete confidence can be placed – ‘trustworthiness, dependability, faithfulness.’ 31:88 πίστιςd: ‘Christian faith.’ 31.102 πίστιςe: the content of what Christians believe – ‘the faith, beliefs, doctrine.’ 31.104 πίστιςf: a promise or pledge of faithfulness and loyalty – ‘promise or pledge to be faithful.’ 33.283

There several possible uses cited by lexica can only complicate the interpretation of πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ. As Bultmann observes, πίστις “can mean both “faithfulness” and “trust,” though it is seldom used in the former sense. As “trust” or “faith” it occurs only in religious usage.”55 In each of the lexica, a meaning of ‘trust’ is prominent. Rom 3:22 and 26 figures in BDAG under the meaning trust, confidence, faith. Thus BDAG favours an anthropological reading. Other lexica do not specifically mention Rom 3:22 and 26. Matlock questions the English sense of ‘faithfulness’ as he writes, “the subjective genitive reading has been relying unwittingly on semantic features of the English gloss ‘faithfulness’–‘faithfulness unto death’ – rather than attending to the uses of πίστις.”56 Matlock treats Rom 3:22 and 26 under L-N’s πίστιςb. In short, the lexical content of πίστις permits a wide range of translation. “Trust” predominates. But we cannot decide the matter from the lexica alone. For such a central theological term, we must also examine the meaning of the cognate verb πιστεύω and its semantic relation to πίστις.

54 55 56

BDAG, 818-820. Rudolf Bultmann, “Πιστεύω κτλ,” in TDNT 6 (1968): 174-228, here 203. For a detailed application of the L-N categories of meaning, see Matlock, “Detheologizing the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” 7-12.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

225

5.2.2 The Relation of πίστις to πιστεύω L-N treats πίστιςb, ‘to believe to the extent of complete trust and reliance’ along with the πιστεύωb, ‘trust’ (31.85). The other meanings of the verb in L-N are ‘to believe, to think to be true, to regard as trustworthy’ (31.35); ‘to trust to, to put into the care of’ (35.50). According to TDNT πιστεύω means ‘to rely on,’ ‘to trust,’ or ‘to believe.’57 BDAG offers: ‘believe, trust, entrust, be confident and think/consider.’58 Thus on the one hand the meanings of the verb given by the lexica do not support a meaning of ‘faithfulness’ for the noun. Such a meaning would challenge the semantic relation between the noun and the verb. On the other hand, a salient meaning in the lexica is ‘trust.’ Both noun and the verb share this meaning. The semantic relation is important because, in many instances in Romans, the verb is present along with the noun. Further, in Rom 3:22 and Gal 2:16; 3:22, the verb follows the disputed πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases. In Rom 3:22, for example, πίστις is followed by πιστεύω which determines its meaning. Here, christological interpretation faces problems. Paul uses ἐκ πίστεως in Rom 4:16 when he speaks about Abraham’s reliance on God and Paul substitutes the noun for the verb when quoting Genesis 15:6 in Rom 4:9.59 We must not forget that while πιστ- words are among the most frequently occurring words in Romans. Yet there is no single instance in the letter where Christ is the subject of πιστεύω. This is evidence that we can hardly overlook. We now turn to the source and the root of Pauline πιστ- words for further help in determining their meaning in his writings. 5.2.3 The Root and the Source of Pauline πιστ- words The frequency and the central place of πιστ- terminology in the NT, especially in the Pauline writings, calls for their examination. As the lexica would lead us to expect, we find that diverse meanings have been suggested for Paul’s πιστ- words. This is partly because of different understandings of what might have influenced Paul, down to the origin of the πιστ- word group as a faith terminology. Mark A. Seifrid represents those who claim that the NT use of the term is the point of departure from its Hellenistic and Jewish backgrounds. In his opinion, we need 57 58 59

Bultmann, “Πιστεύω κτλ,” 203. BDAG, 816-818. Cf. Matlock, “Detheologizing the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,”13.

226

CHAPTER FIVE

to give due attention to the “the radical shift in usage of the term πίστις from “faithfulness” to “faith” that appears in the New Testament writings, the Apostolic Fathers, and beyond.”60 He represents those who claim that the NT use of the term is the point of departure from its Hellenistic and Jewish backgrounds. A number of scholars have investigated the root of this important word-group. Dieter Lührmann finds that “πίστις ist kein Wort das von den neutestamentlichen Autoren neu gebildet worden ist.”61 He has demonstrated that the LXX use of the term has considerable influence in the NT. Challenging him, Gerhard Barth argues that NT usage is influenced by the extra-Biblical Greek religious usage.62 Morna D. Hooker finds that in classical Greek, the noun πίστις can mean not only ‘trust’ or ‘confidence’ but also ‘trustworthiness’ or ‘faithfulness.’ However, in her view, NT usage is heavily influenced by the LXX.63 On the contrary, Thomas Schumacher’s recent examination of the root of the Pauline πίστις concludes that Paul uses it in many different ways just as it is found with various nuances in the Greek usage.64 This also includes the question of the proper understanding of πίστις Χριστοῦ. In his view, it is clear that Paul’s use of πιστ- words is “determined by the original Greek usage, while at the same time it is virtually impossible to prove with certainty external influences on the word semantics, influences that come only from OT Jewish influence.”65 While admitting this difficulty, we can look for other signals to see what might have concretrely influenced Paul. Our examination in the previous sections has shown that in the Pauline letters, especially in Romans, Paul is citing from Scripture that contains πιστ- words and explains them. 60

61

62

63 64 65

Seifrid, “The Faith of Christ,” 130. By making this observation, he challenges the scholars who consider Septuagint had a large impact on the NT. Cf. Dieter Lührmann, „Pistis im Judentum,“ ZNW 64 (1973): 19-38, esp. 20. Lohse too agrees with Lührmann’s suggestion that early Christianity did not implement Hellenistic ideas and terminology, but adopted the usage of the OT and Judaism. See Eduard Lohse, „Glauben im neuen Testament,“ in Glauben, ed. Hans-Jürgen Hermisson and Eduard Lohse (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978), 87. Quite the opposite, Martin Buber, TwoTypesofFaith, trans. Norman P. Goldhawk, Martin Buber Library (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2003), 7-15, has argued that the Pauline concept of faith is different from the OT concept and therefore is mainly a Greek concept. Gerhard Barth, „Pistis in hellenistischer Religiosität,“ ZNW 73 (1982): 110-126. He analyses some of the passages cited in Bauer’s Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament and Bultmann’s article in the TDNT. Accordingly, the word group is used in this sense in Polybius and Dio Chrysostom. Hooker, „Faith,“ 14. Schumacher, ZurEntstehungchristlicherSprache, 299. Schumacher, ZurEntstehungchristlicherSprache, 299 (our translation).

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

227

Was there really a paradigm shift in the understanding of πιστ- words in the NT writings? Have Paul and the NT writers given a new nuance to πιστ- words? Our aim here is to look into the meaning of πιστ- words in the writings prior to Paul, and to what extent these writings have influenced him. In the following sub-sections we examine the religious use of this terminology prior to Paul. 5.2.3.1 TheInfluenceofClassicalUsageontheLXX What leads the LXX translators to use πιστ- words to express ‘faith in God’? Two leading advocates of the influence of the LXX on the religious development of the πιστ- words are Lührmann and Lindsay. Lührmann demonstrates that the LXX translators used πιστ- words for referring to ‘faith in God’ in place of the usual Greek categories (νομίζειν θεοὺς εἷναι). In his view, πιστ- words in the LXX are “Bedeutungslehnwörtern, nicht anders als später in der christlichen Tradition lateinisch fides/credere und deutsch Glaube/glauben, da sie nun in diesen Zusammenhängen ihren Inhalt aus einer anderssprachigen Tradition erhalten.”66 Lindsay questions whether mere Bedeutungslehnwörter (semantic loanwords) could be sufficient to communicate the intended meaning to a Greek audience.67 As such, Lindsay maintains, the LXX choice of the word group is not a mere coincidence. “Rather there was already from earliest times a development under way in which this Greek word group, though originally profane in meaning and use, was increasingly being used in a religious sphere.”68 Thus he holds that the LXX itself is but a significant stage in the development of the πιστ- words as faith terminology that had already started. This takes us to the instances where religious uses of the word occur prior to the LXX. Lindsay examines few texts from the Classical Greek period. In his view, τῷ θεῷ πίστιν φέρειν in Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus 1.1445 is an exceptional early religious occurrence, meaning an active faith in God.69 In addition, he cites four instances where Latte 66

67

68 69

Lührmann, “Pistis im Judentum,” 24-25. In his view, πιστ- words take on a new meaning by standing for the Hebrew ‫אמן‬. For a detailed study of Paul’s understanding of πίστις in comparision with the Latin terminology, see Schumacher, Zur Entstehung christlicherSprache, 274-299. Dennis R. Lindsay, “The Roots and Development of the πιστ- Word Group as Faith Terminology,” JSNT 49 (1993): 103-118. Lindsay, “πιστ- Word Group,” 104. Cf. Lindsay, “πιστ- Word Group,” 105. However, Schumacher, ZurEntstehungchristlicherSprache, 205, argues that “die semantische Entwicklung des Nomens weit über

228

CHAPTER FIVE

finds the religious use of πιστεύειν θεοῖς: in Aeschylus’s Persians 1.800; Sophocles’ Philocretes 1373-75; Plato’s Epinomis 980c and Xenophon’s Apomnemoneumata 1.1.5. He finds religious sense of πιστεύειν similar to the LXX.70 The evidence above suggests that πιστ- words had the potency to be used in religious contexts in relation to God. Nevertheless, based on this evidence, we still cannot conclude that there is a clear development in the religious sense of the term. More to the point, this limited number of examples is insufficient to prove the case. As long as νομίζειν θεοὺς εἷναι remained the expression for the religious belief in God in classical Greek, we cannot speak of a development. Moreover, this expression refers only to an intellectual belief in the existence of God.71 Lührmann observes that the LXX translators completely avoided the term νομίζειν and this needs to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, they have avoided the term because they are no longer dealing with a mere intellectual question of belief in the existence of God. Thus Lührmann’s argument that πιστ- terminology replaces usual Greek categories does not stand. Perhaps in the classical period there was no urgency to speak of religious faith in God. Nonetheless, πίστις was occasionally then used to express trust or trustworthiness in human relationships.72 This potent use is reflected in some LXX uses. In our view, those isolated uses of πιστ- words with a religious nuance in classical Greek, and the sense of ‘trust/trustworthiness’ in human relationships, could signal the trend that prompted the LXX translators to choose πιστ- words for faith in God. πίστις then expressed the relational

70

71

72

die der anderen πιστ-Formen hinausgeht, den sowohl die Adjektiv- wie auch die Verbformen überschreiten kaum ihre Grundbedeutung.” See also a similar view in Gerd Schunack, „Glaube in griechischer Religiosität,“ in Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christentum:FestschriftfürHartmutStegemannzum65.Geburtstag, ed. Bernd Kollmann, Wolfgang Reinbold, and Annette Steudel, BZNW 97 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 296-326, esp. 298. See Lindsay, “πιστ- Word Group,” 107-108. To these four instances cited by Latte, Lindsay adds another three passages: Thucydides’ Histria 4.92.7; Xenophon’s Apology ofSocrates 15 and the speech of Aeschines in Ctesiphont 1. Cf. Dennis R. Lindsay, JosephusandFaith:πίστιςandπιστεύεινasFaithTerminology intheWritingsofFlaviusJosephusandintheNewTestament, AGJU 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 8. Schumacher, Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache, 207, observes the difference between πιστεύειν and νομίζειν, “den beide werden kommen zwar in ähnlichen Kontexten vor, werden jedoch keineswegs in gleicher Weise gebraucht.” He cites Xenophon (Mem. 1.1.5) as an example where these verbs are used in a religious context. Whereas πιστεύειν maintains here a sense of ‘trust,’ νομίζειν seems to mean ‘to hold true.’ Cf. Lindsay, JosephusandFaith, 7.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

229

aspect, with the sense of ‘trust in.’ The LXX translators made use of this potent term. We can, therefore, neither conclude that πιστ- words are Bedeutungslehnwörter, nor establish that there was a clear development in the classical period. Along with Lindsay, we hold that it is the word choice of the LXX that plays a significant role in the understanding of πιστ- words as religious terminology and this choice that influenced subsequent writings. This influence is plainly evident in the Greek texts of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon and later books73 and had an impact on the early Christian writers. For this reason, we take a fresh look into the LXX, to see if we can clarify the meaning of πίστις in Paul, and in particular in Romans. To sum up: scholars differ as to the origin of the NT usage of πιστwords. In any case, we do not find ‘faith’ as an essential category of Greek religious language. At the same time, the question of the religious use of the term needs more attention. Why are πιστ- words used by the LXX translators exclusively to represent a particular Hebrew stem? What have these Greek and Hebrew stems in common? What significant development takes place in the meaning of the πιστ- words in the LXX translation? How far has it influenced the later writings? Focusing on these questions, we now argue that the origin of Pauline πιστ- words as a religious terminology can be traced back to the LXX, which faithfully represents the Hebrew ‫ אמן‬root of the MT. 5.2.3.2 TheHebrewRoot‫אמן‬andtheLXXTranslation We now turn to the uses of ‫ אמן‬in the Hebrew scripture and their translation in the LXX. The basic meaning of ‫ אמן‬is ‘to be firm, trustworthy, safe.’74 In general, ‫ אמן‬characterises the relationship between God and humans with the meaning of ‘acquire firmness/stability,’ ‘depend on someone without qualification,’ and ‘give credence to a message.’75 πιστwords are used in the LXX only to translate the ‫ אמן‬root, with one exception.76 Accordingly, the root meaning of πιστ- words cannot be apprehended without an understanding of ‫ אמן‬in the Hebrew Scripture. The substantive ‫ ֱא ֶמת‬occurs 126 times in the MT. It is most often translated with ἀλήθεια (87 times) in the LXX, but a few times with 73 74

75 76

Cf. Dieter Lührmann, „Faith,“ in ABD 2 (1992), 749-758. Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, TheHebrewandAramaicLexiconoftheOld Testament, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 63. Gerhard Barth, “Πίστις κτλ.,” in EDNT 3 (1993): 91-97, esp. 92. Jer 25:8: the verb is used here as an equivalent of ‫שׁ ַמע‬. ָ

230

CHAPTER FIVE

δικ – words and in six instances with πίστις.77 The other substantive more often translated with πίστις in the LXX is ‫אמוּנָ ה‬. ֱ 78 Nevertheless, in the Psalms both ‫ ֱא ֶמת‬and ‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬are translated with ἀλήθεια. What is more striking is that ἀλήθεια, not πίστις, is the term the LXX uses for God’s truthfulness/faithfulness.79 Πίστις has a number of meanings in the LXX. It can mean faithfulness/loyalty (Deut 32:20; 2 Chr 3:12; 31:12; Pro3:3:3; 14:22; 12:22; 15:27; Hos 2:22; Jer 32:14) or faith/trust (Hab 2:4; Sir 22:23; 27:16; 37:26; 40:12; 1 Macc 10:27; 37). In a few instances it means truth (Pro3:12:17; Jer 5:1, 3; 7:27, 28; 15:18; 35:9). This inability to render it with a single term in either in Greek or English reflects the riches of the Hebrew root ‫אמן‬. Thus πίστις does not stand for either a single term or a consistent meaning in the LXX. To clarify its meaning, we shall therefore explore the verbal stem. 5.2.3.3 TheLXXUsesofπιστ-WordsfortheHiphilFormof‫אמן‬ The hiphil form of ‫ אמן‬occurs 51 times in the MT, and it is translated with πιστ- words in LXX with only one exception.80 The general meaning of term is “to be firmly set in/on something.”81 In the MT ‫ האמין‬is used only for personal relations with a connotation of trust or confidence. This hiphil form, which often appears with the prepositions -‫ ב‬and -‫ל‬, is 77 78

79

80

81

Cf. James D. G. Dunn, “Faith, Faithfulness” in NIDB 2 (2007), 407-423, esp. 408. The substantive ‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬is sometimes used as the equivalent of ‫ ֱא ֶמת‬in some of the later texts in MT. See the discussion on the matter in Alfred Jepsen, “‫אמן‬,” TDOT1 (1974): 316-320. Lohse opines that it implies trust in God based on the historical experiences of the people. See Lohse, “Glauben im Neuen Testament,” 107. ‫ ֱא ֶמת‬is translated with ἀλήθεια in 2 Kgs 19:17; 25:10; Zach 8:8 and more often in Psalms: for example, in Psalms 39:12; 56:7,11; 84:11, 12; 85:11; 88:15; 90:4; 107:5; 110:8; 113:9; 106:3. As mentioned above, ‫ ֱאמוּנָ ה‬is also translated with ἀλήθεια especially in Psalms: 12:1; 35:6; 88:3, 9, 25, 34, 50; 95:13; 99:5; 118:75, 90; 142:1. Cf. Hans Wildberger, „‘Glauben‘, Erwägungen zu ‫האמין‬,“ in Hebräische Wortforschung:Festschriftzum80.GeburtstagvonWalterBaumgartner (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 372-386, esp. 375. We focus on the hiphil form because the other two verbal stems are not significant to our research focus. The qal form is not translated with πιστ- words in the LXX. The niphal form is often translated πιστός, which does not occur in Romans. Joseph P. Healey, “Faith,” in ABD 2 (1992), 744-749, here 745. Francis Brown, A HebrewandEnglishLexiconoftheOldTestamenttrans. Edward Robinson (Oxford: Clarendon, 1952), 52-53 notes ‘confirmed,’ established,’ and ‘stand firm’ among other possible meanings. See also R. W. L. Moberly, “‫אמן‬,” in NewInternationalDictionary ofOldTestamentTheologyandExegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 427-433.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

231

usually translated ‘believe’ or ‘trust.’ If the object of ‫ האמין‬is God, it expresses a reciprocal relation of trust.82 When used with the preposition -‫ ל‬it can mean ‘to believe or trust in’ someone. In the same way, a relational aspect is evident when the hiphil form of the word is used along with the prepositions -‫ב‬. There are a number of significant passages that occur in the hiphil form of ‫ אמן‬with rich theological content. We analyse some of these texts, in dialogue with important works of Wildberger and Lindsay, with a view to clarifying the meaning of πιστεύειν in the LXX when it stands for the hiphil form of ‫אמן‬. We begin by looking at the MT of Gen 15:6 and its translation in the LXX: ‫וְ ֶה ֱא ִמן ַבּיהוָ ה וַ יַּ ְח ְשׁ ֶב ָה לּוֹ ְצ ָד ָקה‬ καὶ ἐπίστευσεν αβραμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην

The MT of Gen 15:6 contains two of the most critical and disputed words in the OT: ‫ אמן‬and ‫צדקה‬. Each of these terms makes its first entry in the OT in this verse, a passage that speaks of trust in God (as Hatch has shown).83 With the preposition -‫ב‬, this shows that Abraham trusted in God. It is the only instance in the LXX where we find the combination of the verb πιστεύειν with δικαιοσύνην.84 The immediate context of Gen 15:6 helps discern the meaning and theological content of the text. The focus of Gen 15:1-5 is God’s three promises to Abraham: the assurance of a reward (15:1), an heir (15:4), and numerous descendants (15:5). Gen 15:6 is, therefore, Abraham’s reaction to all these promises. However, it does not say that Abraham believed the promises of Yahweh, instead Abraham believed in Yahweh. Schliesser highlights this point as he writes: “Abraham does not only consider or declare trustworthy the words of Yahweh and, furthermore, he does not only gain firmness and certainty in them, but he gains firmness and fastens himself in the one, who gave these promises and

82

83

84

Cf. Koehler and Baumgartner, HebrewandAramaiclexicon, 64; Wildberger, „Glauben,“ 385. In this line, Schumacher, ZurEntstehungchristlicherSprache, 236, notes that “mit ‫האמין‬, wenn es im Hinblick auf die Beziehung zu Gott verwendet wird und den Glauben des Menschen bezeichnet, kein Glaubeninhalt, zur Sprache gebracht wird: ‘glauben an’ meint stets ‘sein Vertrauen setzen auf.’” Cf. William Henry Paine Hatch, ThePaulineIdeaofFaithinitsRelationtoJewishand HellenisticReligion, HTS 2 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917), 2. Hab 2:4 combines the noun πίστις with δικαιοσύνην. These are the only two texts that combine these two words in the LXX. But the combination of these words is very prominent in Paul, as we will show in our analysis of Romans in the following section.

232

CHAPTER FIVE

assurances.”85 The strong relationship between Abraham and Yahweh is the basis of this trust. In other words, it refers to the relationship that already exists between them. The LXX deviates at a number of points from the MT. First, as Schliesser observes, “[t]he remarkable change of tenses from the narrative form to the perfect ‫ וְ ֶה ֱא ִמן‬is not reflected in the Septuagint.”86 The LXX continues in the same style as in the previous verses, with narrative aorist. Second, whereas the Hebrew expression ‫ וְ ֶה ֱא ִמן ַבּיהוָ ה‬clearly means a ‘trust in God,’ the LXX translation with πιστεύειν τῷ θεῷ is sometimes taken to mean ‘believe God or in his promises.’87 This understanding might have influenced a rationalistic understanding of faith. Nonetheless, this rendering is quite normal with the regular translation practice of the LXX.88 Regardless of whether the Hebrew preposition -‫ ב‬or -‫ ל‬is used, the normal LXX pattern of translation of verb followed by dative is reflected here. The MT clarifies the situation, making it clear that what is meant is trust in God. So the MT sheds light on the issue of theocentric focus. The choice of the verb πιστεύειν to express the hiphil form here is significant. The Hebrew stem ‫ אמן‬in hiphil is clearly a preeminent word in the MT that expresses relationship with God. The term is first mentioned here in connection with the patriarch, thereby acquiring great theological potential.89 The talk evident from the context is about Abraham’s trust in God despite the difficult situation. Wildberger observes that “Die Stelle steht also traditionsgeschichtlich derjenigen von Jes. vii 9 sehe nahe.”90 Before examining Isa 7:9, yet another significant text in hiphil form, we look into its uses in 2 Chr 20:20. We now turn to 2 Chr 20:20 to analyse the Hebrew text and its translation in the LXX. Indeed the riches of the double use of πιστεύειν is evident: ‫יכם וְ ֵ ֣ת ָא ֵ֔מנוּ‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫יהו֤ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫ַה ֲא ִ֜מינוּ ַבּ‬ ἐμπιστεύσατε ἐν κυρίῳ θεῷ ὑμῶν καὶ ἐμπιστευθήσεσθε 85 86 87 88

89 90

Schliesser, Abraham‘sFaith, 136-137. Schliesser, Abraham‘sFaith, 164. Cf. Schliesser, Abraham‘sFaith, 165. Cf. Rudolf Mosis, GesammelteAufsätzezumAltenTestament, FB 93 (Würzburg: Echter, 1999), 98. He observes that only outside the Pentateuch one can find the formulation πιστεύειν έν. Thus, as he rightly concludes, LXX translation here should not be overestimated because LXX translates in the Pentateuch all instances of hiphil form of ‫ אמן‬with the prepositions -‫ ב‬or -‫ ל‬with πιστεύειν τινί. Schliesser, Abraham‘sFaith, 131. Wildberger, „Glauben,“ 380

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

233

There are two main concerns regarding this verse. The first concerns this clause; the second, its context. Our primary concern is the powerful wordplay employed in the Hebrew text, which is rendered with πιστεύειν in the translation. Nevertheless, we cannot overlook that this clause is followed by another use of the hiphil form, which is also translated with πιστεύειν (ἐμπιστεύσατε ἐν προφήτῃ). What is remarkable here is that the term is not used exclusively in reference to God. This observation is noteworthy for our analysis of the quotes and meaning of the term in Paul. In 2 Chr 20:20 ἐμπιστεύειν is twice employed to express the hiphil form with the prepositions -‫ב‬. The choice of πιστ- words here to convey ‘trust’ and ‘establish’ is significant: “Trust in the Lord your God and you will be established.” The wordplay in the Hebrew is reproduced by employing the Greek verb πιστεύειν. This attempt is indeed an important step in assimilating the meaning of the Hebrew root. As Lindsay notes, “(T)his construction ἐμπιστεύειν ἐν is unprecedented (and superfluous!) in Classical and Hellenistic Greek where the dative suffices. But here it is important as an attempt to retain the relational idea of the Hebrew prepositions -‫ב‬.”91 Remarkably this translation brings out the potency of πιστ- words to convey both ideas of trust and establish. This assimilated meaning seems to have influenced later development of the nuances of the word. Even more, the use of the personal pronoun ὑμῶν before God expresses the strong relational aspect. The ideas expressed in a positive statement here seem to be found in a similar, but negative, statement in Isa 7:9 with a tone of warning. ‫ִ ֚אם ֣ל ֹא ַת ֲא ִ֔מינוּ ִ ֖כּי ֥ל ֹא ֵת ָא ֵ ֽמנוּ‬ μὴ πιστεύσητε οὐδὲ μὴ συνῆτε

The same Hebrew root appears in this clause too, although in two different forms. The primary question in this clause concerns the lack of an accusative object. As Willem A. M. Beuken puts it: “So stellt sich die Frage nach dem Bedeutungsumfang der hebräischen Vokabel –vertrauen–, zumal sie hier absolut, also ohne Objekt, gebraucht ist.”92 Despite the absolute usage, this passage is traditionally understood as an appeal to trust in God because of the similar situation in 2 Chr 20:20. 91

92

Lindsay, JosephusandFaith, 36. This importance of the wordplay here using the stem ‫ אמן‬is noted by Sara Japhet, 2Chronik, HTKAT (Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 2003), 256. Willem A. M. Beuken, Jesaja1-12, HTKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 200. See also the comments in Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, The Old Testament Library (Lousville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2003), 64.

234

CHAPTER FIVE

Hans Wildberger, who goes against this traditional interpretation, argues that “Jesaja kämpft in vii 9 nicht darum, dass der ‘Glaube’ sich auf Jahwe richte oder ein Fürwahrhalten des prophetischen Wortes sei, sondern dass er sich existentiell als Zuversicht bewahrende Lebenshaltung zeige.”93 Against this, Lindsay points out that the hiphil here must be understood as “a syntactical ellipsis calling for faith in God.”94 There is ample support from the context that it is a call to ‘trust in God.’ In 7:7, God is asking Isaiah to go to the king and convey this message on behalf of him. Hence the prophet is instructing king Ahaz and Israel to keep trust (in the Lord), so that he may stand firm (on the throne). Yet another question is that of translations of the hiphil and niphal forms in the clause above. We notice here the wordplay in the hiphil and niphal forms with the prepositions of -‫ ב‬and -‫ל‬. The Greek translation reveals that πιστ- root, especially πιστεύειν, was not a ‘perfect match’ for the Hebrew stem ‫אמן‬.95 The translators did not find it feasible to express the wordplay in the hiphil and niphal forms with πιστ- words. For this reason, they employ συνῆτε to translate the niphal form. Therefore πιστεύειν stands here for the hiphil, not the niphal. Having noted these observations, we move on to a positive counterpart of this expression in Isa 28:16: ‫ַ ֽה ַמּ ֲא ִ ֖מין ֥ל ֹא יָ ִ ֽחישׁ‬ καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ

Just like Isa 7:9, this is another instance of the absolute use in the hiphil form. Although similar to the previous text, this one is clearer from the context. Remarkably the LXX has the prepositional phrase ἐπ’ αὐτῷ, which is lacking in the MT. This is a significant addition, since it clarifies the ambiguity of the Hebrew text. As we will show later, Paul’s quote of this text in Rom 9:33 shares two elements with the LXX lacking in MT: the conjunction καί and the prepositional phrase ἐπ’ αὐτῷ. The question is the precise identity of the stone here as well as in Paul’s context. In the Hebrew text of Isa 7:9, ‘stone’ is not a symbol for Yahweh, but God is laying a foundation stone inscribed with the motto ‘the one who trusts (in Yahweh) will not be ashamed.’96 The LXX, with the addition of a 93

94 95 96

Wildberger, “Glauben,” 377-378. This clause is translated in Vulgate as “Si non credideritis on intelligetis,” which might have fostered the association of ‘faith’ with ‘understanding’ in a rational sense. We shall not forget that Isa 7:9 is quoted nowhere in the NT. Lindsay, JosephusandFaith, 31. Cf. Lindsay, JosephusandFaith, 35. See Otto Kaiser, Isaiah13-39, OTL (London: SCM, 1974), 254; Childs, Isaiah, 208.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

235

prepositional phrase, suggests that one places trust in the stone itself. Nonetheless, the precise identity of the stone remains ambiguous. Although there is an abrupt change from first person to third person in the Greek text, the prepositional phrase may refer to God.97 This interpretation is more tenable in line with the only previous use of πιστεύω in Isa 7:9. Moreover, as the discussion continues (in 28:17) the prophet criticizes those who place their trust in lies. These observations suggest that the clause highlights the importance of trust in God so that one will not panic. Before we conclude this examination of the specific texts in the hiphil form and their translations in LXX, we quote the following remarks by Wildberger: ‫ האמין‬mit‫ ב‬bedeutet profan verwendet ‘sich fest machen in, sein Vertrauen setzen auf’ o.ä. Wo ‫ ב האמין‬mit Bezug auf Jahwe oder seinen Offenbarungsmittler bzw. ein Offenbarungswort verwendet ist, gewinnt es die Bedeutung ‘glauben an’, aber nicht im Sinn von ‘für existent, wahr, zuverlässig erachten’, sondern in der Bedeutung ‘sein Vertrauen setzen auf’, wobei Zuversicht und Gehorsam mit eingeschlossen sind.98

His remarks are highly relevant, because none of the texts we examined deals with the question of the existence of God. For that reason, these texts do not speak about the rational belief that God exists. On the contrary, all these texts speaks about ‘trust in God’ highlighting a strong relational aspect. Significantly, in Hebrew the hiphil form of the verb denotes ‘causation,’ which suggests hiphil form of ‫ אמן‬means ‘cause/ make one stand firm.’ As we have seen, all these texts have a second counterpart. Accordingly, ‘trust in God’ is stated as a condition for being justified, established, standing firm, and not to panic. Thus the verb πιστεύειν is almost always transitive in meaning.99 It is the association with the hiphil form, especially with the prepositions -‫ ב‬and -‫ל‬, that leads to the religious development of the πιστ- words. The strong relational aspect and the basic meaning ‘stand firm/establish’ is also carried into Greek translations of these passages as well. Accordingly, the verb πιστεύω or its cognates are used in the LXX to express a relation to someone or something. An implied relationship is evident when the term is used to refer to human relation to God (Gen 97

98 99

Cf. J. Ross Wagner, HeraldsoftheGoodNews:IsaiahandPaul‘inConcert’inthe LettertotheRomans (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 142. Wildberger, “Glauben,” 385. Cf. Lindsay, JosephusandFaith, 35.

236

CHAPTER FIVE

15:6; Ex 4:5, 31; Num 14:11; Job 9:16; Ps 27:13; Wis 12:2; 16:26; Is 7:9; 28:16; 43:10; 53:1; Hab 1:5). The verb used in these texts clearly means to believe or trust in God. At times the verb is also used to point to a similar type of relation between human beings (Ex 4:1, 8; 19:9; 2 Chr 32:24; Job 4:18; 29:24; 15:31; Jer 12:6). The hiphil form is also used for the appropriate response to God’s truth. In such cases the Hebrew usage includes a recognition and affirmation of the trustworthiness of the one trusted.100 Apart from this relational aspect evident in the above analysis, there is yet another significant factor that might have contributed to the development of the faith concept in the Hebrew Bible. Faith is described rather than defined in the Hebrew Bible. The description tends to be used in two ways: the relationship of Israel to Yahweh and the relationship of some key figures (Abraham, Moses and David) to Yahweh.101 Furthermore, prophetic texts, especially Isaiah, speak about the lack of faith as one of the reasons for exile. Prophets, therefore, asks the people to believe/trust in God. 5.2.3.4 TheUseofπιστ-WordsinHellenisticJewishLiterature Before considering the influence of the aforementioned texts to Paul and the relevant texts in Paul’s letter to the Romans, we need to examine how far the influence of the LXX is reflected in the Hellenistic Jewish literature at the time of Paul. In general, Lindsay differentiates two crucial lines of development of the verb πιστεύειν in the Hellenistic period. On one hand, a tendency develops to use πιστεύειν with dative referring to God/gods with a direct impact upon the believer. Yet another trend is to use it in an intellectual sense as ‘to believe’ that something is the case.102 We shall briefly examine how this terminology is found in Philo and Josephus. Philo uses πίστις in various senses, predominantly to mean ‘evidence’103 and his uses go along with the various other meanings prior to 100 101 102

103

Cf. Dunn, “Faith, Faithfulness,” 408. Cf. Lührmann, “Faith,” 746. Lindsay, “πιστ- Word Group,” 115. In his opinion, this is evident in some of the uses of πιστεύειν as the synonym of νομίζειν. He cites Lucian’s Philopseudes 10 and Porphyrius of Tyre’s ad Marcellam 22 to prove these trends of development. For a comprehensive survey of the various nuances of the use of the πίστις in Philo, see David M. Hay, “Pistis as “Ground for Faith” in Hellenized Judaism and Paul,” JBL 108 (1989): 461-476, esp. 463-465; Schumacher, Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache, 253-256.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

237

him including ‘proof,’ ‘loyalty’ and ‘trust/belief.’104 Thus, as Schumacher notes, in Philo πιστ- words are “in ganz unterschiedlichen Zusammenhängen und mit verschiedenen sematischen Akzenten gebraucht.”105 However, what is important for our present purpose is Philo’s uses of the term in a religious sense: πιστεύειν τῷ θεῷ and πίστις πρὸς θεὸν. In a number of instances he employs the term for human trust in God. Significant for our purpose is the importance that he gives to the story of Abraham, especially to Gen 15:6 in Her. 90-101. He hails πίστις as the most perfect of virtues (91). The significance of trusting in God alone is reinforced in Her. 92 and in 94: “for nothing is more just or righteous as to put faith in God alone.” Similarly, when Philo describes Abraham’s journey out of Chaldaea in Her. 96-99 he states that Abraham trusted in God.106 Further, in Abr. 268-74 he speaks about the belief in God and disbelief in other things. Believing in God also appears in Virt. 216. What is more striking is that the more common meaning of ‘evidence’ for πίστις is absent in the LXX. Thus, on the one hand, Philo is influenced by the LXX use of the term and on the other he generally goes by the secular use of the term. Sufficient for our present purpose to highlight that Philo does understand Gen 15:6 in line with the LXX and hails Abraham’s πίστις. Just as Philo, Flavius Josephus employs the πιστ- words with various nuances. However, in majority of instances it seems to communicate a sense of ‘pledge’ or ‘loyalty.’107 In most cases, it is used to convey a ‘pledge’ that one person makes with another.108 The use of πίστις for religious faith/trust in God is comparatively very rare.109 What is striking is that this word group is lacking in Josephus’ description of Abraham. In contrast to the LXX, he uses the verb νομίζειν as a term for religious faith primarily in the context of the pagan religion.110 These instances 104

105 106

107 108

109 110

Among those who have discussed πίστις in Philo are: Émile Bréhier, Lesidéesphilosophiques et religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie, Études de philosophie médiévale 8 (Paris: Vrin, 1950; reprint, 3), 206-225; Adolf Schlatter, DerGlaubeimNeuenTestament, 5 ed. (Stuttgart: Carwer, 1885; reprint, 1963), 60-80; Hatch, Pauline Idea of Faith, 79-81; Hay, “Pistis as “Ground for Faith”,” 463-468; Schumacher, ZurEntstehungchristlicherSprache, 253-256. Schumacher, ZurEntstehungchristlicherSprache, 253. Philo interprets Genesis text also in Leg. 3.228f; Deus 4. In Her. 101, he explains the nature of belief and the problem of Abraham’s apparent disbelief. Cf. Hay, “Pistis as “Ground for Faith”,” 468-469. For example, Ant. 18.6.3; J.W. 2.21.9; 3.2.4; 3.7.35. It seems to carry a juridical sense in some instances. See for example, Ant. 17.6.5; Ag.Ap. 2.16. Cf. Lindsay, JosephusandFaith, 3, note 9.

238

CHAPTER FIVE

show that the religious use of the πιστ- words in Josephus is influenced both by Hellenism and OT.111 When it comes to the human relationship with God, his choice seems is not πιστ- words, as is evident from their absence from the long story of Abraham. In the light of the analysis of Hellenized Jewish literature of Paul’s day, David Hay makes the following observation. The meaning “objective basis for faith” (evidence or pledge) for pistis is well attested in the hellenized Jewish literature of Paul’s day, and it seems likely that the apostle sometimes used the word with that sense. If we understand Paul could use the term to mean both objective ground and subjective response, we gain not confusion but increased understanding of his view of the divine and human dimensions of Christian faith.112

Although David Hay’s translation of πίστις as ‘evidence’ or ‘pledge’ tries to clarify the meaning of the term in Gal 3:23, 25, it is not applicable to Rom 3:22, 26. If this meaning is to be included, it would make most occurrences of the word unintelligible. 5.2.3.5 ImplicationsforPaul Basing on the results of our analysis so far, we argue that Paul uses the πιστ- words with all the nuances evident in the LXX translations of the Hebrew root, especially the hiphil form. As we have seen, the base idea of ‘standing firm’ is inherent in ‫אמן‬. Once we see that ‫ אמן‬stands behind πιστ- words, we recognise the base idea of ‘standing firm.’ A firm and reliable foundation is the condition for standing firm. In other words, the stability that a human can inherit from God. It is standing firm in the truth of God. This is obvious in the wordplay in Is 7:9 on the root ‫אמן‬: “unless you believe (hiphil), you will not stand firm (niphal)” (see also 2 Chr 20:20). This wordplay reveals the correlation between believing and standing firm. What is striking for our interest is the idea of standing firm and being established that πιστ- words acquired by association with the Hebrew stem. It is this idea that is powerfully evident in some of the uses of the πιστ- words in Pauline writings, especially when it is used in the context of human sinfulness and need for justification. We have argued elsewhere that this has important impact on understanding and translating πίστις 111 112

Lindsay, JosephusandFaith, 185. Hay, “Pistis as “ground for Faith”,” 475.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

239

and its cognates in the Pauline letters.113 Through πίστις we receive a firm foundation and thereby attain stability. In Rom 10:3 Paul writes that those who are seeking to establish their own stability have not submitted to God’s δικαιοσύνη. 2 Cor 1:21 speaks of how God establishes us in Christ. In 1:24 he asks them to standfirm in faith. Similarly in Phil 1:27 he speaks of standing firm in the spirit for the faith of the gospel.114 Paul’s use of πιστ- words in the contexts of human sinfulness reveals the relational aspect of the term. Paul is saying that through πίστις we can assent to God and thereby stand firm. It is reasonable to think that Paul, being a Jew, wants to bring out the full force of the LXX use of the Hebrew root when he uses πίστις along with δικ- words. In that sense we should not stop by looking at the LXX to clarify the meaning of the πιστ- words, but should pass through the LXX to the Hebrew Bible. πιστ- words in Paul have to be understood, through the LXX, as faithfully rendering the Hebrew ‫ אמן‬of the MT. Paul quotes and expands three of the texts discussed in the previous section. Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4 are only two instances in the OT where πιστ- words and δικ- words are combined. In the LXX there is only one occurrence of ἐκ πίστεως and that is in Hab 2:4. This becomes common in Romans and Galatians where Paul quotes this text. Gen 15:6 is quoted in Rom 4:3. Rom 4 is the longest section in Pauline writings (except Gal 3:6-14) in which a single passage is explained to such an extent.115 Explaining Gen 15:6, Paul clarifies his soteriological statements in Rom 3:21-31. Abraham becomes the eschatological figure and father of all who trust in God. Indeed, πίστις happens in the “Sphäre der Ich-DuBezogenheit.”116 It is the “naked trust in God’s promise.”117 Paul’s depiction of Abraham shows “the basic feature of what it means to have and to stand in πίστις.”118 Paul found in Abraham the first to trust and the first to whom δικαιοσύνη was credited. As against LXX uses, Paul uses πιστ- words exclusively in reference to God/Christ. Paul quotes and expands only those texts that have a theocentric focus. Although Christ seems to be the object of πιστ- words in certain texts, it is not directed to Jesus in a personal sense as opposed to 113

114 115 116 117 118

Varghese P. Chiraparamban, “The Translation of Πίστις and Its Cognates in the Pauline Epistles,” BT 67 (2015), (at press). The Deutro-Pauline Col 1:23, 27 speaks of ‘being established in faith.’ Cf. Schliesser, Abraham‘sFaith, 117. J. de Zwaan, „Persönlicher Glaube bei Paulus,“ ZST 13 (1936): 114-149, esp. 138. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” 265. Schliesser, Abraham‘sFaith, 408.

240

CHAPTER FIVE

God. It is trust in God though Christ. In that sense there is a remarkable continuity with the OT. Lührmann brings home this point as he writes: “Glaube ist für Paulus nicht Glaube an Jesus im Gegensatz zum jüdischen Glauben an Gott, sondern Glaube an denselben Gott, der nun aber der ist, der in Jesu Tod und Auferweckung, und nur hier, Heil geschaffen hat.”119 Paul asks them to trust in Christ, who is the representative of God. In other words, for Paul, πίστις Χριστοῦ implies πίστις θεοῦ. Thus Paul does not make a significant shift in the meaning of πιστ- words in his writings. What is new in Paul is that πίστις becomes decisive in the human relationship with God. Returning to the question of the meaning of the term in Romans, it now becomes clear that the LXX uses of the πιστ- word group has influenced Paul. The scriptural background of Pauline πιστ- word group is reinforced by his frequent citations of scripture. In Romans, Paul implicitly indicates his source by consistently citing the LXX. Quotations from the Jewish Scripture play a significant role in Paul’s argument in Romans. He quotes Scripture some 50 times in Romans, the highest in his letters. In the first four chapters he frequently quotes Scripture (1:17; 2:24, 3:4, 9-18; 4:3, 7-8, 17, 18) and builds his arguments on Scripture. Paul cites πιστ- words from LXX in Romans. He builds his argument in the letter on two quotes (Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4). This suggests that the source of πιστ- words is Scripture. Paul’s careful citation of Scripture is noteworthy. There are significant texts with πιστ- words that Paul does not choose to cite in any of his letters: Ex 4:1, 5, 8, 9, 31 (faith in Moses and faith in signs) and Ex 14:31 (Israelites believed God and his servant Moses). Ex 14:31 is indeed an important statement in hiphil form. Likewise, Paul does not make use of the powerful statement in 2 Chr 20:20, which in 20:20b has ‘trust in his prophets.’ This is because faith, for Paul, is oriented only to God. This theocentric focus is particularly evident in Rom 3:21-26. It has not been easy to establish the concrete development of the πιστword group as faith terminology. However, the LXX association with the Hebrew root ‫ אמן‬has paved the way. This development started with the verbal form and the noun later assimilated the meaning from the verb. Our examination reveals that the Hebrew root ‫ אמן‬is employed to refer to the faithfulness of God. But these words are often translated in the LXX with ἀλήθεια. Also, in the LXX πίστις can stand for faithfulness, faith and trust. Nevertheless, when it translates the hiphil form of ‫אמן‬ 119

Lührmann, GlaubeimfrühenChristentum, 49.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

241

there is a remarkable consistency. πιστ- words in those texts are clearly a relational term denoting human trust in God. As we have shown, the source of Pauline πιστ- word group is the LXX. Paul is influenced by the LXX consistency in rendering hiphil form of ‫אמן‬, often with reference to God. It is these texts that Paul carefully quotes and expands. Paul’s thorough knowledge of Scripture is reflected in his use of πιστwords and he nuances these to pick up the human relation to God. Stressing the continuity with Abraham’s trust in God and the unity of the Jews and Gentiles, Paul reinterprets πίστις. 5.2.4 Terminological Clarifications and Issues of Translation of πιστ- Words Πίστις is often translated as faith. However, it is not easy to find a single definition of faith. It was passed on as a self-definition of Christianity and Christian theologians had to take it as a fundamental category.120 The philosophical language of the medieval scholastics paved the way for a western view of faith that contains a specific quality of intellectual assent. This is clearly expressed in the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, where faith is “an act of the intellect assenting to the Divine truth at the command of the will moved by the grace of God.”121 This view continues to dominate the contemporary understanding of faith. Theological discussions of faith contain some nuances. The classical definition of theology by St. Anselm and later theologians as ‘faith seeking understanding’ points to an intellectual and transcendental realm of faith, while associating it with reason. Many theologians consider faith as an assent to revealed truth.122 This trend seems to have influenced exegetes too, giving way to a rationalist understanding of ‘faith.’ Wissmann, for example, holds that πίστις in Paul denotes neither a trust in Christ nor a personal relationship to Christ, but maintains its

120 121

122

Lührmann, “Faith,” 753. St. Thomas Aquinas, SummaTheologica:LiterallyTranslatedbyFathersoftheEnglishDominicanProvince, vol. 2 (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947), 1186. Cf. Avery Dulles, TheAssuranceoftheThingsHopedfor:ATheologyofChristian Faith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 170. See pp. 170-180, for a comprehensive historical survey of the theology and the religious development of the Christian concept of faith. He cautions that there is no one thing out there that can be called ‘faith.’ Quite the opposite, he observes seven models to which theological writings on faith tend to cluster: propositional model, transcendental model, fiducial model, affective-experiential model, obediential model, praxis model and personalist model.

242

CHAPTER FIVE

intellectual-dogmatic character all through.123 He limits Pauline πίστις to the intellectual-dogmatic realm in terms of ‘assent.’124 Similarly, Watson too complicates the understanding of πίστις when he writes that faith “includes not just ‘belief ‘or ‘trust’ in a narrow sense, but the acceptance of a new way of life, with all the beliefs, ethical norms and social reorientation which this entails.”125 Considering ‘trust’ as a subset of the much larger category of ‘belief,’ Campbell maintains that “both the noun and the verb can be involved in this general sense of ‘belief/believing’.”126 He also adds that ‘faith’ “rolls together distinct meanings within one signifier, namely, the actions of believing and trusting, of fidelity, and the additional, substantivized sense of things believed. This undermines interpretative precision in relation to the texts; we cannot tell which meaning is meant.”127 His main contention is that the meaning ‘faithfulness’ or ‘fidelity’ can be found for many of the uses of πίστις in Paul. Thus, in theological circles the term faith is heavily loaded with religious connotations. Theological development is reflected also in the contemporary use of the term. Accordingly, in current English usage it is often understood as “confidence, reliance, belief especially without evidence or proof (possibly based on testimony or authority).”128 It is this latter understanding of belief without evidence or proof that has entered into popular usage, a usage also appropriated by the Church in calling on the faithful to take its doctrine ‘without any question.’ This has led Christian faith to be criticized as a blind leap in the dark, suggesting that faith is something highly elevated, for which we have nothing to do. Yet the core of πίστις was once ‘trust.’ “Latin fides has the same basic range – ‘trust’ in a person or thing, and that which produces confidence or belief, trustworthiness, faithfulness, credibility.”129 In moving away from this core meaning of ‘trust,’ theological discussion has advanced ‘belief without 123 124 125 126

127 128 129

Wissmann, PistisundChristusfrömmigkeit, 40, 67. Cf. Schliesser, Abraham‘sFaith, 408, note 128. Watson, Paul,JudaismandtheGentiles, 78. Campbell, QuestforPaul’sGospel, 183. His recent article asserts that “the notion of ‘faith’or ‘believing’ captures helpfully both the things believed in or held to be true, and the connotation of an uncoerced response of assent to their declaration.” Douglas A. Campbell, “Participation and Faith in Paul,” in “InChrist”inPaul:Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Michael J. Thate and Constantine R. Campbell, WUNT 2, 384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014) 37-60, here 38. Campbell, QuestforPaul’sGospel, 189. OxfordShorterEnglishDictionary, 3rd edition, Oxford, Clarendon (1993), 908 Dunn, “Faith, Faithfulness,” 408.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

243

evidence’ or ‘blind belief’ as the salient meaning of ‘faith.’ It is worth reviewing whether the biblical (especially Pauline) understanding of πίστις can sustain such meanings. Modern understanding of faith lays emphasis on its rational aspects, neglecting the relational aspect. There is a change in faith over the course of history, in that it becomes more superficial. Faith becomes the agreement that something exists. Faith in God is taken to mean agreement that God exists, without any relational sense of loving or respecting God. Given these heavily loaded meanings, to translate πίστις as ‘faith’ makes it vague. “All these concepts of faith have nothing to do with belief in the sense of believing whether certain things are true (cognitive agreement).”130 In the Pauline letters πίστις is not an idea held as true, rather it is a relational term. Thus, there is change in faith such that in the course of history it becomes superficial. Faith becomes the idea that you agree that something exists. Faith in God means to agree that God exists without having a necessary relational aspect of loving or respecting God. Carrying all these heavily loaded meanings, to translate πίστις as ‘faith’ makes it vague. Biblically πίστις is not an idea held as true. It is relational, something far more than intellectual acceptance. Through πίστις humans enter into fellowship with Christ and the merciful justice of God is conferred upon them.131 Just as personal trust in others develops gradually, so trust in God develops over time. That is what relationships do. Trust in the reliability and dependability of God develops over time, as the outcome of relationship with him. ‘Trust’ is shown as one of the meanings of πίστις in all the Greek lexica which we have checked. In contrast, most theological dictionaries consider ‘trust’ only as a synonym of ‘faith,’ if they consider it at all. In current English usage, trust means “faith or confidence in the loyalty, strength, vivacity etc., of a person or thing; reliance on the truth of a

130

131

Yung Suk Kim, ATheologicalIntroductiontoPaul’sLetters:ExploringaThreefold TheologyofPaul (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), 64. Indeed, the construction with πιστεύω ὅτι occurs only once (6:8) in Romans. In that sense, the meaning of the verb in Paul seems to be different from the Gospel of John where the construction πιστεύω εἰς is very close to πιστεύω ὅτι. On this point and the use of the verb in the Gospel of John see, Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, “Dan zijt gij waarlijk mijn leerlingen’ (Joh 8,31). Geloven vandaag in het licht van het Johannesevangelie,“ in DekerkinVlaanderen:avondofdageraad?, ed. Lieven Boeve (Leuven: Davidsfonds, 1999), 147. Cf. Hatch, PaulineIdeaofFaith, 57.

244

CHAPTER FIVE

statement etc. without examination.”132 Therefore, in religious contexts it can be taken to mean reliance on God. Taken in this sense, trust indicates that one has found a firm ground in God. It is informal, at the basis of humanity, less loaded. For a number of reasons, ‘trust’ may offer the best translation for πίστις in Romans. First, we need to consider how those who received the letter would have understood it. Paul does not define πίστις, but introduces it without explanation. There is no reason to believe that those who read him found the word hard to understand. As we have shown, ‘trust’ was already part of the classical Greek understanding of πιστεύειν. Paul’s readers did not distinguish between faithfulness, faith and trust. “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, pistis not only implying but emphasizing the reliability of the object.”133 By translating πίστις as ‘trust,’ we gain clarity. Second, Paul specifies the source of his πιστ- words. In the LXX passages which we analysed, the sense of trusting or having confidence is most noticeable. Paul develops πίστις out of the LXX use of trust in Yahweh, the core of Jewish piety. The letter to the Romans shows immediate interaction with some of the LXX texts that we examined in the previous section. Paul found πιστ- words – the noun in Hab 2:4 and the verb in Gen 15:6 – employed to describe the human relationship with God. Third, most translations of πιστ- words are misleading. The English translation of the verb is ‘to believe,’ the infinitive form of ‘belief.’ As Kim observes, one of the problems it creates is that “it can mean accepting certain doctrines or a set of teaching rather than an ongoing trusting relationship with God.”134 Translation of both noun and verb as ‘trust’ not only overcomes this misunderstanding, but also fits better with Paul’s style in Romans, where the noun and the verb usually occur next to one another, one sometimes replacing the other. The translation of ‘faith’ (noun), ‘believe’ (verb), ‘disbelief’ in negations and ‘faithfulness/trustworthiness’ when God is the subject is awkward. We propose to avoid that awkwardness by using ‘trust’ as the key term for both noun and verb, ‘distrust’ for negation and ‘trustworthiness’ when God is the subject. 132

133 134

OxfordShorterEnglishDictionary, 3411. This is only the first (and most common) of several listed current meanings. D. H. van Daalen, “’Faith’ According to Paul “ ExpT 87 (1975): 83-85, here 84. Kim, TheologicalIntroduction, 64.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

245

What, then, is the foundation of this trust? It is God’s absolute reliability or trustworthiness. ‘Trust’ is not an occasional attitude, but a firm confidence in the trustworthiness of God, based on previous experience of him. Some of Paul’s rhetorical questions of Paul in Romans bring home the point of the trustworthiness of God: “Will their distrust nullify the trustworthiness of God?” (3:3); “That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us?” (3:5); “Is there injustice in the part of God?” (9:14). In 11:1 Paul reopens the issue of trustworthiness of God by asking “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? Each of these questions receives Paul’s definite answer “By no means.” Furthermore, each question is clarified by quoting scripture. The emphasis is on the reliability of God. Therefore, for Paul πίστις is characterised by a theocentric thrust. It means πίστις in God/Christ. He urges the Romans to trust Christ, the representative of God. In our view, failure to grasp the source and the theocentric nature of πίστις underlies many of the disputes around the meaning of the term. To translate πίστις and its cognates as ‘trust’ makes sense in Romans. πίστις is used this way in the LXX and we have shown how Paul has carefully drawn on certain LXX passages in order to continue this meaning. In these, the sense of trusting or having confidence is strong. It is not that πίστις cannot mean ‘faith,’ but that in current usage faith means more than πίστις. Faith is widely understood as a technical term connected to religion, and in particular to institutional religion. The point is to get away from these contemporary connotations and complexities, and to use the Bible’s relational understanding of πίστις as trust in God. This translation may give us a more reliable guide to the meaning which Paul’s readers would have imputed to the term. 5.3 Πίστις

IN

ROMANS

In Romans πίστις occurs frequently.135 In comparison with the LXX, in Romans the term itself acquires central significance. In general, πιστwords occur in two blocks: in chapters 1-4; and in chapters 9-11. We will now examine the use of πίστις in the letter to see whether it means 135

It is used 42 times in Romans. In Pauline homologoumena we find 161 uses of πιστwords and they are found in all the seven undisputed letters. Whereas the noun πίστις is found 91 times, the verb πιστεύω is employed 42 times and the adjective πιστός only nine times. Cf. I. Howard Marshall, ed., MoultonandGeden:AConcordanceto theGreekNewTestament, 6th revised ed. (London: T&T Clark, 2002), 888.

246

CHAPTER FIVE

faithfulness, or faith (in the sense of rational assent), or human trust. We will also ask who is the subject of the πίστις: is it Christ/humans? In doing this, we will also see more clearly how the LXX has influenced Paul’s usage. Before considering Romans 1-4, where the disputed πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases are employed, we will give an overview of its use in the rest of the letter. In comparison to chapters 1-4, πίστις is used less frequently in the rest of Romans. Nevertheless, in Chapter 10 Paul elaborates on the term, stating that πίστις originates by hearing the word of Christ (10:17). The interchange of the verb for the noun in this chapter is particularly instructive. The first use of the verb in 10:4 “δικαιοσύνη is for all who trust (πιστεύω),” echoes Paul’s earlier phase “δικαιοσύνη from trust (ἐκ πίστεως)” (9:30, see also 1:17). The three uses of the noun alongside six uses of the verb suggest that they have a similar sense. The overall context in this section is that of human sinfulness and the need for justification. Particularly significant is 11:20: “They were broken off because of their ἀπιστία, but you stand only through πίστις.” If they do not persist in distrust God can graft them in again (11:23). In the same way as the root meaning of the term in the LXX, it states that humanity is broken off from the communion of God and can standfirm only through trust in God. Paul does not speak about Christ’s faithfulness in this section (Romans 9-11). Moreover, in 12:3 (μέτρον πίστεως)136 and 12:6 Paul speaks about God’s gift of πίστις by associating it to his mercy and grace. One of the significant citations in this section is that of Isa 28:16, in Rom 9:33. That Paul has the prepositional phrase ἐπ’ αὐτῷ, which is lacking in the MT, clearly shows that he is quoting the LXX. A significant question is whether the prepositional phrase ἐπ’ αὐτῷ in Romans should be understood as a reference to Christ137 or as reference to the gospel about Christ. The christological sense is likely, because Paul 136

137

A recent study by John K. Goodrich, “’Standard of Faith’ or Masure of a Trusteeship’? A Study of Romans 12:3,” CBQ 74 (2012): 753-772, suggests that this phrase shall not be rendered as a ‘standard of faith’ but as a ‘measure of trusteeship’ as referring to the “discrete charism that God allocates to each believer” (p. 772). For the traditional interpretation of the phrase as a ‘standard of faith’, see C. E. B. Cranfield, “μέτρον πίστεως in Rom 12:3,” NTS 8 (1962): 345-351. Some scholars support a messianic interpretation of Is 28:16 prior to Paul. See Cranfield, Romans, 2:511; Dunn, Romans, 2:584; Lohse, Der Brief an die Römer, 288; Jewett, Romans, 613. Against it Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 381, points out that at Qumran the passage was interpreted as referring to the “council of community” (1QS 8:7-8).

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

247

sometimes omits ‘in Christ’ when he talks about believers’ justification through πίστις (Rom 3:28, 30; 5:1).138 Moreover, when Isa 28:16 is quoted again in 10:11, ἐπ’ αὐτῷ clearly means ‘in Christ.’139 Christ is, therefore, the object of πίστις. This probably suggests that the ambiguity in 9:33 is meant to keep the readers in suspense.140 It further suggests that Paul neither alters the meaning nor the theocentric thrust of Isa 28:16. His call to ‘trust in Christ,’ based on Isa 28:16, reinforces our observation that in Romans ‘trust in Christ’ cannot be differentiated from ‘trust in God.’ In Romans πίστις is the short form of ‘πίστις in God.’ We now turn to uses of πίστις in chapters 1-4. Our ultimate concern is to clarify the term in Rom 3:21-26. The first use of the term in 1:5 is part of the purpose statement of the letter. The usage ὑπακοὴν πίστεως, which occurs both here and at the end of the letter (16:26), reveals the ultimate purpose of the gospel of God. Here πίστεως is genitive of opposition, meaning ‘πίστις that consists of obedience.’141 As Jewett rightly observes, the terms faith and obedience are interchangeable for Paul is problematic.142 Combined with ὑπο + ἀκοή (hearing under) it means the total submission of a person to God in Christ. The LXX uses ὑπακούω to render Hebrew ‫שׁ ַ ֣מע‬, ְ which implies a heedful or responsive hearing.143 Moreover, it may be linked to Paul’s statement in 10:17 that πίστις begins with ἀκοή. Thus Pauline understanding of πίστις is not an intellectual assent, but a commitment of oneself to God in Christ.144 Nor has it anything to do with obedient faith(fullness) of Christ. As the context makes clear, it is the human obedience of trust in the gospel. Rom 1:8, where ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν is used, clearly shows that the believers’ trust in God is in view. The context indicates that this expression may include the Gospel they have received. Here Paul thanks God, because their πίστις is known in the whole world. While many 138 139

140 141

142 143 144

Cf. Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 381. Cf. Dunn,Romans,2:584; Jewett, Romans, 613; Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 381. Lambrecht’s arguments that there is a break between Rom 3:33 and 10:1 are unconvincing. Cf. Lambrecht, “Caesura,” 141-147, esp. 143-144. Cf. Wagner, HeraldsoftheGoodNews, 156. Cf. Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 66-67; Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 50. Following Gerhard Friedrich, Schumacher, Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache, 223, argues that it shall not be translated as “Glaubensgehorsam” but with “Botschaft.” In his view, “εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ und ὑπακοὴν πίστεως – also: die ‘Botschaft’ von der πίστις – gegenseitig interpretieren, und πίστις wäre als die vertrauenvolle Zuwendung Gottes in Christus zu den Menschen zu verstehen.” Jewett, Romans, 110. Dunn, TheologyofPaul, 635. See also, Dunn, “Faith, Faithfulness,” 415. Cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 137.

248

CHAPTER FIVE

commentators understand it as Paul’s usual hyperbole,145 some have tried to show proof that this πίστις is known.146 This explains why in 1:12 Paul states his wish for mutual encouragement through each other’s trust (in God). Again, διὰ τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστεως ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ here clearly refers to the trust that Paul and believers have. The context indicates here that the trust in God that comes through hearing the gospel can strengthen them. The four occurrences of πίστις in 1:16-17 are of particular interest to us, since it is here that for the first time the word is combined with δικwords. We have already studied the Habakkuk quotation and have noted that each of the four occurrences of the term here must be understood as referring to the believers (not to Christ/God). It is sufficient for our present purpose to show that the expression ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν is significantly enlightening of Rom 3:22. This phrase has been understood in several ways.147 Against this understanding, we go by the suggestion of Rudolphus Cornely that it means ‘from faith to all who believe.’148 In our view, this clause can be better translated as ‘from trust to trust.’ This then becomes an idiom of emphasis. Furthermore, it creates a parallel with Rom 3:22. As Adolf Schlatter notes, the preposition ἐκ speaks of “woher die Bewegung kommt” whereas the preposition εἰς shows “wohin sie führt.”149 Benjamin Schliesser has recently taken up this point and further elaborated it: 145 146

147

148

149

See similar expressions in Rom 16:19; 2 Cor 2:14 and 1 Thess 1:8. Peter Lampe’s observation regarding the ancient historical realities shed light on why Paul appreciates their faith. “Several Roman Christians during the first century sold themselves into slavery in order to finance the support of Christian brothers and sisters. This illustrates the necessity for social action-there were many needy among the Romans Christians.” Peter Lampe, “The Roman Christians of Romans 16,” in The RomansDebate:RevisedandExpandedEdition, ed. Karl P. Donfried (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 52. Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 62, notes that their faith has been known in places such as Corinth and Ephesus where Roman Christians were exiled. “From less faith to more” (Sanday and Headlam, EpistletotheRomans, 28); “from (God’s) faithfulness to (human) faith” (Barth, Epistle to the Romans, 41; Dunn, Romans1-8, 44, 48; Talbert, Romans, 41). A recent study, Quarles, “From Faith to Faith,” 1-21, argues that it denotes a movement “from faith of the Old Testament believer to the faith of the New Testament believer.” Against this, Hultgren, Letterto theRomans, 77, opines that it means “perceived by faith (ἐκ πίστεως), and directed to faith (εἰς πίστιν).” The four more likely ways of understanding the phrase are summarised by Hultgren. Rudolphus Cornely, Commentarius in S. Pauli Apostoli Epistolas, vol. 1 (Paris: Lethielleux, 1896), 71. This view is later reinforced by Hill, GreekWords, 157. Adolf Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit: Ein Kommentar zum Römerbrief (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1959), 42.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

249

(O)nly if this power is perceived as his manifesting the salvation-historical reality of faith in the Christ-event (ἐκ) and as his disclosing the salvation-historical possibility for the individual to participate in that reality as part of the community of believers(εἰς), we can comprehend the whole breath of Paul’s notion of πίστις.150

What Paul wants to show in the letter is that the gospel is for all who trust in God. The Habakkuk quotation, which is a subordinate clause in the sentence (introduced with καθὼς γέγραπται), supports this meaning. It is unlikely that Paul means two different things in the same sentence, at least not without explanation. Since 1:16-17, πίστις has almost always been combined with δικwords.151 We have seen in the previous chapter that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is more widely accepted in recent scholarship in its relational aspect. This relational aspect suggests that πίστις in this section is human πίστις and that it is this relation that helps us stand firm. It is a human response to God, who is manifested in Christ. Paul is not making a shift in the meaning of πίστις, rather he is borrowing both πίστις and δικ- words from the LXX. He is now expanding them, to reveal the divine-human dimensions of human salvation. All the more, this combination is surrounded by Paul’s description of human sinfulness (1:19-3:20). πίστις then becomes human response towards God’s initiative in Christ. Despite human fall/alienation through sin, we can stand firm once we respond to this divine initiative. In Rom 3:3 Paul uses τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ, which is clearly a subjective genitive and can be translated as God’s trustworthiness. This expression is found nowhere else in the Pauline writings. This use of the term followed by ἀπιστία stresses the importance of the reliability of God despite of human distrust. In contrast to πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases, the article is employed here. We need to keep in mind that “the attempt to merge the concepts of “faithfulness” and “faith” are equivalent to fusing subject and object, and thus lead only to confusion.”152 This expression means that God is always trustworthy. We can follow Dunn: “(w)hat Paul is calling for throughout Romans is for faith in God’s faithfulness,

150 151

152

Schliesser, Abraham’sFaith, 5. Rom 3:3-4; 3:22, 25; 26, 27-28, 30-31; 4:3, 5, 9, 11-12, 13-14, 20-22; 5:1. It is to be noted that all of the seven disputed πίστις Χριστοῦ occurrences in Pauline corpus have δικ- words in contexts. Seifrid, “The Faith of Christ,” 130, note 2.

250

CHAPTER FIVE

faith like that of Abraham, faith in the one who now embodies in eschatological fullness that faithfulness, God’s faithfulness, not Christ’s.”153 We need to consider the connection between 3:2 and 3:3. The former states the Jewish benefit of possessing the Scriptures. There is a word play with the πιστ- words in these verses. The positive statement with the verb πιστεύω is followed by ἀπιστεύω and the negative statement with the noun ἀπιστία follows πίστις.154 Paul also uses ἀπιστία in 4:20 when he states that Abraham did not waver into distrust. Paul may not mean different things by using the same stem. Our proposal to translate these terms as entrust + distrust + distrust + trustworthiness can overcome the awkwardness in translation. By repetition Paul wants to lay stress on the trustworthiness of God. Thus God’s trustworthiness in entrusting the people with scriptures stands, despite their distrust. This is set in direct contrast to the human ἀπιστία. This trustworthiness of God is further substantiated by the quote in 3:4. πίστις of God correlates with the principle theme of the letter, God’s δικαιοσύνη.155 Our analysis has shown that in the LXX, God’s δικαιοσύνη often functions as a synonym for ‘πίστις of God.’ Thus Paul’s use of πίστις is characterised by two nuances. When he speaks of God’s πίστις, he means God’s trustworthiness. When he speaks of human πίστις, the primary meaning seems to be ‘trust.’ In the words of Cranfield, πίστις is the “openness to the gospel which God Himself creates, the human response of surrender to the judgment and unmerited mercy of God which God Himself brings about.”156 In the key passage of Rom 3:27-31, πίστις occurs five times. The exegetical question is whether πίστις here has the same meaning as the previous section. Further, this pericope is a bridge passage which it “reflects back on the former and anticipates the latter.”157 It prepares the reader to understand the faith of Abraham in the following section. The antithesis between Law and πίστις is the main theme here. The question is, which of these establishes one in a right relation to God? The use of πίστις in 3:28 cannot mean a mere virtue or a power from within. As Hultgren notes, “it can mean only a trust that looks away from the self, turning to God alone as the one who sets the relationship right by means

153 154 155 156 157

Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” 77. These negations do not occur anywhere else in Pauline corpus, but only in Romans. Cf. Dunn, “Faith, Faithfulness,” 410. Cranfield, EpistletotheRomans, 90. Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 167.

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

251

of the atoning work he has done in the crucified Christ.”158 Thus it becomes a means for everyone (Jews and Gentiles) to access God. Chapter 4 is a crucial part of Paul’s discussion of πίστις. We propose that he has carefully structured the chapter to argue one central point. We begin by observing an inclusion: in 4:3 Paul quotes Gen 15:3, which states “Abraham trusted and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; 4:24, which concludes the chapter, tells us that statement in: “[πίστις] will be reckoned to us who trust in him [God].” That this is the point of the whole chapter is confirmed by four observations: (1) The verbal form in the quote is replaced with πίστις when it is repeated. This enables Paul to convey that the force of the noun is derived from the verb. (2) Right through 4:5, 9, 11, 22, 23 and 24, Paul keeps on writing that “πίστις was reckoned.” This shows πίστις as a gift of God, which comes through human relationship with God. This is in continuity with 3:24. The verbal forms stress the need for human acceptance or response to God’s initiative. πίστις itself is conferred freely. (3) Paul moves from showing how and why δικαιοσύνη was reckoned to Abraham, to argue that God reckons the same πίστις to everyone and so justifies them (4:13-25). For Paul, those who trust in the promises of God are the true descendents of Abraham. (4) The inclusion conveys the theocentric focus of πίστις: Abraham trusted in God (4:3) and we trust in Him (4:24). The role of Jesus as a mediator is clearly revealed in 4:24-25. Taking stock of the results of our analysis of πίστις in Romans, we note its implications for the meaning of the πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases in Rom 3:22, 26. Seeing πίστις as a gift clarifies the question of the manifestation of God’s merciful justice through πίστις in 3:22. πίστις in Romans is the short form of ‘πίστις in God.’ It is derived from the OT quotations. Our analysis also reveals the semantic link between noun and verb and reinforces the meaning of trust for πίστις. This is all the more relevant in 3:22, where both noun and verb occur. It can be better understood against 1:17, where it means ‘from trust to trust.’ The emphatic statement reveals the divine-human dimensions of πίστις. Whereas the human dimension of this relational term is more evident in the verb, the divinegift aspect is stressed in the noun. In addition, we have observed that the term is combined with δικ- words, which is further surrounded by the 158

Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 169.

252

CHAPTER FIVE

context of human sinfulness. These associations are also the typical characteristics of the term in Rom 3:21-26, suggesting that Paul had in mind the same meaning as in the quoted texts. Above all, this examination confirms our argument that Scripture is the key to unlock this dispute. CONCLUSION Our examination of the meaning of πίστις and the πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases has yielded a wide array of insights. We have addressed the challenges raised by christological readers of πίστις Χριστοῦ. We proposed the clause μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν in Rom 3:21 as the key to the disputes around πίστις Χριστοῦ. This led us to ask where the revelation of the δικαιοσύνη of God might be attested in Scripture. We suggested that Paul was alluding to the opening words of the letter and two scriptural quotations. Our discussion of these two quotations and of the context showed that the central message of Rom 3:2126 is not what Christ or humans have done, but that God has manifested his merciful justice by justifying all who trust in Jesus Christ. The insistence, therefore, is on trust in Christ, in whom God is definitively revealed. Hence the stress is not on the behaviour of Christ, but on divine revelation. We have also observed that the πίστις Χριστοῦ dispute has been overly concerned with the meaning of the genitive. We focused rather on the meaning and source of the Pauline πίστις. Accordingly, we examined the meaning of πίστις in the LXX where it has several distinct meanings, but where there is a remarkable consistency when πιστ- words stands for the Hebrew hiphil form of ‫אמן‬, meaning ‘cause/make one stand firm.’ It is the association with the hiphil form, especially with the prepositions -‫ ב‬or -‫ל‬, that leads to the religious development of the πιστ- words. It is this word choice of the LXX, and the strong relational sense evident in the πιστ- words when it stands for the hiphil form, that seems to have influenced Paul. In the light of the LXX, Paul’s exclusive use of πιστwords in reference to God/Christ is highly informative. His careful choice of OT texts with an exclusively theocentric thrust shows the remarkable continuity between the OT and Romans. That Christ is at times the object of πίστις does not go against this theocentric thrust. Rather, it means πίστις in God through Christ. Thus we can trust in God, or we can trust in Christ, who represents God. Our study has also shown that Paul does not make a significant shift in the meaning of the πιστ- words, but rather

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ AND ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, ΧΡΙΣTΟΥ DEBATE

253

gives them a central place in the human relation to God, a place which becomes decisive. On this basis we have established that the πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases in Romans may be read anthropologically. Given the semantic relation between the noun and the verb, that Paul elsewhere substitutes a noun for the verb, and that Christ never occurs as the subject of the verb, it is clear that πίστις in Rom 3:22, 26 cannot refer to Christ’s faith(fullness). Rather πίστις in Rom 3:22, 26, as Barth notes, is “the radically new disposition of the man who stands naked before God and has been wholly impoverished that he may procure the one peal of great price.”159 We then moved on to the debate on the English translation of πίστις. We suggested that it could be better translated by ‘trust’ than by ‘faith.’ It is not that πίστις cannot mean faith, but that in current usage faith means more than, or something different from πίστις. We proposed that ‘trust’ does justice to the LXX texts that Paul quotes and explains in Romans, and that it helps to avoid reading the later developments of ‘faith’ into Paul. This relational trust, then, is the means for everyone to participate in Christ. It is to be understood as opposed to the law that discriminates. For Paul, πίστις is the means through which ‘all’ can enter into communion with God.

159

Barth, EpistletotheRomans, 98.

CHAPTER SIX

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST IN ROM 3:24 We have seen in the first chapter that the noun ἀπολύτρωσις in Rom 3:24 is interpreted in different ways. Whereas some scholars insist that the thought of a ransom paid (cf. λύτρον), Deissmann relates ἀπολύτρωσις to the Greco-Roman practice of freeing slaves by writ of manumission. Against these, some scholars argue that ἀπολύτρωσις reflects a broader biblical notion of ‘liberation’ or ‘deliverance,’ often expressed with the verb λυτρόω. To get clarity on the meaning, we undertake a comprehensive study of the all the uses of the disputed term. Semantically, the compound noun ἀπολύτρωσις is derived from λύτρον, which in turn is to be traced back to the verb λύειν with a general meaning ‘to loose’ or, when applied to persons, ‘release or set free.’ With the use of the suffix –τρον, λύτρον can signify either ‘the means of releasing’ or ‘the price of releasing.’1 However, in the classical Greek literature this term or its cognates maintains a sense of ‘ransoming.’ The noun λύτρωσις, which is rare in extra-biblical literature, is used with and without ransom connotation.2 Similarly the verb ἀπολυτρόω is also rare and is used in extra-biblical literature with and without ransom connotation.3 The meanings of this compound noun (ἀπο)λύτρωσις can be

1

2

3

Cf. Hill, GreekWords, 49. He also makes a short description of its meaning with the use of the suffix–τρον, which denotes the instrument or means, and the process of wordformation. For the emimology and its relation to λυω, see Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire Etymologique De La Langue Grecque: Histoire Des Mots (Paris: Klincksieck, 1968), 652. LSJ, 1067, cites only three occurrences: “Plut. Aratus II (ransoming); PTeb. 120.41 (redemption of a pledge); POxy. 130.20 (release or discharge from an obligation).” In the LXX, it occurs eight times. The four instances in the Pentateuch maintain a literal sense connoting ‘ransom.’ However, this sense is not present in the four uses outside Pentateuch. See LSJ, 208. In our analysis of extra-biblical literature we shall take up some of these occurrences.

256

CHAPTER SIX

derived either from the active voice – release by ransom, or from the middle – ransoming/redemption.4 To our knowledge, the specific contexts of the uses of ἀπολύτρωσις in Greco-Roman writings have not been the subject of serious research. It is often simply assumed that, in the extra-biblical literature, ἀπολύτρωσις always implies ‘ransom.’ Challenging this contention, we will show that there are at least two different lines of meaning in these writings. If we suspect that at least few instances in the NT are without any ransom connotation, it would be very helpful if we could establish whether and where we can find similar usage. Can we assume that ἀπολύτρωσις has a uniform meaning in the extra-biblical literature? How far are GrecoRoman writings helpful in understanding the meaning of the term in Paul? With these questions in mind, we will now examine the uses of ἀπολύτρωσις outside Rom 3:24, before turning a detailed study of the meaning and background of the term in Rom 3:24. 6.1 THE USE OF ἀπολύτρωσις OUTSIDE ROM 3:24 It is generally accepted that the noun λύτρον in classical literature means a ransom. Since the compound noun ἀπολύτρωσις is rarely used in extrabiblical literature (8 times) and the LXX (only in Dan 4:34), scholars have focused on λύτρον or its cognates in their analysis and have generally sought for a uniform meaning for all the ten occurrences of ἀπολύτρωσις in the NT. We do not find any use of ἀπολύτρωσις in the classical Greek literature. Hence, our focus will be to find out if there are any instances where it is used in a general or metaphorical sense. We will begin by examining its only use in the LXX and issues relating to its scriptural background. We will then continue by examining its uses in the extra-biblical literature. 6.1.1 The Use of ἀπολύτρωσις in the LXX The substantive ἀπολύτρωσις occurs only once in the LXX, in the Old Greek version of Daniel 4:34. There is no corresponding passage in the Hebrew Massoretic Text. The Old Greek text reads as follows:

4

Cf. Kertelge, “’Απολύτρωσις,” 138.

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

257

καὶ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐτῶν ὁ χρόνος μου τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως ἦλθε καὶ αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μου καὶ αἱ ἄγνοιαί μου ἐπληρώθησαν ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.

Theodotion-Daniel, which follows the Aramaic version, does not attest this word. The LXX text describes how, after seven years, the time of ἀπολύτρωσις came (to Nebuchadnezzar). ἀπολύτρωσις here stands for redemption from sin. It also signifies Nebuchadnezzar’s recovery from illness. After a long description of the situation of Nebuchadnezzar, it is said that the time of his ἀπολύτρωσις came. There is nothing in the context that describes anything he has done to be delivered. Rather, it is God who delivers him after the stipulated time. It is only after his deliverance that Nebuchadnezzar praises God and decides to serve the Lord. This rules out understanding ἀπολύτρωσις as ransom. What, then, is its connotation here? The same sentence, following the conjunction καί, goes on to describe what ἀπολύτρωσις means, explaining that his sins and ignorance (ἄγνοια) are completed. His redemption is therefore related to his sins, referring to all his wrong doings and injustice (4:24) and his ignorance, standing for pride and failure to recognize God. The use of ἀπολύτρωσις in Dan 4:34 does not simply mean deliverance. To our mind, there are two dimensions of ἀπολύτρωσις described in this passage. It refers both to redemption from sin and ignorance, and to recovery from illness. These dimensions are connected: the illness is caused by sins and ignorance. Once Nebuchadnezzar is ‘delivered,’ he is free from both. What this means is described in 4:36: “my kingdom was restored to me, and my glory was given back to me.” His redemption can therefore also be understood as the restoration of his former state. δόξα is important here (4:29, 30, 31, 36). Starting from walking in all his glory (4:29), he loses that glory (4:30, 31), only to have it restored later (4:36). Hence, redemption can be understood here as regaining the lost glory. Without his glory, Nebuchadnezzar is in a state of isolation, living like an animal. Restoring glory means returning to the human situation. Thus, this is a clear metaphorical usage of ἀπολύτρωσις without any nuance of ransom payment. There are a number of aspects of this ἀπολύτρωσις that are useful in the context of Romans 3. First, it is God who delivers Nebuchadnezzar after a period of seven years. Second, his deliverance is related to his sins. Third, it is related to restoring the lost glory. Fourth, it is relational, that is, it brings him to communion with God. Finally, the context of the usage is not one of slavery. This context shows that it is not possible to append any idea of ransom to this passage.

258

CHAPTER SIX

A few verses earlier, at Dan 4:27, λύτρωσαι is used to address King Nebuchadnezzar. The Greek text reads: δεήθητι περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν σου καὶ πάσας τὰς ἀδικίας σου ἐν ἐλεημοσύναις λύτρωσαι. The King is asked to supplicate to God concerning his sins and be atoned from injustice by good works. Although this has figured in disputes between Catholics and Protestants over ‘salvation by good works,’ this moral exhortation was probably concerned with what can be demanded of a pagan.5 When compared with Romans 3, we have here three significant concepts: sin, redemption and injustice. In Hill’s opinion, an interpretation that claims that the practice of righteousness is the ransom-price paid by the king for his deliverance6 “is to give to the interpretation of the value of Nebuchadnezzar’s changed attitude a precision which the words ἐν ἐλεημοσύναις λύτρωσαι will scarcely sustain.”7 Hence, the immediate context and the cognate verb clearly favour an understanding of ἀπολύτρωσις as deliverance. The compound verb ἀπολυτρόω is used twice in the LXX, at Ex 21:8 and Zeph 3:1. At Ex 21:8, it is used in the context of selling and releasing a slave. Because of this context, it is often argued that it implies payment for release.8 However, a close look at the context shows that the sense is not of release on payment. Quite the opposite, the whole discussion in the context is how a slave can be released without payment (δωρεάν). Accordingly 21:2 says that a male servant shall be released after seven years without any payment (δωρεάν). In the case of a female (a daughter), however, 21:8 states that if she is not pleasing to the master, he has no right to sell her, but she should be released. Even in such situation, if he has made any promises the master has to fulfil them (21:910), otherwise she shall go free without payment (21:11). With no money involved in the context, the accurate translation of ἀπολυτρόω here will be ‘release’ or ‘let go.’ The other passage that uses ἀπολυτρόω is Zeph 3:1. Here the negative description in the following verses (3:2-4) makes clear that the city in question is Jerusalem. The phrase ἡ ἐπιφανὴς καὶ ἀπολελυτρωμένη ἡ πόλις is translated as ‘the glorious and ransomed city.’ However the context, apart from adding a negative tone, does not 5

6 7 8

Cf. James A. Montagomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ICC (Edinburgh: Clark, 1964), 238. So Warfield, “Terminology of Redemption,” 218-219; Morris, ApostolicPreaching, 11. Hill, GreekWords, 64. For example, Hill, GreekWords, 64, argues that that here “the verb ‫ וְ ֶה ְפ ָ ֑דּהּ‬is translated ἀπολυτρώσει αὐτήν, which probably means ‘he shall release her on receipt of a ransom.”

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

259

add any more explanation and we do not have any further clues about the nuance of the word, except to note that the context is not one of slavery. We now come to the use of the verb λυτρόω. This plays a significant role in the LXX. It is the special term for Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. We have already seen how scholars have argued that this term is central to an understanding of Paul’s use of ἀπολύτρωσις. The LXX translators used λυτρόω to render the Hebrew verbs ‫ נצל‬and ‫פדה‬. What is typical of their use of the verb is that often the original meaning associated with ‘ransom’ gives way to a more general sense of ‘deliver’ or ‘rescue.’9 This trend is particularly strong in those passages in the Psalms and Isaiah where λυτρόω is used to address Yahweh as redeemer: Isa 41:14; 43:14; 44:24; Ps 43:27; 102:4. Still more striking in these books is the people’s repeated plea to be ‘delivered in God’s δικαιοσύνη.’ We have already examined in chapter 4 how important are those texts in understanding the meaning God’s δικαιοσύνη in Rom 3:21-26. Although often used with other redemption terms, deliverance through God’s δικαιοσύνη is a significant theme in these books. But it is those texts where λυτρόω is associated with God’s δικαιοσύνη (Ps 70:23-24; Isa 45:13; 51:8-11) that deserves particular attention. Considering that these books are frequently cited in Romans, Paul’s awareness of this semantic development cannot be doubted. The verb is most often used to describe God’s deliverance of his people from bondage in Egypt or Babylon, without any question of payment. This usage, central to the OT, cannot be easily discarded. As we conclude this stage of our discussion of the LXX background of ἀπολύτρωσις, we recall that its only usage at Dan 4:34 does not carry a ransom connotation. As we do not find any usage of the term in the classical Greek, this usage can be considered the oldest attested one. It is important to perceive the semantic development of the term in the LXX, especially with the verb λυτρόω. This LXX background, especially the deliverance from Egypt, would have contributed to this. We propose that this significant development is reflected not only in the NT but also in some of the extra-biblical writings. We will now examine how ἀπολύτρωσις is used in extra-biblical literature.

9

Ex 6:6 is good example. See also Ex 13:15; 15:13; Deut 7:8; 13:5; 15:15; 24:18; 2 Sam 4:9; 7:23; 1 Chr 17:21; 2 Esd 11:10 (LXX); Zech 10:8; Ps 25:22; 77:15; 105:10; 129:8; Isa 44:23; 63:9. See also the references to deliverances from Babylon in Isa 51:11; 52:3.

260

CHAPTER SIX

6.1.2 Ἀπολύτρωσις in Greco-Roman Writings As we have seen, scholars have tended to insist either that ἀπολύτρωσις means ‘ransom,’ citing the extra-biblical background, or to argue for a general meaning of ‘deliverance,’ on the basis of the LXX background. However, whereas λύτρον (ransom) is common in extra-biblical literature, the compound noun ἀπολύτρωσις is only found eight times. Scholarship has therefore focused on λύτρον as holding the key to its cognates and has generally sought a uniform meaning for the eight occurrences of ἀπολύτρωσις. It is therefore worthwhile to establish whether ἀπολύτρωσις is indeed used in the sense of λύτρον; and especially whether the thought of ‘ransom paid’ is present. We must therefore examine each occurrence in its context, clarifying whether it is used metaphorically or literally. In what follows we shall show that not all the Greco-Roman uses of ἀπολύτρωσις carry the sense of ‘ransom.’ Whereas the classical sense associated with λύτρον continued to influence some of the writings, there seems to be a development in meaning elsewhere in the biblically-inspired writings, where it is used to convey general deliverance. 6.1.2.1 UseswithRansomMeaning Plutarch’s account of the ravages caused by pirates (Pompey 24.5 [631])10 uses ἀπολύτρωσις in describing their destructive activities. He relates how pirates possessing more than a thousand ships captured four hundred cities, attacking and plundering sanctuaries and places of refuge. He then goes on to relate their excesses, “their flutes and stringed instruments and drinking bouts along every coast” being accompanied by “their kidnapping of important persons and their ransoming of captive cities” which he considers to be “an insult to the Roman management” (πόλεων αἰχμαλώτων ἀπολυτρώσεις ὄνειδος ἦσαν τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίας). 11 ἀπολύτρωσις is here shown by its immediate context to denote ‘ransom.’ Since the whole discussion is about the negative activities of pirates, it cannot have the meaning of deliverance. In this same description, we find

10

11

Plutarchus Chaeronensis, PlutarqueVie, trans. Robert Flacelière, vol. 8 (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1973), 192-193. Loeb Edition: Plutarch’sLives, 175. According to this edition, ἀπολύτρωσις occurs in 24.4.

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

261

the only use of the verb ἀπολυτρόω in Plutarch (Pompey 24.10).12 This usage stands for pirates demanding ransom money for the daughter of Antonius. The occurrence of the term next to χρῆμα clearly indicates release on receiving ransom. ’Απολύτρωσις is used twice in ‘The Letter of Aristeas’ (12 and 33).13 Although they speak about deliverance of captives of war, the wider context seems to concern payment. Thus section 12 relates to the emancipation of Jewish slaves who had been abducted from Judaea (περὶ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῶν μετηγμένων ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας). Similarly in section 20, ἀπολύτρωσις could be translated as emancipation or deliverance, for it speaks of a letter concerning the emancipation of captives. However, sections 20 and 22 state that the owner should receive 20 drachmas “deliverance money,” and so these uses of ἀπολύτρωσις may also imply ransom. Josephus uses ἀπολύτρωσις in Antiquitatesjudaicae 12.27. The context is Aristaeus’ request to the king to set his Jewish captives free. The king agrees to release all the captives on Aristaeus’ paying the soldiers’ wages. Accordingly, Aristaeus pays more than four hundred talents as the cost of redeeming (πλειόνων δ’ ἢ τετρακοσίων ταλάντων τὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως γενήσεσθαι φαμένων, ταῦτα τε συνεχώρει). This is clearly a ransom payment and ἀπολύτρωσις relates to the ‘cost of release,’ an extension of the meaning of λύτρον. His use of the compound verb ἀπολυτρόω inBellumjudaicum 2.273 also maintains an idea of ransom. A further occurrence of ἀπολύτρωσις is to be found in Diodorus (Fragments 37.5.3).14 This usage is in the context of his description of Scaevola, a noble governor, who wanted to maintain justice incorruptible and exact. Diodorus describes a slave’s agreement with his master to pay the ransom money for his freedom. However, Scaevola interfered in the case and, anticipating the ransoming (φθάσας τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν), had him crucified. Here ἀπολύτρωσις could mean ‘release on payment,’ almost the same as λύτρον. The reason why he was crucified was that he might be about to pay money to his master for his release. Whatever our 12

13

14

Plutarque Vie, 193. In the Loeb Translation, with a different numbering it occurs at 24.6: καὶ πολλῶν καὶ χρημάτων ἀπελυτρώθη. Henry G. Meecham, TheLetterofAristeas:ALinguisticStudywithSpecialReference totheGreekBible (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935), 6, 10. The related verb is used in same letter, 20. Diodorus Siculus, DiodorusSiculusFragments, vol. 12, trans. Francis R. Walton, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), 204.

262

CHAPTER SIX

feelings about the main events, a ransom implication is quite evident Diodorus’ use of ἀπολύτρωσις. In short, the forgoing instances of ἀπολύτρωσις maintain a ransom connotation. They can be considered as the extension of the meaning of λύτρον. What is more important is that each of these uses is in the context of slavery. In our opinion, there is another trend that does not follow the line of the classical meaning of λύτρον, rather seems to be inspired by the biblical writings. We shall now examine those usages without any explicit connotation of ransom. 6.1.2.2 UseswithoutRansomNuance An inscription at Cos uses ἀπολύτρωσις without any denotation of ransom, in religious ordinances concerning the sale of priesthood. The fragment reads: δέλτο[ν δόντω τοῖς ποιοῦσι τὰν ἀ]πελευθέρσιν, μηδὲ πιο[εύντω τὰν ἀναγραφὰν τ]ᾶς ἀπολυτρώσιος αἵ κα μὴ ὁ ἱερ[εὺς ἀπαγγείλῃ τὰν θ] υσίαν ἐπιτετελέσθαι.15

This clause immediately follows the use of ἀπελευθέρωσις, which is more often used in the inscription. Thus, ἀπολύτρωσις is used here in parallel to ἀπελευθέρωσις. Deissmann, who observes this, does not see ransom meaning here: “It is called first ἀπελευθέρωσις, and then ἀπολύτρωσις: those who perform the ἀπελευθέρωσις are not to make formal record of the ἀπολύτρωσις until the priests have reported that the necessary sacrifice has been made.”16 Zahn notes that ἀπολύτρωσις is used “neben ἀπελευθέρωσις für Emancipation von Sklaven.”17 He suggests that general deliverance is intended here. Dodd, who also argues that the word means here a general ‘emancipation,’ goes further to argue that the Inscription of Cos “is the basis of Paul’s usage.”18 Perhaps it is the overall context of slavery that led to a misconception of the term as connoting ‘ransom.’ Other than this context, there is nothing in the text that implies a ‘ransom.’ Being used in parallel to ἀπελευθέρωσις, which stands for ‘freedom’ in many places in the same inscription, 15

16

17

18

William R. Paton and E. L. Hicks, TheInscriptionsofCos (Oxford: Clarendon, 1891), 52, no. 29. Deissmann, LightfromtheAncientEast, 327, note 6. He notes that it is used to describe sacral manumission. Theodor Zahn, DerBriefdesPaulusandieRömer, 3 ed., KNT 6 (Leipzig: Deichert, 1925), 182, note 51. Dodd, Romans, 53-54.

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

263

ἀπολύτρωσις here means a general deliverance. This is a clear case of the use of the term without denoting ransom. ’Απολύτρωσις is twice found in Philo. In Prob. 114, in the context of interior freedom independent of external circumstances, he describes death in combat endured for the sake of freedom. In this context, he speaks of a courageous Laconian boy, taken captive, who considered death preferable to slavery. The text says, therefore, “despairing of any deliverance, he cheerfully slew himself” (ἀπογνοὺς ἀπολύτρωσιν, ἄσμενος ἑαυτὸν δειχπήσατο, Prob. 114).19 There is nothing in the context that implies an idea of ransoming. However, Morris translates it as ‘ransom.’20 If ἀπολύτρωσις is to imply here a ‘ransom,’ it will destroy the whole argument. It then goes against the purpose of Philo’s description that exalts the nobility of the person. The boy does not accept to be a slave. So talk of a ransom is completely out of context. The text does not address payment, but the virtue of dying for freedom. Philo also uses ἀπολύτρωσις in Congr. 109, an example that is often overlooked.21 This speaks of Abraham’s supplication for Sodom and is mainly concerned with the sacred number, ten, the token of righteousness. Abraham’s intercession begins by asking that if fifty righteous were to be found, the city might be amnestied; and continues until only ten righteous would suffice, which is ἡ τελευταία ἀπολύτρωσις, the termination or ending of redemption. Although Morris regards the number ten as ransom,22 the context does not favour his reading. Indeed, ransom would destroy the story. ἀπολύτρωσις is used here as a stylistic variation of ἄφεσις, along with ἀμνηστία, the three being used as synonyms. For the text first says that the city might receive amnesty if at least ten righteous are found and concludes that the lack of them closes the possibility of deliverance. The emphasis is on Abraham’s effort to deliver the city, not on payment and ἀπολύτρωσις stands for deliverance or redemption. It is to be noted that this occurrence of ἀπολύτρωσις is not in the context 19

20

21

22

Translation from C. D. Yonge, TheWorksofPhilo:CompletedandUnabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 693. Lyonnet, “The Terminology of Redemption,” 87, also understands ἀπολύτρωσις here in a general sense of ‘liberation’ without any nuance of payment. Morris, ApostolicPreaching, 17. The Loeb edition (Philo, 75) too translates it as ‘ransoming.’ It is probably because of the context of slavery that may easily lead to such misunderstanding. But the wider context of the text clarifies that the talk in not about payment to gain freedom. BDAG, 117, does not mention this occurrence. Similarly, LSJ, 208, does not consider this occurrence. See Morris, ApostolicPreaching, 17.

264

CHAPTER SIX

of slavery. Philo also uses the compound verb ἀπολυτρόω once, in Leg. 3.21, clearly without any ransom meaning. What conclusions can we draw from this analysis of the extra-biblical occurrences of ἀπολύτρωσις? There are four: – First, ‘release’ could be the salient meaning of ἀπολύτρωσις, with ‘ransom’ becoming optional. – Second, at least one usage in Philo shows that it is not only used in the context of the slave-market. – Third, since ἀπολύτρωσις is used both with and without ‘ransom’ meaning, the claim that it has a uniform meaning in extra-biblical literature cannot be sustained. – Forth, the idea of purchase, as it has been argued, is not central to ἀπολύτρωσις. As our analysis shows, in most cases there is no suggestion of the released person becoming the property of someone else. This has significant implications to Pauline usage in Romans, where some view that we are purchased by Christ’s blood. – Last, this analysis shows that the term can be used in both a literal and a metaphorical sense, which must be discerned from the context. Most significantly, we have shown that ἀπολύτρωσις in extra-biblical literature can mean a general deliverance, without any nuance of ransom. This aspect has not received sufficient attention from scholars, for it can have a significant impact with regard to the background and meaning of the term. Nor does the slave-market provide the exclusive background to its use. On this basis, we argue that there are two distinctive uses of ἀπολύτρωσις: those that continue the classical Greek sense of λύτρον; and the biblically-inspired use as general deliverance. The question is, which of these might have influenced Paul. The Greco-Roman writings indicate some development in the meaning of the word. It is our contention that Paul was part of that development. Are other NT writers also part of this new development in the meaning of the term? With these questions in mind, we now turn to consider the term in the NT. 6.1.3 The Usage in the Pauline Homologoumena In the Pauline homologoumena, ἀπολύτρωσις occurs three times. Of these, only Rom 3:24 is in the context of Christ’s death. Nevertheless, the two other instances, in Rom 8:23 and 1 Cor 1:30 must be taken into consideration, not least because of the ambiguity in Rom 3:24. We now

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

265

examine the other instances, to see if they can contribute to understanding its nuances in Rom 3:24. Those who argue for a ransom connotation in Rom 3:24 maintain that the two uses in Romans are different.23 But is it likely that Paul would use a rare word with two different senses in the same letter? Let us turn to Rom 8:23 for a closer examination. The text at Rom 8:23 reads: υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν. In this clause, the hoped-for redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις) is specified as ἀπολύτρωσις τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν. This ‘redemption ofour bodies’24 is quite unlike the other uses of ἀπολύτρωσις. Being a metaphorical usage, it could be understood in association with Paul’s earlier statement: “Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (7:24-25). In 6:6 Paul speaks of the destruction of the sinful body (σῶμα) by crucifying it with Christ. In fact, each mention of σῶμα until 8:23 associates it with sin or death.25 This sheds light on the meaning of σῶμα in 8:23.26 It refers to weak and sinful human body that has fallen short of the glory of God. Moreover, the use of ἀπολύτρωσις in 8:23 has to be understood in relation to the key verb, ἐλευθερόω, and noun, ἐλευθερία, in 8:21. It refers to a complete redemption of the human person in the future by our adoption as the children of God that will also overthrow our present sufferings. This usage implies that our acceptance into God’s family (υἱοθεσία) and the redemption of our body are similar. While 8:21 describes the hope of the whole creation to obtain the freedom of the glory of 23

24

25

26

So Warfield, “Terminology of Redemption,” 218-219; Morris, Apostolic Preaching, 38-41. As we have already discussed in detail, the assumption of a different sense for the term in 3:24 is partly because of the assumption of Paul’s use of pre-Pauline material in 3:24-26 (See pp. 107-114). Cf. Kertelge, “’Απολύτρωσις,” 139. He shows that τοῦ σώματος cannot mean from bodies taking it as a genitive of separation. Contra: Lietzmann, EinführungindieTextgeschichte, 84. See 1:24; 4:19; 6:6, 12; 7:4, 24; 8:10, 11, 13. Cf. J. Ramsey Michaels, “The Redemption of our Body: The Riddle of Romans 8:19-22,” in RomansandthePeopleofGod: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 92-114, esp. 98-99. For a brief description of this view, see Dunn, Romans1-8, 475. Contrary to this position, Wayne G. Rollins, “Greco-Roman Slave Terminology and Pauline Metaphors of Salvation,” in SBLSeminarPapers (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1987), 107-109, argues that σῶμα here echoes slave and ἀπολύτρωσις is associated with the institution of slavery. Similarly, Campbell, Rhetoric of Righteousness, 127, claims that it clearly refers to slavery and deliverance from it. This claim, however, is misleading. There are no clear indications that Paul uses an image of slavery and subsequent deliverance here. On the contrary, the image used is that of the fall of humanity and hope of redemption by adopting them as the children of God.

266

CHAPTER SIX

God’s children, 8:23 expresses how we wait for this adoption in terms of the redemption of our bodies. Thus ἀπολύτρωσις must here mean a general ‘liberation’ from all the sufferings of the body. The immediate context of Rom 8:23 highlights three key terms: redemption, justification and glory. They are also the key terms in Rom 3:23-24. However, the correlation between the importance of these terms in Rom 3:24 and their subsequent use in 8:18-30 is widely ignored. 8:18 begins with the statement that present suffering will be outweighed by future glory. Taking into consideration the uses of δόξα (8:18, 21, 30) in this context, redemption and justification can be conceived as attaining the glory of the children of God. This state of glory can be understood as the actualization or restoration of humanity to the state intended by God in creation.27 The climax of this longer pericope reads: “those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Rom 8:30). Notably, “it is God who justifies” (8:33) and the role of Christ, especially his death, is clearly mediatory (8:34). If this is the correct reading of the passage, we can consider this section elaborating what Paul means by humanity’s falling short of the glory and God’s justification and redemption of them in Christ (Rom 3:23-24). The theocentric nature of Paul’s redemption is evident in both these passages. Thus, redemption cannot here be conceived christologically. Nor is there anything explicit about ransom here. Indeed, it is impossible to append any ransom idea to a passage that speaks about redemption in the future. This evidence from the same letter cannot be easily discarded. Hence, ἀπολύτρωσις does not here suggest payment for release. We come now to 1 Cor 1:30, where ἀπολύτρωσις stands at the climax of a compact statement. This text is often considered as a pre-Pauline fragment. While it may be argued that 1 Cor 6:20 and 7:23 speak of being purchased (ἀγοράζω) with a price,28 this does not in itself show 27

28

Cf. Robert Jewett, “The Corruption and Redemption of the Creation: Reading Rom 8.18-23 with the Imperial Context,” in PaulandtheRomanImperialOrder, ed. Richard A. Horsely (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2004), 25-46, esp. 34. He shows that it is not appropriate to restrict ‘glory’ here to a future state of immortality. A similar view is held by Dunn, Romans1-8, 468; Waetjen, LettertotheRomans, 214. Witherington, Romans, 222, construes it as the future resurrection. Some scholars argue that ἀπολύτρωσις carries a ransom nuance pointing to these texts. See Anthony C. Thiselton, TheFirstEpistletotheCorinthians:ACommentaryonthe GreekText, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 194; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, FirstCorinthians:ANewTranslationwithIntroductionandCommentary, AB 32 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 164. However, we do not find anywhere in the Pauline letters ἀγοράζω occurring anywhere near ἀπολύτρωσις. For that reason, one cannot decide the meaning of the other.

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

267

that ἀπολύτρωσις carries any such nuance of purchase or payment. ἀπολύτρωσις occurs in 1:30 along with δικαιοσύνη and ἁγιασμός. Paul’s restatement of this idea in 1 Cor 6:11, uses the verbal equivalents of these terms. It points to redemption and sanctification from the earlier state of sinfulness.29 There is nothing in the context of 1 Cor 1:30 to explain ἀπολύτρωσις: accordingly, there is nothing that lays emphasis on any nuance of ransom. It tells us that God is the source of our redemption in Christ Jesus. It is worth observing the strong theocentric thrust of redemption here. Our examination shows that Rom 8:23 and 1 Cor 1:30 use ἀπολύτρωσις to communicate the redemption that God imparts to humanity through Christ. These uses do not support any sense of payment or of Christ purchasing us from a state of slavery. Rather, they speak of God’s work of redemption through Christ. We will show how these ideas are more visibly present in Rom 3:24. Before doing that we need to examine the remaining occurrences of ἀπολύτρωσις in the NT. 6.1.4 The Usage in the Pauline Antilegomena There are four occurrences of ἀπολύτρωσις in the Pauline antilegomena. These are to be found in Ephesians (1:7, 14; 4:30) and Colossians (1:14), where they probably take up and elaborate the Pauline understanding of redemption. Whereas the uses in Eph 1:7 and Col 1:14 are very similar to Rom 3:24, the other two uses in Eph 1:14 and 4:30 seem to be identical to Rom 8:23. Just like Rom 3:24, ἀπολύτρωσις in Eph 1:7 and Col 1:14 is closely related to ‘release from sins’ and there is reference to ‘blood,’ clearly standing for the death of Christ, in the immediate context. Accordingly we can understand these usages as extending the understanding of the death of Christ as redemption for humanity. Eph 1:7 speaks of redemption through the blood of Christ: Ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ. The preposition ἐν with relative pronoun ᾧ should be understood as ‘in whom,’ not ‘by whom’: and the preposition διά with genitive is used here instrumentally to mean ‘through’ or ‘by means of.’30 The point is that a simple genitive without a preposition could have been 29 30

Cf. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 128, note 4. Cf. Abbott, EphesiansandtotheColossians, 11-13; Ernest Best, ACriticalandExegetical Commentary on Ephesians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 57; Frank Thielman, Ephesians, BCNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 56-57.

268

CHAPTER SIX

used if the author intended to speak of a redemption price. Our understanding then shifts the focus from what Christ has done to what God has done through Christ, and this is a continuation of Paul’s description of what God has graciously done (δόξης τῆς χάριτος) for believers. Once we have found God as the logical actor of the statement, there is no room for ἀπολύτρωσις and ‘blood’ to be understood as ransom. As Hill rightly argues, an understanding of ἀπολύτρωσις as a ransom payment here “is based on the interpretation of διὰ τοῦ αἵματος as ‘at the price of blood.’”31 There are two difficulties in seeing ‘blood’ here as ransom. First, ἀπολύτρωσις happens by God’s gift of grace. Moreover, ἀπολύτρωσις is placed in parallel to ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων, which gives it a further positive tone. Similarly, in Col 1:14 we read: “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” Although ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν conveys an idea similar to Eph 1:7, the reference to ‘blood’ is found a few verses later, in 1:20. This usage includes God’s saving purposes for his people in the future. Here ἀπολύτρωσις is virtually equated with the forgiveness of sins. This points again to the theocentric nature of redemption, by affirming that God has rescued (ῥύομαι) us in Christ, in whom we have ἀπολύτρωσις. Again, we do not find here any explicit nuance of ransom in this usage. The instances in Eph 1:14 and 4:30 need to be addressed briefly. The prepositional phrase in Eph 1:14 reads: εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως. Reading περιποίησις as a possession or acquisition, we can understand Paul as wanting to communicate God’s people as his unique possession.32 In this passage, ἀπολύτρωσις relates to the inheritance (κληρονομία) of redemption, which we hope to possess as God’s people. In other words, it refers to the realisation of redemption in the future. It runs parallel to Rom 8:23, where believers are told to await their adoption as the children of God. A similar hope for ἀπολύτρωσις is expressed in Eph 4:30. Here the Holy Spirit is presented as the seal on God’s people for their future redemption. In the clause ἐν ᾧ ἐσφραγίσθητε εἰς ἡμέραν ἀπολυτρώσεως, the preposition with the relative pronoun (ἐν ᾧ), 31

32

Hill, Greek Words, 73. Contra Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 194, argues that a sense of ransom is present in Eph 1:7; Col 1:14 and Rom 3:24. Hill also observes that “even in a context expressing sacrificial ideas, the shedding of blood is hardly to be regarded as the price paid for the release of from sins; neither in the Old Testament thought nor in modern discussion is sacrifice interpreted in terms of ransom” (p. 73). Cf. Thielman, Ephesians, 83.

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

269

refers to the Holy Spirit. The prepositional phrase εἰς ἡμέραν ἀπολυτρώσεως is often referred to by commentators as the day of eschatological redemption.33 Nevertheless, it is more likely that, like Rom 8:23, it refers to a time when God’s plan of redemption of all will be actualized. It is striking that, in these two passages, ἀπολύτρωσις is combined with a future aspect which goes beyond any possible ransom understanding. In addition, the reference to the Holy Spirit will eliminate any sense of payment. Instead of Christ, Holy Spirit is spoken of as our guarantee in these passages. Thus the occurrences of ἀπολύτρωσις in the Pauline Antilegomena further strengthen our contention and we can conclude, on the evidence of the Pauline corpus as a whole, that ἀπολύτρωσις is used to communicate both the ‘already’ dimension of redemption, achieved by the death of Christ, and the ‘not-yet’ dimension, the longing for its complete actualization in the lives of believers. In none of the passages is there any explicit reference to a ransom. 6.1.5 Other NT Usages The only NT use of λύτρον, in Mk 10:45,34 unavoidably seems to speak of the death of Christ as a ransom payment. However, unlike the other evangelists, Luke uses other cognates of the term. The compound noun ἀπολύτρωσις is used in Lk 21:28, where it refers to the deliverance of the holy ones at the coming of the Son of Man. This usage cannot be understood in a sense of deliverance by ransom. Rather, it is used in a more general sense, meaning deliverance from a fallen world.35 In the immediate context, redemption may include deliverance from the persecutions mentioned in 21:12-19.36 Here ἀπολύτρωσις is the redemption longingly awaited, which means release from afflictions and persecutions. There is no indication of a price. The suggestion that the destruction of Jerusalem is the price paid is forced.37 On the contrary, the 33

34

35 36

37

See Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians:AnExegeticalCommentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 633; Thielman, Ephesians, 318. See also the parallel in Mt 20:28. A similar idea is communicated in 1 Tim 2:6, but here it reads: ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων. These passages have dominated in discussions of death of Christ as a ransom payment. It is sufficient for our present purpose to indicate that it is unwise to ascribe a theory based on these ideas to Paul. Cf. Darrell L. Bock, Luke, vol. 3, BECNT 3B (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996), 1687. Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, TheGospelAccordingtoLuke, AB 28A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1986), 1349. Cf. Abbott, EphesiansandtotheColossians, 12.

270

CHAPTER SIX

meaning of the term seems to be similar to the two uses of the noun λύτρωσις in Lk 1:68; 2:38,38 where it stands without doubt for that most desired deliverance which God brings about. These texts contain no hint of payment or purchase, but address the conviction that God has executed his deliverance-plan. It is very close to ‘salvation.’ Yet another occurrence of ἀπολύτρωσις is in Heb 9:15. Here Christ’s death is explained as the redemption from transgressions: ὅπως θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων.

While some commentaries consider that ἀπολύτρωσις includes a sense of cost,39 others exclude any sense of payment.40 Thus Ribbens has recently argued that the cost of redemption in this passage is Christ’s death,41 while for Hill, the meaning here is very close to ἄφεσις: “The idea of ‘ransoming sins’ is quite inappropriate: the author means that the death of Christ is the divinely-appointed means by which atoning deliverance from sin (or forgiveness) is brought about.”42 In the view of William L. Lane, for the author of Hebrews redemption relates to sacrifice, and the death of Christ is a covenant sacrifice.43 Although we find it more tenable to understand this as a remission of sins by the atoning death of Christ, the context of sacrifice and covenant does give some room for a nuance of payment. Hebrews also uses ἀπολύτρωσις at 11:35, a verse which most likely alludes to the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. While some women were killed, others underwent torture for the sake of faith. Some argue 38

39

40

41

42 43

The noun λύτρωσις occurs three times in the NT. The third occurrence is in Heb 9:12 where it may not imply a ransom meaning, but “eternal deliverance from sin.” For the various reasons for this understanding of the text, see Hill, GreekWords, 68-69. Moreover, the noun λυτρωτής is once used in Acts 7:35 where it means deliverer or liberator. In addition, the verb λυτρόω occurs in Lk 24:21; Titus 2:14 and 1 Pet 1:18. The usage in Titus 2:14 recalls Ps 130:8 [NRSV] to substantiate that “Christ gave himself for us.” In 1 Pet 1:18, an idea of purchase is probably present because of the contrast with silver and gold. Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer, vol. 2, EKKNT 17 (Zürich: Benziger, 1992), 154; Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, ACommentaryontheEpistletotheHebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 367. Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 453; Koester, Hebrews, 408. See Ribbens, “Forensic-Retributive Justification,” 558. In his view, its association with death is assumed in Hebrews. It is his contention that Paul draws it from the same traditional material as Hebrews. Hill, GreekWords, 69. Cf. William L. Lane, Hebrews9-13, WBC 47b (Dallas, TX: Word, 1991), 242.

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

271

that the cost of release is present in 11:35b: “deliverance not accepted reflects a ransom refused because the price was the renunciation of commitment to God.”44 We find this reading to be strained, because it fails to take account of the overall argument, which is not about what believers did in order to be delivered, but about how they persevered in faith in spite of all misfortunes. Besides, as Hill argues, “apostasy cannot be considered as the price of freedom, save in a vague metaphorical sense.”45 Refusing to accept τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν here means their refusal of deliverance through apostasy. From this perspective, this passage does not contain any definite link to a payment of ransom. Thus we shall understand ἀπολύτρωσις here as ‘deliverance.’ On the strength of our examination, we feel justified in arguing that there are no instances in the NT where ἀπολύτρωσις should be unambiguously understood as implying ‘ransom.’ The most we allow is a nuance of payment implied in Heb 9:15 by associating ἀπολύτρωσις with the sacrificial death of Christ. When compared with the Pauline cases, the context here is quite different, not least because the Pauline way of looking at the death of Christ is significantly different from the rest of the NT. We conclude this examination of ἀπολύτρωσις outside Rom 3:24 with the following observations. ἀπολύτρωσις is a significant term if we are to understand Paul’s soteriology. Out of the 10 NT usages, at least 4 deal with the future aspect of redemption, which at once takes them beyond any nuance of payment (Lk 21:28; Rom 8:23; Eph 1:14; 4:30). In these texts, redemption is something to which we look forward. It deals with the Christian hope of the complete actualization of redemption in the lives of the believers. In particular, the Holy Spirit, not Christ, is spoken of as the agent who guides them to this actualization. Moreover, λύτρον is used in Mark in the sense of ‘ransom.’ The absence of this term in the Pauline corpus communicates that Paul does not want us to understand the death of Christ as a ransom payment. His choice of ἀπολύτρωσις must therefore be seen as an attempt to enrich his theology by supplying a metaphorical sense of redemption. With regard to Paul’s use of ἀπολύτρωσις, the extra-biblical background need not be considered as completely opposed to the biblical. Paul may well have perceived the semantic development of the term and consciously applied that to God’s work of redemption in Christ. 44 45

Lane, Hebrews9-13, 388. Hill, GreekWords, 72.

272

CHAPTER SIX

So far, we have examined the external evidence on the meaning of ἀπολύτρωσις. We now turn to Rom 3:24 to see where the internal evidence leads us.

OF

6.2 A THEOCENTRIC READING ἀπολύτρωσις METAPHOR IN ROM 3:24

It is not easy to decide on the exact meaning and background of ἀπολύτρωσις in Rom 3:24. Although ἀπολύτρωσις is here associated with Christ Jesus, the way in which this association is understood has great theological consequences. The key question is whether the two adverbial clauses, τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι and διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, are antithetical or complementary. Does the use of ἀπολύτρωσις imply that a ransom must be paid so that God can justify humans? Or does the verse imply that God’s grace is capable of redeeming even without payment? Some scholars argue that the phrase ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι in 3:25 supports a ransom paid by Christ.46 Others call on τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι as pointing to redemption that is gratuitous.47 While ἀπολύτρωσις in Rom 3:24 is often translated as ‘redemption,’ the precise way in which scholars conceive this ‘redemption’ seems to vary. Lexically, it can include either a release by payment of ransom or a simple deliverance. According to LSJ, it carries a range of meaning that includes ‘ransoming,’ ‘redemption by payment of ransom,’ ‘redemption’ and ‘deliverance.’48 BDAG classifies its uses as: (1) release from a painful interrogation (release); and (2) release from a captive condition (release, redemption, deliverance).49 Thus the meaning of ἀπολύτρωσις can vary significantly, depending on the context. A detailed analysis of the context of Rom 3:24 and its syntactic structure is therefore necessary, in the face of the lack of a clear linguistic suggestion. Only a sound exegesis can determine the specific nuance in Rom 3:24. 46

47

48

49

Morris, Apostolic Preaching, 38-41; Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 194; Dunn, Romans1-8, 170; Fitzyer, Romans, 348; Park, StellvertretungJesuChristi, 216. Wilckens, Römer, 190; Käsemann, An die Römer, 90; Hill, Greek Words, 73; Lee, Paul’sGospelinRomans, 216-218. LSJ, 208. With regard to Rom 3:24, three possible meanings are listed: ‘redemption by payment of ransom,’ ‘redemption’ and ‘deliverance.’ BDAG, 117. Helpfully the use at Rom 3:24 (along with many other uses) is noted as the figurative extension of the original use in connection with manumission of captives and slaves.

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

273

One of the most problematic questions, then, is the relationship between Christ’s death on the cross and human salvation. It is clear that ἀπολύτρωσις refers to Christ Jesus in Rom 3:24. The question is whether it stands for a ‘ransom’ that Christ pays, or for the redemption as such. Are we justified through grace without cost, or through the payment that is in Christ Jesus? Various theories of atonement have been proposed to clarify this relationship. In their zeal for one or other theory, it is hard not to believe that scholars may at times have distorted the facts, or pressed texts to the support of their positions without due attention. A relevant question is how far Rom 3:24 might be said to point to the death of Christ as changing the mind of God (the idea of substitution/satisfaction), which clearly has enormous consequences for theology. Yet to our knowledge, there are no studies that exclusively deal with ἀπολύτρωσις and its background. Rather, ἀπολύτρωσις is most often studied under the broad category of redemption and purchase terminology. We propose that in Rom 3:21-26 Paul is using ἀπολύτρωσις as a metaphor with a theocentric thrust; and that when we recognize this, many of these disputes can be resolved. Understanding Paul’s use of ἀπολύτρωσις as a theocentric metaphor will show him as standing in the stream of developing meaning that we have seen in some of the biblical and biblically-inspired writings. 6.2.1 Rom 3:24 in its Immediate Context As we have seen in the history of interpretation, most discussions of ἀπολύτρωσις and its cognates neglect the context of Rom 3:21-26, focusing their attention elsewhere. We seek to rectify this neglect by examining it in this context, so as to understand the specific nuance with which it is used. This pericope deals with the revelation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. Whereas 3:21-22a describe this revelation, 3:25-26 explain its purpose. What remains is to grasp the intent of 3:22b-24. Rom 3:22b-23 briefly summarises Paul’s argument in 1:18-3:20. That “there is no discrimination” recalls God’s impartiality in 2:1-16; and the reference to God’s glory recalls 1:23; 2:7, 10.50 The whole analysis insists on our need for God’s justification and redemption. What comes to the fore in 3:24-26 is that the only way to be restored to right status and communion with God is to rely on his merciful action.51 50 51

Cf. Matera, Romans, 97. Cf. Joel B. Green, “Atonement Images in Romans,” in Reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans, SBLRBS 73, ed. Jerry L. Sumney (Atlanda: SBL, 2012), 86.

274

CHAPTER SIX

The context here is often mistaken for one of slavery and indeed it is often assumed that ἀπολύτρωσις cannot make sense outside such a context. Hence, it has been read through the lens of the purchase terminology used in 1 Corinthians and Galatians. However, we must not forget that, even in the extra-biblical literature, ἀπολύτρωσις and its cognates are used outside the context of slavery. This evidence has gone unnoticed. To our mind, the immediate context has nothing to do with slavery. As Paul’s argument builds across 1:18-3:20, it is the relational aspect of his soteriology that comes to the fore. God’s act of redemption was necessitated by human sin (3:9, 23). 3:21-26 is about standing in right relation to God. Accordingly, its context is neither legal, nor ethical, nor that of manumission. It is relational. Then we see that in these verses, Paul is speaking of a redemption which restores to communion with God those who have been in disgrace; and that this deliverance from just wrath is achieved by God’s merciful love. Rom 3:24 begins with a participial clause that continues 3:23. We suggest that the key to addressing its problems is to be found in that previous verse. It speaks about ὑστερέω52 from glory. We understand ὑστερέω here as ‘come short of.’ Glory here would mean the image and likeness of God in which we are created. It may refer, as Cranfield understands, to the glory that humans possessed before they “fell away from [their] true relationship to God.”53 The question is how human sin affects that image and likeness of God. Paul says that it alienates us from an intimate fellowship with God, depriving us of God’s glory. Thus redemption is left completely to the domain of God’s mercy. It is this merciful act of redemption that is depicted in 3:24-25. In effect, 3:23 concisely states the helpless situation of the ‘all’ who have sinned and lost companionship with God. Because of its connection with sacrifice, the presence of αἷμα in 3:25 is often considered crucial to the understanding of ἀπολύτρωσις. The sacrificial interpretation views the ‘blood’ of Christ as the ransom payment. Barrett suggests a literal sense, comparing this usage with Mark 10:24: “the connexion with blood and death suggests that it has not completely lost its original sense of ‘ransoming’, emancipation by the payment of a price.”54 Although Blass and Debrunner suggest that ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι could be considered similar in function to the genitive of 52 53 54

According to BDAG, 1042, it means here ‘lack,’ ‘go without’ or ‘come short of.’ Cranfield, Romans, 204. Barrett, EpistletotheRomans, 76.

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

275

price55 in Rom 3:24-25, Paul does not state that blood is the price of deliverance. Syntactically, ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι in 3:25 can be taken attributively, qualifying ἱλαστήριον, or adverbially, qualifying προέθετο. By taking it as attributive, it is argued that the blood of Christ is the payment for redemption. But we believe that calling on the presence of αἷμα in support of a ransom payment causes some difficulty in 3:25. The text is speaking about God’s action (προέθετο): God, as the subject of the sentence, is the one who set forth Jesus as the ἱλαστήριον and it seems natural to us that it is this action of God to which ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι relates. It must not be forgotten that αἷμα is here not simply ‘blood’: it stands for the death of Christ. This is evident in 5:9-10, where Paul uses αἷμα in parallel to θάνατος.56 In ancient sacrificial practices ‘blood’ had a significant function, but not death.57 We therefore favour taking ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι adverbially qualifying the verb προέθετο,58 which explains God’s action through Christ, rather than as saying that the ‘blood’ of Christ is the price that is being paid. Indeed in this construction, we do not see how it would be possible to understand Christ as making a ransom payment by his own blood, unless we were to think that God is paying the ransom himself. But this would go against the thrust of the whole letter, which assumes from the start (1:7) that we are beloved of God. If our reading is correct, then there is nothing else to suggest that ἀπολύτρωσις here implies payment and we conclude that Paul is not here using it in the sense of the manumission of slaves by ransom or of the redemption of sinners by sacrifice. ‘Ransom,’ as we have seen, is not an integral part of the term, not even in the extra-biblical literature. 6.2.2 God’s χάρις and Unconditionality An important point in our argument for the theocentricity of Rom 3:2126 is that 3:24 uses God’s χάρις to explain how justification and redemption come about, so emphasizing their unconditionality. This stands against any interpretation that says that justification and redemption are conditional on our purchase by the death of Christ, or that Christ’s 55 56 57

58

BDF, 118. Cf. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, p. 123. Bradley H. McLean, “The Absence of an Atoning Sacrifice in Paul’s Soteriology,” NTS 38 (1992): 531-553, esp. 532-538. Fitzmyer, Romans, 348; Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 209. The correlation and the significance of αἷμα will be discussed in the next chapter.

276

CHAPTER SIX

sacrifice on the cross changes the mind of God. Rather, we are justified by God’s grace as a gift. Jesus’ death was not a condition. Nor do we consider the death of Jesus on the cross as the primary means chosen by God. Rather, Paul is talking in terms of the theological interpretation of the Christ-event. God is nevertheless using this event to bring about redemption. Paul says in 3:24 that redemption is God’s work in Christ, through which he freely bestows his grace upon everyone, to justify and to redeem them. In this understanding of the text, neither an anthropological interpretation that says it is by our merit or active involvement, nor a christological interpretation that says it is on condition of Jesus’ death on the cross, have any relevance.59 We hold Paul’s message in Rom 3:24 to be that God’s gift of grace saves humanity, without any condition whatever. It is useful to examine how this point is expressed by God’s χάρις in 3:24. Paul says that justification is an unconditional gift by God’s grace (δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι). χάρις here is preceded by the adverb δωρεάν,60 which reinforce this point. We also find a combination of χάρις and δωρεάν in Rom 5:15 and 5:17. As scholars have pointed out, this double statement is meant to underline the completely free nature of God’s redemption.61 Although χάρις might here mean ‘grace’ or ‘favour,’62 its exact meaning is debated among scholars,63 as is Paul’s 59

60

61

62

63

In another context, Bieringer makes a similar point, when he writes God’s “counting or not counting [trespasses] happens purely because of grace and mercy, not because of any merit or duty. It is therefore highly unlikely that in 2 Cor 5:19b the condition for not counting trespass is Jesus death on the cross.” Bieringer, “Reconciliation to God in the Light of 2 Corinthians 5:14-21,” 56-57. In making this point, he challenges many of the prevalent understandings of 2 Cor 5:19 as “before the reconciliation event, God counted the trespasses against human persons and that Jesus’ death on the cross is what enables God to stop counting trespasses” (p. 55). He observes that the text does not say that God “no longer” counts trespasses; rather do “not” (μή) count trespasses. δωρεάν means “as a free gift, freely” BDAG, 268. We shall discuss the meaning and significance of this term later below on pp. 250-251. Lohse, Römerbrief, 132, notes the gift character of justification: “wie sowohl durch δωρεάν wie auch durch τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι unterstrichen wird.” Cf. Ernst Kühl, DerBriefdesPaulusandieRömer (Leipzig: Quelle und Meyer, 1913), 110; Schlier, DerRömerbrief, 108; Flebbe, SolusDeus, 91. Jewett, Romans, 282, notes that they make “plain that no own gains this honourable, righteous status by outperforming others or by privilege of rank, wealth, or ethnicity.” As in LSJ. See also L-N “to show kindness to someone, with the implication of graciousness on the part of the one showing such kindness.” BDAG, 1079: favour, grace, gracious care/help, goodwill. For a brief survey of research on Paul’s use of χάρις, see James R. Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context, WUNT 2, 172 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 8-13; Ciliers Breytenbach, “’Charis’ and ‘Eleos’ in Paul’s Letter to the

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

277

theology of grace with which it is associated.64 Many scholars have argued that χάρις is best understood from a Jewish background that refers to a Hebrew concept.65 Others have found it to be better understood against the backdrop of a Greco-Roman background of benefaction.66 We do not see these lines as mutually exclusive. Breytenbach makes an important point as he writes: “Even if the expression δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι in Rom 3,24 is interpreted against the backdrop of the ideology of beneficence, it is the action of God, who in his ἀνοχή (Rom 3,26) allowed previous transgressions to go unpunished.”67 He also notes that “Not only the notion of God granting the opportunity of overlooking transgressions, but also that of his ‘justice’ (δικαιοσύνη) in Rom 3,26-27 put ‘the gift of grace’ of 3,24 in the context of a specific theology which presupposes God’s ‘mercy’.”68 Paul’s awareness of the Greco-Roman notion of benefaction serves to deepen this Jewish concept of justification by God’s mercy. However, as Breytenbach suggests, we cannot overlook the signals that “the theological base of his language of grace lies in the Jewish trust in the abundance of God’s mercy.”69 In this understanding of the text there is no room for any appeasing or propitiating of God. Recent research on χάρις by Tsalampouni shows that it can also mean ‘salvation.’70 When understood in this way, as some scholars have

64

65

66 67

68 69 70

Romans,” in TheLettertotheRomans, ed. Udo Schnelle, BETL 226 (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 246-277, esp. 248-253. For recent discussions on Paul’s theology of grace, see Harrison, Paul’sLanguageof Grace, 3-13; James R. Harrison, “Paul, Theologian of Grace,” in PaulandHisTheology, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Leiden - Boston: Brill, 2006), 77-108, esp. 79-86. Breytenbach, “’Charis’ and ‘Eleos’,” 246-277. Cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 348; Breytenbach, “’Charis’ and ‘Eleos’,” 257-259; Flebbe, SolusDeus, 91. Jonathan A. Linebaugh, God,Grace,andRighteousnessinWisdomof SolomonandPaul’sLettertotheRomans:TextsinConversation, NovTSup 152 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013), 176, notes: “For Paul, the righteousness and grace of God are not exemplified in an even; divine righteousness and grace are an event.” He argues that χάρις in 3:24 shall be interpreted against the backdrop of Wisdom’s grace-discourse. See Harrison, Paul’sLanguageofGrace, 221-224. Breytenbach, “’Charis’ and ‘Eleos’,” 257. He is of the opinion that “Paul’s notion of grace is rooted within a Jewish theological conception, even though it is expressed in terms of the language of benefaction” (p.259). Breytenbach, “’Charis’ and ‘Eleos’,” 258. Breytenbach, “’Charis’ and ‘Eleos’,” 277. Ekaterini Tsalampouni, ΧάριςanditsSemanticField, in a lecture given in Faculty of Theology in KU Leuven (March 26, 2014). Based on her background studies, she argues that it can also embrace a meaning of saving or giving life back from a hopeless situation. She pointed out a new inscription about χάρις in Cos where it refers to ‘saving one’s life.’ See details of the text in D. Bosnakis and K. Hallop, “Alte und neue Inschriften aus Kos III,” Chiron 38 (2008): 204-242. For a recent contextual analysis

278

CHAPTER SIX

pointed out, χάρις here can function as “an antithesis of salvation through law.”71 Whereas in the arena of God’s distributive justice (as we have seen in 1:18-3:20) law was the criterion for appropriating salvation, in the arena of God’s merciful justice, God offers his unconditional salvation to everyone. When Paul uses χάρις again later, in 4:4-5, he is emphasizing the gift aspect of justification: “Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.” The unconditional nature of God’s justification and salvation is also to be found elsewhere in Romans. In 4:8, quoting Ps 31:2 [LXX], Paul underlines the unconditionality of God’s justification: “Blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin.” In 5:8 we read that God proves his love for us through Christ’s death. In 8:33, it is God who justifies us (θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν). In 2 Cor 1:2-3 Paul writes that χάρις comes to us from God, the father of mercies (πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν). When read in this perspective, God’s χάρις has to be read in close association with statements about God’s love elsewhere in Romans. Thus, the dative expression τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, as the instrument of the action of the passive participle δικαιούμενοι in 3:24, underlines justification and redemption as God’s unconditional favour. 6.2.3 Syntactical Issues As we can see in NA28, Rom 3:24 is part of a long sentence of 74 words, running from 3:22b to the close of 3:26. We have also seen, in the third chapter, that the syntax of this long sentence is far from obvious. This is reflected in the varying efforts to translate it. What is the relation of 3:24 to the rest? What does the passive participle δικαιούμενοι stand for? Its syntactical connection with what precedes it is elusive, to say the least. The main problem is that it seems to contradict the condemnation in the previous verse. To overcome this difficulty, scholars have come up with a variety of possible solutions,72 including that – considering the awkward syntax – Paul must be using a pre-Pauline fragment.

71

72

of Paul’s language of grace, see Stephan J. Joubert, EchoesofCharis:Paul’sContextualReflectionsonSalvation, Theology in Africa 2 (Berlin: Lit, 2014), 128-150. Jewett, Romans, 282. See also Hendrikus Boers, “ἀγάπη and χάρις in Paul’s Thought,” CBQ 59 (1997): 693-713, esp. 706-707. For various a list of various possibilities, see Sanday and Headlam, Epistle to the Romans, 85; Cranfield, Romans, 205; Moo, Romans, 227, note 39.

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

279

As we have seen in the third chapter, Campbell has proposed that 3:22d through τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι in 3:24 is to be considered as a parenthesis. His reading of the pericope construes that verses 3:21-22 continue through the three διά clauses in 3:24-26.73 He sees the three διά clauses as more important than the δικ- words in the pericope and as a result argues that διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ cannot be linked to the preceding δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι. It has to be linked with the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται in 3:21. This leads him to conclude that the pericope is christocentric because the focus of διά clauses is Christ. But it is Campbell’s view of 3:24a as a parenthesis that is significant for our present purpose. Contrary to Campbell, our analysis considers 3:23-24 as central to Paul’s argument. In 3:23 we find the particle γάρ, which explains the reason for the revelation of God’s δικαιοσύνη. It implies continuity of thought. Taken together, these verses are depicting the ways in which God’s merciful justice (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) has been made manifest. Not only do they recapitulate and expand the ideas stated in 1:16-17, but also serve as the key to unpack Paul’s concept of sin and redemption. The same interaction between God and humans in 1:18-3:20 is continued in 3:21-26, with 3:23 concisely summarizing the argument of the whole section. We therefore consider that it difficult to treat these verses as a parenthetical aside. The more natural reading is to connect διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ to the preceding δωρεάν and the dative expression τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι. As Lee rightly shows, the head term in διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ is not Christ but ἀπολυτρώσεως, which in turn is connected to God’s grace as a gift.74 Taken together, they constitute the means of God’s justification of humanity, with ἀπολύτρωσις explaining how the act of God’s justifying takes place. For these reasons, we find that Campbell’s christological reading that isolates διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ from what goes before and lays emphasis on the work of Jesus, to be unconvincing.

73 74

See Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 92-95 and 116-118. Cf. Lee, Paul’s Gospel in Romans, 216-218, esp. note 6. Wolter, Der Brief an Die Römer, 254, shows that it is important that “χάρις nicht eine Eigenschaft Gottes bezeichnet, sondern die Eigenart seines Handelns charakterisiert. Der Dativ ist kein dativus instrumentalis, denn diese syntaktische Position von δικαιούμενοι ist schon durch διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως… besetzt. Es dürfte sich darum um einen dativusmodi handeln.” (italics original).

280

CHAPTER SIX

The prepositional phrase ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ in Rom 3:24 has led to some confusion. ‘In Christ,’ which will later become common in 5-8, is here used for the first time in Romans. Some scholars have understood it to mean those who are ‘in Christ’ (Christians).75 However, with the definte article τῆς, the prepositional phrase points to the way God has justified and redeemed humanity, that is, ‘through’ Christ Jesus.76 Thus the preposition ἐν is to be understood as having the instrumental sense,77 which implies that ἀπολύτρωσις is in and through the person of Jesus Christ. Rom 3:24 begins with the passive participle δικαιούμενοι, which is the continuation of πάντες in the previous verse.78 As Johnston observes, “the subject of πάντες in v. 23 also receives the action of the passive participle δικαιούμενοι, so that the very same ‘all’ who sinned are justified.”79 Accordingly, the most sensible option is to consider δικαιούμενοι as taking πάντες as its subject while taking up and continuing the main theme of the pericope.80 Once we see this syntactic connection with πάντες, it becomes clear that God’s action is not only on behalf of the sins, but also on behalf of the ‘all’ who have committed those sins and thereby lost communion with God. This underlines the relational aspect of redemption. Taken in this sense, δικαιούμενοι stands for all those who are being set in right relationship with God. In fact, 3:23-24 clarifies the scope of the clause “there is no discrimination” in 3:22b. We then continue in the conviction that both of the two adverbial phrases in 3:24, τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι and διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, are connected to δικαιούμενοι. Once this connection is recognized, it is not possible to understand justification and redemption as something purchased. Rather it comes through God’s χάρις, an undeserved favour.81 This point is underscored by the adverb δωρεάν, meaning “freely” or “as a gift,” “without payment.”82 The relative pronoun ὅν at the start of 3:25 refers back to Christ Jesus. This clause too speaks 75 76

77

78 79 80

81 82

So Dunn, Romans1-8, 170; Fitzmyer, Romans, 348. Wilckens, Römer, 190; Käsemann, AndieRömer, 90; Cranfield, Romans, 208; Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 156. So Käsemann, AndieRömer, 90; Zahn, AndieRömer, 184. Contra, Karl Wennemer, “’ΑΠΟΛΎΤΡΩΣΙΣ Römer 3,24-25a,” in StudiorumPaulinorumCongressusInternationalisCatholicus1961, AnBib 17 (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963), 286. Cf. Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 156; Cranfield, Romans, 204. Johnston, “Which ‘All’ Sinned?,” 157. See Cranfield, Romans, 205; Dunn, Romans 1-8, 168; Moo, Romans, 227; Jewett, Romans, 281. BDAG, 1079. BDAG, 268; Gerhard Schneider, “δωρεά, δωρεάν,” in EDNT 1 (1990): 364.

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

281

of divine action, by keeping Christ as the object of the clause (ὅν and ἱλαστήριον). Rom 3:25-26 is a single relative clause that depends on 3:24 which in turn is the continuation of 3:23. Together they form a single sentence. Syntactically, a number of prepositional phrases are placed in a long relative clause in 3:25-26. Paul begins 3:25 with ὁ θεός, which is nominative, clearly the subject. Whereas the initial clause states that God has set forth Jesus as ἱλαστήριον, the three prepositional phrases that follow reveal the purpose of God’s action: ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (1) εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ κτλ. (2) πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, (3) εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ. The logic of Paul’s argument is evident in this construction. The string of prepositional phrases explains the purpose of God’s action (προέθετο). This reveals that Rom 3:21-26 is theocentric. We shall now examine further the significance of this theocentric thrust for the meaning of ἀπολύτρωσις. 6.2.4 Theocentric Thrust The foregoing analysis shows the theo-logical aspect of Paul’s argument. We find this to be the strongest evidence against a ransom understanding of ἀπολύτρωσις. The text at 3:24 runs as: δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

In this text, ἀπολύτρωσις is brought about by God’s grace as a gift (δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι). The antecedent of αὐτοῦ is God, in the previous verses. There is little doubt that διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως is linked with δικαιούμενοι. The two adverbial phrases in 3:24 qualify δικαιούμενοι; then ἀπολύτρωσις explains it. Jesus is less likely to be identified with ἀπολύτρωσις. Rather διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ needs to be read with τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι. τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ designates therefore the locus: the deliverance and justification that God offers is in the death of Christ.83 One thing that can be asserted regarding 83

Cf. Kertelge, „’Απολύτρωσις,“ 138.

282

CHAPTER SIX

διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως is that it designates a definite action by God for the sake of believers. The threefold reference to δωρεάν, χάρις and διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ makes plain that justification and redemption cannot be attained on the basis of human effort.84 James R. Harrison point out that Paul’s view of δωρεάν is in contrast to the Greco-Roman background: “Paul’s emphasis on the unilateral nature of divine grace was directed against the idea that God was compelled by acts of human piety to reciprocate beneficently.”85 David A. deSilva finds that God’s gift of Grace must be met with a response from the humans is similar in 4 Ezra and the Pauline Letters.86 The emphasis in Paul, however, is on God’s initiative. We have seen the strong theocentric thrust of 3:25, which further explicates the meaning of ἀπολύτρωσις. It is God who presents Christ as ἱλαστήριον, underlining the divine initiative as the basis for human redemption. This redemption has historically taken place through the mediation of Jesus Christ. The question is not ‘what is the role of Christ in our redemption,’ but ‘how does Paul construe it in this pericope.’ The role of Christ is not here depicted as dynamic. Rather, it is God’s initiative that is highlighted. Paul explains this in 5:8: God demonstrates his love in the death of Christ; and God “did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us” (8:32). In that way, in Romans the death of Christ is phrased in terms of God’s love. In Rom 3:24-25, redemption can neither be construed anthropologically nor christologically. As God’s gift (δωρεάν), it is theocentric. In the opinion of Wonneberger, the purpose of the participle δικαιούμενοι in 3:24 is “Mangel an göttlicher Herrlichkeit zu erläutern.”87 Redemption is therefore secured by God’s action in Christ. As Gerald O’Collins writes, “[f]or Paul, salvation is an especially theological reality, in the sense that it is both a reflection of God’s character and the result of God’s initiative.”88 Paul’s statement has to be read as a continuation of the OT heritage where redemption is completely God’s own work. It is not Christ 84 85

86

87 88

Jewett, Romans, 281. Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 18. Barclay, “Constructing a Dialogue,” 3-22, esp. 14, views that just as in 4 Ezra, Paul considers χάρις can be properly called so in the absence of good works. David A. deSilva, “Grace, the Law and Justification in 4 Ezra and the Pauline Letters: A Dialogue,” JSNT 37 (2014): 25-49, esp. 44. Wonneberger, SyntaxundExegese, 250. Gerald O’Collins, “Some Critical Issues,” in The Redemption: An Interdisciplinary SymposiumonChristasRedeemer, ed. Stephen D. Davis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 49.

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

283

who gives justification. It is God who gives it, through Christ (διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). How can God’s grace make it possible without cost? The answer is that God channelled it through Christ. The way that God was able to give his free gift was through Christ. That gift is an expression of God’s love. Paul is not here describing how Christ’s death redeems humanity, but is teaching that God has redeemed humanity, by means of Christ’s death.89 The result is that many atonement theories that uphold the propitiatory, sacrificial or substitutionary role of Christ’s death fail to do justice to the text. In line with the Scriptures, love should be “the leading way for interpreting the way God’s redemptive activity in Christ looks and works.”90 The death of Christ is certainly salvific and redemptive: but not initself; rather, it is part of a story.91 It is the continuation of the story of God’s promise to redeem his people. In short, our theocentric reading of ἀπολύτρωσις finds little room for a specific way of liberation by means of ransom. It cannot be christological, because Christ’s role is clearly mediatory. Hence Christ is neither a substitute for humans, nor paying the price on their behalf. On the contrary, redemption is theological: God is restoring his fellowship with humanity in Christ. This reading is in continuity with the OT tradition, emphasizing God as the only redeemer of his people. Redemption is here subsumed under God’s love. 6.2.5 Significance of Understanding ἀπολύτρωσις as a Metaphor In addition to the theocentric thrust of Rom 3:24-26, we suggest that understanding ἀπολύτρωσις in 3:24 as a metaphor goes well beyond any sense of ransom. Christocentric readings often assume a literal sense of ransom. Against this, we hold that Paul here uses ἀπολύτρωσις as a metaphor with a theocentric thrust. As metaphor, it is “an extension in the use of a word beyond its primary sense to describe referents that bear similarities to the word’s primary referent.”92 Being a metaphor, we need to consider the possible semantic overlaps and carefully examine which connotation or nuance of the word is relevant to the present context. How 89

90 91 92

Cf. David A. Brondos, Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle’s Story of Redemption (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006), x. O’Collins and Kendall, BibleforTheology, 58. Brondos, PaulontheCross, xi. Edward Finegan, Language: Its Structure and Use, 6 ed. (Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2012), 205.

284

CHAPTER SIX

the metaphor is construed can make all the difference to the nature of redemption in this passage, for metaphor can both “reveal and conceal.”93 Moreover, as Paul Ricoeur has taught us, it can open up to us new aspects of reality: “metaphor puts the creative imagination to work by associating two semantic fields.”94 All the more, the “metaphor is a source of progress because of the unexpected juxtaposition of separate, apparently unrelated semantic fields in ways that point to unexpected connections and thereby liberate surplus of meaning.”95 Thus by associating ἀπολύτρωσις with the death of Christ Paul is advancing the meaning of the term by applying it to a new context. Every metaphor is based on a predication: that is, it links two semantic fields. Here it is essential to know the source domain of the metaphor. Our examination of the immediate context of ἀπολύτρωσις in Rom 3:24 has shown that here there is practically nothing explicit about slavery. Rather, its immediate context and its correlation to the participle δικαιούμενοι, suggest that it should be understood as relational. Then the source domain is the biblical background of God’s deliverance of Israel. The ransoming of a slave by payment and the practices associated with it are not relevant to the present context. While the core meaning of liberation is clearly still present in the metaphor, what it entails in the context of slavery is not. In Pauline usage only the first setting [OT] is in view when Paul images Christ’s death as freeing believers from sin’s bondage. The second [slavery] is used when the emphasis is on being ‘purchased’ so as to belongto Christ (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23). It is precisely the confusion of these metaphorical settings and emphases that has led to the primary abuse of the metaphor: to see people as ‘purchased’ from, or by payment to, Satan.96 93 94

95

96

Green, “Atonement images in Romans,” 86. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, BiblicalNarrativeinthePhilosophyofPaulRicoeur:AStudyin Hermeneutics and Theology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 200. Another possible way of looking at it is that a metaphor conveys a certain aspect of the reality it stands for. As the famous philosophical axiom says, Omniscomparatioclaudicat nisi in puncto comparationis (every comparison limps, except in the point of comparison). It compares two things that are very rich. There is only one point in which they are compared. In that regard it is not limping, but in all the other regards it might be limping. The danger is when we take it lieterally or compare the things that are not indented to be compared. Hence the question is which aspect of ἀπολύτρωσις comes to the fore in Rom 3:24. Cf. Paul Ricoeur, “The Creativity of Language,” in Dialogues with Contemporary ContinentalThinkers, ed. Richard Kearney (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), 31-32. Gordon D. Fee, “Paul and the Metaphors for Salvation: Some Reflections on Pauline Soteriology,” in The Redemption: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on Christ as

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

285

Metaphors play a significant role in Paul’s understanding of the death of Christ. A number of these are crammed into Rom 3:24-25. “The point is that no one of these is in itself the whole thing, and the ‘whole thing’ must be recognized as embracing each one and all of them.”97 It will not be wise to insist that ἀπολύτρωσις, which Paul uses here as a theological metaphor, contains the whole of the business transaction. Metaphors are not to be read as exact descriptions of reality. To do so in the present case would, as Tolmie rightly observes, be to turn it into “one of the abused metaphors in the history of the Church.”98 Just as Fee suggests, “it was in order to overcome this deficiency in ‘justification’ itself that Paul felt compelled to add the second and third metaphors, so as to put these metaphors as well in the context of Christ’s death.”99 To our mind, there is no ‘ransom’ connotation here because ἀπολύτρωσις has taken a figurative meaning. Thus, it would be strained to import secondary elements from another context. Nevertheless, the whole point of a metaphor is that it transfers the identification of meaning to the readers, who may choose to bring in secondary meanings that seem to them to be appropriate and meaningful from their experience. Thus the metaphor, while it hugely enriches the potential of the text, deprives Paul of the last word on what it means. For that reason, it is worthwhile to examine if Paul gives any additional signal in the context that his readers understand the specific meaning of the metaphor in the context. With this goal in mind, we turn to address the possibility of a ransom meaning here. 6.2.6 The Question of Ransom and the Importance of δωρεάν We return to the question of whether Paul understands Christ’s death as a ransom paid on our behalf. Does he state that our redemption needs to be purchased, or that it involves payment? Some have argued that Rom 3:24 implies payment because of the mention of the free nature of deliverance (δωρεάν) and because it anticipates the cost of Christ’s sacrificial death in 3:25.100 According to this view, Christ’s death pays the penalty of human sins and thereby justifies humanity without cost to us. Otto Michel comments on ἀπολύτρωσις: “Gott durch Jesus Christus Menschen  97 98 99 100

Redeemer, ed. Stephen T. David, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 52. O’Collins, “Some Critical Issues,” 51. Tolmie, “Salvation as Redemption,” 263. Fee, “Paul and the Metaphors,” 57. Cf. Schreiner, Romans, 190; Dunn, Romans, 1:180; Ribbens, “Forensic-Retributive Justification,” 558.

286

CHAPTER SIX

aus einer Sklaverei loskauft.”101 Otto Kuss too translate the term as “Loskaufung.”102 Similarly, many commentaries consider ἀπολύτρωσις as ransoming by means of a payment.103 In spite of recognizing the theocentric thrust of the text, Lee considers that a payment is involved because Paul spells out its ‘free’ nature with δωρεάν and χάριτι.104 Haubeck, who admits that there is no explicit mention of ransom in the present context, picks out the mention of a price in 1 Cor 6:20 and 7:23, from which he deduces a ransom understanding in the present context as well.105 Dunn too emphasizes the point on payment: “There was a cost to pay, a ransom to be secured. The acquittal depends on this ransom having been given.”106 Marshall argues that the notion of cost of redemption is present in the use of δωρεάν. He also point out that the cost of redemption is the sacrificial death of Christ.107 In our reading, it is precisely the presence of δωρεάν that gives emphasis to the free nature of redemption. The use of δωρεάν is to counteract any claim of justification and redemption by our own effort.108 The combination of δωρεάν with the dative expression τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι indicates the source of justification and redemption in God’s abundant mercy and love, and underlines their gratuitous nature. Lohse makes this point as he writes: “Der Freispruch göttlicher Rechtfertigung wurde allein durch Gottes Barmherzigkeit zuteil, wie sowohl durch δωρεάν wie auch durch τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι unterstrichen wird.”109 Paul repeatedly makes this point in Romans. For him redemption and everything related to it depends on 101 102 103

104

105

106 107

108

109

Michel, DerBriefandieRömer, 106. Kuss, DerRömerbrief, 115. Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 86; Barrett, Romans, 76; Murray, Romans, 116; Schlier, DerRömerbrief, 108; Moo, EpistletotheRomans, 229; Haacker,Römer 42; Flebbe, SolusDeus, 91. Cf. Lee, Paul’sGospelinRomans, 221. He considers the sacrificial blood of Jesus as the cost of redemption. For similar view, see Marshall, “Concept of Redemption,” 153-169; Schreiner, Romans, 190-191. Haubeck, LoskaufdurchChristus, 363. However, Fitzmyer, PaulandHisTheology, 67, writes: “When Paul speaks of Christians as having been “brought for a price” (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23), he is stressing the onerous burden of what Christ did for humanity. He never specifies to whom the price was paid.” Dunn, Romans1-8, 180. Cf. Marshall, “Redemption in the New Testament,” 163, note 4. He suggests that this passage has to be understood against the background of Gal 3:13 where the idea of the cost of death of Christ is present. However, we shall not forget that there Paul is using only the verb ἐξαγοράζω. Cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 347, observes that a similar idea is found in 1 QH 6:9: “And by your grace you judge them with an abundance of mercy.” Lohse, DerBriefandieRömer, 132.

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

287

God’s mercy, grace and kindness (Rom 2:4; 3:24; 4:16; 5:15; 9:15-16; 11:6, 22-23, 30-32). He also makes clear that the redeemed are “those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness” (Rom 5:17). The charge against Paul’s teaching on grace is raised in 3:1-8, that it does not take sin into serious account. Paul answers these charges in 3:24-25. Here justification and redemption is by God’s grace as a gift (the double statement adds emphasis). The point is that “God’s grace is shown in all that God has done and will do in and for believers.”110 Humanity is restored from the state of sin without glory to a communion with God through his grace. Paul uses only ἀπολύτρωσις, and none of its cognates, in his letters. By using δωρεάν Paul leaves us in no doubt that what he means is not λύτρον (ransom). Yet another question in this regard is: to whom is a payment made? Can the blood of Christ here signify a payment? We have already shown that αἷμα in this context cannot be understood as a propitiatory sacrifice. Here it simply stands for the death of Christ. Hence we do not find in Rom 3:21-26 any other term denoting payment. Moreover, as Hill observes, διά with the genitive is not attested for signifying payment or price.111 Again, a payment to Satan will go against Paul’s anthropology according to which we belong to God. Christ making a payment on behalf of humans goes against the evident theocentric thrust of the passage. Nowhere in the NT is redemption spoken of as changing God’s attitude towards humans.112 Thus it is best to understand that justification and redemption are graciously provided by God’s love to all. We further ask: Does God need a payment to redeem humanity? Did Jesus’ death on the cross change God’s mind? These questions present the problem at a different level and show how crucial is the theocentric thrust of 3:25 and especially the scope of ἱλαστήριον. It is God who put forward (προέθετο) Christ as ἱλαστήριον, thus revealing his plan to redeem everyone unconditionally. Even before the cross, God was favourably inclined. So the death of Christ on the cross is not a payment, did not change God’s mind. Paul is not thinking in terms of a business transaction. Rather, God’s redemption is through pure grace (τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι). Paul is thinking in terms neither commercial, nor cultic, but relational, in ways that can only be understood in the biblical framework 110 111 112

Brondos, PaulontheCross, 86. Hill, GreekWords, 70, note 2 and 73. God’s initiative in redemption is highlighted in other passages like Rom 5:1-11; 8: 6-11 and 2 Cor 5:18-21. Cf. O’Collins, “Some Critical Issues,” 9.

288

CHAPTER SIX

of God’s love towards his people. It is this very biblical terminology which Paul takes to the highest level of its development when he applies it to Christ’s death. The stress of Rom 3:24 is on God’s grace that makes redemption possible without cost, by channelling it through Christ. Paul’s exposition of human plight in this pericope evokes the memory of exodus. Hence the cross has to be seen from the perspective of God’s love, for it “demonstrates just how far divine love will go on in pursuing this purpose.”113 Paul is thinking in terms that are neither commercial, nor cultic, but relational. The stress of Rom 3:24 is on God’s grace, that makes redemption possible without cost, by channelling it through Christ. CONCLUSION In the light of our investigation, we conclude that ἀπολύτρωσις in Rom 3:24 means God’s redemption of humanity in and through Christ, a reading which completely fits the immediate context. We understand Paul to be using ἀπολύτρωσις in Rom 3:24 as a theocentric metaphor, which expresses a general concept of ‘redemption,’ rather than a specific mechanism of liberation in the context of slavery. In using ἀπολύτρωσις in that way, with no hint of ransom, of manumission, or of a business transaction, Paul is swimming with the mainstream of its development. The idea of purchase, we have argued, is not central to ἀπολύτρωσις and the claim that it has a uniform ‘ransom’ meaning in extra-biblical literature cannot be sustained. Rather, as our research has shown, there are two distinctive uses of ἀπολύτρωσις: those that continue the classical Greek sense of λύτρον; and the biblically-inspired use as general deliverance. In that way, the Greco-Roman writings indicate some development in the meaning of the word. We have tried to portray that Paul was part of that conversation. Our study of all the ten uses of ἀπολύτρωσις in the NT shows that, with a possible exception of Heb 9:15, there is no clear case where it stands for a ransom payment. When compared with the Pauline cases, the context of Heb 9:15 is quite different, not least because the Pauline way of looking at the death of Christ is significantly different from the rest of the NT. In addition to those external evidences, our theocentric reading of ἀπολύτρωσις metaphor further ruled out a ransom meaning in Rom 113

John Dunnill, Sacrifice and the Body: Biblical Anthropology and Christian SelfUnderstanding (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013), 92.

ἈΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ AND GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

289

3:24. The immediate context, syntax and its association with δωρεάν and χάριτι pointed to this direction. To the two theological questions, whether God needs a payment to redeem humanity, and whether Jesus’ death on the cross changed God’s mind, we have found a response in the theocentric thrust of the text, which reveals God’s plan to redeem everyone unconditionally. This suggests that redemption is not best seen either from the anthropological viewpoint, as something purchased, or from the christological viewpoint, of propitiation or substitution. Rather it can best be understood in the framework of God’s love and mercy for his people. The stress of Rom 3:24 is on God’s grace, that makes redemption possible without cost by channelling it through Christ. It is not only the background, but also the context, that holds the key to understanding ἀπολύτρωσις.

CHAPTER SEVEN

A THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ IN ROM 3:25 We now proceed to an exegetical study of Rom 3:25, a verse which Moo describes as “loaded with key theological terms.”1 Our study will pay particular attention to the meanings of ἱλαστήριον and πάρεσις. In this short text we find three of Paul’s hapaxlegomena: ἱλαστήριον, πάρεσις and προγίνομαι. Stuhlmacher described it as “einer der inhaltlich schwierigsten Texte des Römerbriefs.”2 We will begin by a study of ἱλαστήριον, both within Rom 3:25 and elsewhere. We will point to the subject of the action and how the terms relate to this. We will then examine the meaning and significance of πάρεσις. Since it is combined with προγίνομαι in 3:25, we will also consider whose sins are being discussed and how Paul views the death of Christ. We will argue that this short text is clearly theocentric and that this is seen through the three hapaxlegomena, the verb and the structure of the sentence. We will conclude by noting its theological implications. 7.1 AN EXEGETICAL STUDY

OF

ἱλαστήριον

There are many possible meanings for ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25. The word-group ἱλάσκομαι itself has a wide spread of possible meanings, including ‘to render someone propitious to oneself,’ ‘to propitiate someone’s favour,’ ‘to conciliate,’ ‘to placate or appease someone’s wrath,’ ‘to expiate,’ ‘to be merciful.’3 Further, ἱλαστήριον presents a number of grammatical possibilities. It may be a noun or an adjective. LSJ notes 1 2 3

Moo, EpistletotheRomans, 219. Stuhlmacher, DerBriefandieRömer, 55. See BDAG, 474; LSJ, 828; Johannes Herrmann, “ἱλάσκομαι,” in TDNT 3 (1965): 301-310; Büchsel, “ἱλαστήριον,” 318-320; Jürgen Roloff, “ἱλαστήριον,” in EDNT 2 (1981): 185-186; W. C. Trenchard, A Concise Dictionary of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 76.

292

CHAPTER SEVEN

that its meaning, in its typical Greek usage, can be glossed by ‘propitiatory gift,’ ‘offering’ or, in the LXX, ‘mercy seat.’4 BDAG offers two meanings in the context of Rom 3:25: ‘means of expiation’ and ‘place of propitiation.’5 EDNT presents a short history of interpretation of ἱλαστήριον and finally prefers an interpretation of the term in relation to ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬of the LXX.6 It is therefore clear that lexical analysis can lead us in a number of different directions, depending on the context and syntax. We will therefore study its use in three stages: a survey of variations in translations; the meaning of ἱλαστήριον in general; and its meaning in the christological context of Rom 3:25. The point at issue in 3:25 is whether Paul sees the death of Christ as an appeasement of the wrath of God, or as expiation for sin. The study also re-examines the traditional understanding of ἱλαστήριον as signifying the ‘mercy seat,’ asking whether that is what Paul had in mind when he used it in relation to the death of Jesus. We will also ask whose work Rom 3:25 describes. We begin by surveying some translations of ἱλαστήριον and the hermeneutical challenges they present in Rom 3:25. 7.1.1 A Survey of Variations in Translations Well-known Bible translations disclose widely divergent understandings of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25. This can be seen from the variety of terms used in a sample of translations, as set out in the table. ἱλαστήριον

Bible Translation Propitiation Vulgate, ESV, NLT, KJV Expiation NAB, RSV, REB, EIN Mercy seat Luther, TNT, DBY, YLT So as to win reconciliation JB Sacrifice for reconciliation NJB Sacrifice of atonement NRSV, NIV Place where atonement by the Messiah’s ISV (blood would occur) 4 5

6

LSJ, 828. BDAG, 474. According to Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 8, “Bauer never identified the sense that the word ἱλαστήριον has when applied to the mercy seat (there is no gloss such as Sühneort); he only indicates its reference, briefly describing the object to which it applies. This is surely inadequate.” Roloff, “ἱλαστήριον,” 186.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

293

The history of its interpretation shows just how grammatically and theologically difficult it is to understand and to translate ἱλαστήριον. The Vulgate does not correlate ἱλαστήριον with ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬, ַ offering ‘propitiatio.’ Some older translations – Luther and Tyndale are the oldest – use ‘mercy seat’, maintaining its relation to the Ark of the Covenant and to the theological concept of mercy. The translations ‘propitiation’ and ‘expiation’ reflect the gradual development in understanding, for while propitiation includes placating (or dealing with) the anger that arises because of sin, expiation is a general or a neutral term for an action that overcomes sin. NIV and NRSV are alone in offering ‘a sacrifice of atonement,’ comparing Jesus to a sacrificial animal. “The problem is that a ἱλαστήριον is never a sacrificial animal in any known source. It is always a concrete object.”7 The NRSV footnotes ‘a place of atonement,’ which may imply awareness of the ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬imagery in Paul’s thinking. However, the ordinary reader may not understand which place of atonement is in view. Strangely, JB introduces a new understanding with ‘reconciliation.’ The recent ISV offers a paraphrase: ‘a place where atonement by the Messiah’s (blood would occur).’ This interpretation clearly goes beyond the immediate meaning of ἱλαστήριον. What we see is that the way in which ἱλαστήριον is understood in these translations is related a particular theology of the cross. We can identify a number of fundamental problems that confront us. First, grammatical form: is ἱλαστήριον an adjective or a noun? If a noun, is it to be translated as abstract, as ‘a means,’ or as ‘a place.’ Second, theological connotation: does ἱλαστήριον include propitiation, or expiation, or both. Does Paul view Christ’s death as an act to appease God? Finally, if ἱλαστήριον is related to the Hebrew ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬, ַ how are we to translate it, given that our choice can affect how we understand the death of Jesus. We will argue that much of the debate has come about because the theocentricity of Rom 3:25 has been neglected. Using the syntax established in chapter three, we will show, using a Pentateuch background, that the best interpretation of ἱλαστήριον in 3:25 is in this theocentric context. We will now examine the possible meaning of ἱλαστήριον outside Rom 3:25, before turning to the context of Rom 3:21-26.

7

Bailey, Jesus as the Mercy Seat, 9. See also Kraus, „Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit,“ 207.

294

CHAPTER SEVEN

7.1.2 The Meaning of ἱλαστήριον Outside Rom 3:25 Romuald Alphonse Mollaum has rightly criticized many modern approaches to ἱλαστήριον: “Modern commentators, with exceptions of course, start out with the supposition that the term is best explained in the context in which it is found, instead of first seeking the correct meaning of the word and then testing whether this meaning is in conformity with the context.”8 As it is a hapaxlegomenon in the Pauline writings, we will first examine its meaning in other occurrences in the extrabiblical literature, the martyrlogy of 4 Macc 17:21-22 and in the LXX. We will then turn to ἱλασμός in 1 Jn 2:2 and 4:10, before concluding with Heb 9:5, the only other appearance of ἱλαστήριον in the NT. 7.1.2.1 TheUseofἱλαστήριονinExtra-BiblicalLiterature The term ἱλαστήριον is a cognate of the verb ἱλάσκεσθαι, ‘appease, propitiate,’ which is often used of placating angry gods in classical Greek and Hellenistic literature. The word-group ἱλάσκομαι is frequently used from the time of Homer with the sense ‘to make gracious’ or ‘to placate.’9 As evidence for the pagan use of the term, Kraus examines TheInscriptionsofCos, 81, 347 and Dio Chrysostom, Orationes, 11. 121. His studies reveal that “in beiden Fällen bedeutet ἱλαστήριον eine die Gottheit gnädig stimmende Weihegabe.”10 In classical Greek literature ἱλαστήριον is used for a votive offering or a votive gift.11 As we have seen in 8

9

10

11

Romuald Alphonse Mollaum, St.Paul’sConceptofILASTERIONaccordingtoRom. III,25:AnHistorico-ExegeticalInvestigation, NTS 4 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1923), 25. For example, Fitzmyer, Romans, 120 notes: Homer, Il. 1.386; Strabo, Geogr. 4.4.6; Appian, Hannibaike 27.115; Philo,Spec. 1.23 §116; Josephus, Ant. 6.6.5 § 124. More details of the occurrences of the term and the word group is provided by Büchsel, “ἱλαστήριον,” 314-315. Kraus, Tod Jesu, 27. See the text in Paton and Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos, 126, no. 81. K. Grayston, „‘Ιλάσκεσθαι and Related Words in LXX,“ NTS 27 (1981), 640-656, here 653; Kraus, „Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit,“ 201. Schreiber, “Weihegeschenk,” 88-110, argues on the basis of epigraphical evidence that ἱλαστήριον in 3:25 must be understood as a votive offering (not as an atoning sacrifice). He considers it as a synonym of ἀνάθημα. However, Alexander Weiß, “Christus Jesus als Weihegeschenk oder Sühnemal?,” ZNW 105 (2014), 294-302, esp. 301, has argued that such an interpretation is not philologically possible in Rom 3:25. “Auch wenn man die Bedutung von hilasterion in Röm 3,25 nicht aus dem biblisch-theologischen Zusammenhang bzw. aus dem jüdischen Kontext ableiten will, sondern, wie Schreiber, vorangig aus dem griechisch-paganen Kontext, so ergibt sich dort, wo wir die Bedeutung wirklich sicher erschliessen können, der Sinn: Sühnemal.”

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

295

the first chapter, ἱλαστήριον may denote ‘propitiation’ or ‘appeasement’ in Hellenistic literature.12 Since there is such general agreement as regards pagan usage, it will be interesting to see how it is used in the Jewish writings. Occurrences comparable to Rom 3:25 can be found in the writings of Philo, who uses ἱλαστήριον exclusively for ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬. ַ The instances are Cher. 25.26 (νεύοντα πρὸς τὸ ἱλαστήριον πτεποῖς); Mos. 2.95 (ἐπίθεμα ὡσανεὶ πῶμα τὸ λεγόμενον ἐν ἱεραῖς βίβλοις ἱλαστήριον); and Mos. 2.97 (τὸ δ’ ἐπίθεμα τὸ προσαγορευόμενον ἱλαστήριον). In each of these, ἱλαστήριον is referring to ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬, ַ the technical term for the mercy seat of the Hebrew Bible. We retain two points for our discussion: (1) Philo does not use ἱλαστήριον in the sense of propitiation, but only for the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant; (2) he uses it both with and without the article, in each case referring to the same object. The use of the definite article with ἱλαστήριον in Philo has also been explored.13 It takes the article in the LXX, except in Ex 25:17.14 The research of Bailey reveals that Philo uses the article when he quotes scripture (Cher. 25; Her. 166; Fug. 101), whereas he omits the article in his independent biblical exposition (Fug. 100; Mos. 2.95, 97).15 One text shares the grammar of Rom 3:25. In Fug. 100 Philo writes: τὸ ἐπίθεμα τῆς κιβωτοῦ - καλεῖ δὲ αὐτὸ ἱλαστήριον. This sentence appears in the context of the name Moses gave to the golden plate above the ark. In the opinion of Bailey, “this must be translated ‘Moses calls it the mercy seat’ rather than ‘Moses calls it mercy seat’ with ‘it’ referring to ‘the top-piece of the ark’ (τὸ ἐπίθεμα τῆς κιβωτοῦ).”16 According to Kraus, here too we find a technical use of the term, similar to the other instances: “Auch hier liegt technischer Gebrauch vor, wobei Philo ausführt, daß das ἱλαστήριον die gnädige Kraft Gottes (ἵλεως δύναμις)

12 13

14

15

16

Cf. Morris, “Use of ἱλάσκομαι,” 227. It also throws light on the internal debate whether ἱλαστήριον is referring to ‘a mercy seat’ as Kraus has taken it in a more general sense or it refers to ‘the mercy seat’ as held by Bailey. For their account of Philo with mild variation see Kraus, TodJesu, 26; Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 161-164. A study of the occurrences of the term in LXX will be taken up in the following section. Cf. Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 161. Lyonnet, “The Notion of Sin,” 161, sees these instances in Philo where article is missing is to be treated as same predicative use as in Rom 3:25. He uses these texts to argue for a ‘propitiatory’ meaning for ἱλαστήριον in Philo. Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 162.

296

CHAPTER SEVEN

repräsentiere, wohingegen die Cherubim die königliche und schöpferische Kraft darstellten.”17 Nor is the article used when ἱλαστήριον is a predicate nominative rather than a predicate accusative. Two occurrences in Philo’s OntheLife ofMoses (Mos. 2.95; 2.97) provide examples. Bailey contends that the definite article must be used in the translation of both sentences. His translation of the text is: “‘upon which [the ark] was a top-piece, a sort of lid, which is called in the sacred books the mercy seat’ (2.95); ‘the top-piece, which is called the mercy seat’ (2.97).”18 In his opinion this style of not having the article, but a definite predicate, is not limited to Philo’s use of ἱλαστήριον. Each time in Mos. 2.80-146 Philo mentions the temple furnishings or areas of the tabernacle in a predicate position, the form without the article is used.19 Of course, the definite use of a noun is possible even without the definite article. We will come back to this point when we compare the two NT uses. Flavius Josephus uses the word only once, not as a technical term for ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬, ַ but as an attributive adjective. Strangely, he does not use it in the texts that concern the history of the OT and its cult. In his description of the ark (Ant. 3.134-138) Josephus does not employ ἱλαστήριον, using only ἐπίθεμα with the cherubim. Moreover, in his account of the Day of Atonement (Ant. 3.240-243) the ark is not mentioned at all.20 His use of ἱλαστήριον is in Ant. 16.182, a text that refers to Herod the Great and his opening of David’s tomb. Seeing flames come forth from the inner chambers, he leaves the tomb in fear and erects a monument. The meaning of ἱλαστήριον in the clause τοῦ δέους ἱλαστήριον μνῆμα is not clear.21 Some commentators on Romans refer to Ant. 16.182 and take ἱλαστήριον μνῆμα as a single unit, with ἱλαστήριον as an attribute adjective.22 17 18

19

20 21

22

Kraus, TodJesu, 26. Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 162. Similarly, Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 670, argue in this line by noting that Philo leaves the article for three cases when he speaks of the mercy seat. A comparison of the tabernacle terminology in Philo, Mos. 2.80-146 both in predicate position and non-predicate position is provided by Bailey. For this and more see, Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 162-63. Cf. Büchsel, “ἱλαστήριον,” 320, esp. note 13. In the translation of Ralph Markus and Allen Wirkgren the term is rendered ‘propitiation.’ See, Josephus, JewishAntiquities, vol. 8, ed. Ralph Markus and Allen Wirkgren (London: William Heinemann, 1961), 280-281. Lyonnet, “The Notion of Sin,” 156, favours taking ἱλαστήριον μνῆμα as a single attributive phrase meaning ‘atoning monument.’ See Fitzmyer, Romans, 349; Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 664;

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

297

In sum, there are two distinct uses of ἱλαστήριον: the biblicallyinspired use as the mercy seat; and the Hellenistic sense of votive offering. Some scholars have argued for this latter meaning in Rom 3:25. But would Paul and his readers have understood it this way and applied it to Jesus? At least in Philo, ἱλαστήριον is a clear reference to the ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬. ַ Philo’s use both with and without the article also throws light on the grammatical position of the term in Rom 3:25. Further, our investigation of Philo shows that we could render ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 with the article. It is therefore possible, at least in principle, to translate ἱλαστήριον as the mercy seat. However, we also need to consider the challenges to such a translation, and then to ask whether the context in Romans would support it. 7.1.2.2 Comparing4Macc17:21-22toRom3:25 Discussions of Rom 3:25 often raise the use of ἱλαστήριον in 4 Macc 17:21-22. As we saw in the first chapter, some scholars have tried to interpret Rom 3:25 against the background of 4 Macc 17:21-22, whose narrative of martyrdom leads to an expiatory or a propitiatory meaning and corresponding theology. 4 Macc 17:21-22 reads as follows: καὶ τὸν τύραννον τιμωρηθῆναι καὶ τὴν πατρίδα καθαρισθῆναι ὥσπερ ἀντίψυχον γεγονότας τῆς τοῦ ἔθνους ἁμαρτίας καὶ διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἐκείνων καὶ τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου τοῦ θανάτου αὐτῶν ἡ θεία πρόνοια τὸν Ισραηλ προκακωθέντα διέσωσεν

The exact meaning of this text is disputed, partly because of the variant reading τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου θανάτου αὐτῶν.23 But it portrays the death of the seven brothers as ἀντίψυχον, a vicarious death for the sin of Israel, which diverts God’s wrath. Some scholars draw parallels between this use of ἱλαστήριον and that of Rom 3:25, some even arguing that this text could be Paul’s source for his description of the death of Christ there.24 Thus Lyonnet: “A general affinity between this passage and Rom 23

24

This variant reading is from Alexandrinus. The reading in the text that we accessed from the Bible works 9.0 is from the Sinaiticus, which reads τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου τοῦ θανάτου αὐτῶν. Τhis reading with τοῦ θανάτου renders ἱλαστήριον as a noun, which results in a translation ‘through the expiation of their death.’ Scholars have preferred the Alexandrinus reading according to the lectiobrevior principle. See, Büchsel, „ἱλαστήριον,“ 319, note 7; Hultgren, Paul’sGospelandMission, 73, note 26; Stuhlmacher, „Zur neueren Exegese,“ 327; Kraus, TodJesu, 23. See Lohse, MärtyrerundGottesknecht, 152; Morris, “Meaning of ἱλαστήριον,” 42; van Henten, “Tradition-Historical Background,” 124-125; Cranfield, Epistle to the

298

CHAPTER SEVEN

3:25 is evident, all the more so since among later Jews the death of martyrs was easily understood in the light of the prophecy of the “servant of Yahweh”; among all Hellenistic passages, moreover, only this one connects hilasterion with the mention of “blood,” just as in Rom 3:25.”25 Similarly, Lohse argues that 4 Macc 17:21-22 stands as the background for Paul, as here we find the earliest examples of vicarious death on the part of these martyrs.26 In any case, the text shows that it was no innovation in Judaism to ascribe atoning value to the death of the righteous. Another possible explanation for the similarity is that the two authors had the same understanding of ἱλαστήριον, but applied it independently. This is put forward by James D. G. Dunn, who acknowledges that a more probable case can be made for ‘place of expiation’ with an allusion to the mercy seat, than for a general sense ‘means of expiation.’27 In his commentary on Romans, he uses the ‘principle of extension’, to suggest that one sense of ἱλαστήριον might merge into another: “An allusion to martyr theology is possible, but it is more likely that 4 Mac 17. 21-22 (the atoning significance of the Maccabean martyrs’ deaths) and Rom 3:25 are parallel extensions of the same cultic language and show how sacrificial imagery used to describe the death of a human being (rather than an animal) would have been readily understood in the diaspora Judaism of Paul’s time.”28 However more recent research is less impressed with 4 Maccabees 17 as providing Paul’s background. Fryer observes that the differences between the passages are quite marked and that whereas in 4 Macc 17:22 ἱλαστήριον is used as an attributive adjective with θανάτου, in Rom 3:25 it is nominalised and consequently carries a different meaning.29 The comprehensive analysis of Kraus shows that the author’s statement in 4 Macc 17:22 is to be understood as an answer to Eleazar’s plea in 4 Macc 6:29: ‘Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs.’30 Paul’s emphasis is different from that of 4 Macc 17:22, because “the death of the martyrs themselves has an atoning effect, and the martyrs therefore are redemptive agents in an active sense.

25 26 27 28 29

30

Romans, 217-218; Barrett, EpistletotheRomans, 217-218; Seifrid, “Romans,” 619; Williams, MaccabeanMartyrTraditions, 94-99; Williams, ForWhomDidChristDie?, 200-201. Lyonnet, “The Notion of Sin,” 156. Cf. Lohse, MärtyrerundGottesknecht, 52-53. Cf. Dunn, TheologyofPaul, 213-214. Dunn, Romans1-8, 180. Nico S. L. Fryer, “The Meaning and Translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25,” EvQ 59 (1987): 99-116, esp.103. Cf. Kraus, TodJesu, 41.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

299

However, in Rom 3:25 the stress is wholly on the divine activity in setting forth Christ as hilasterion ‘in his blood.’ The stress is not upon Christ as one whose death ‘propitiates’ or ‘expiates’ in the sense of the martyrdom tradition.”31 Moreover, a distinctively biblical sense for ἱλαστήριον in 4 Macc 17:22 could be rejected because the overall vocabulary of 4 Maccabees is not very biblical.32 Kraus suggests that 4 Maccabees must be interpreted Hellenistically: “es ist daher durchaus möglich, daß auch im Blick auf ἱλαστήριον das griechisch-hellenistische Verständnis als ‘Weihegabe durchschlägt.”33 Moreover, the recent dating of 4 Maccabees to the end of the first century or even later pushes it well beyond any possible connection with Romans, let alone Paul’s direct dependence on it.34 It is sufficient for our present purpose that the writer of 4 Maccabees may have been influenced by the Hellenistic use of the term. It is clear that Rom 3:25 can neither be interpreted against the Hellenistic background nor be understood against the martylogical background of 4 Maccabees. The sense in Rom 3:25 is different. This takes us to an examination of the use of ἱλαστήριον in the LXX and in particular in Lev 16:15-22. 7.1.2.3 TheMeaningandTranslationof‫כפרת‬intheLXX The term ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬occurs 27 times in the Hebrew Bible.35 21 of the 27 occurrences of ἱλαστήριον in the LXX translate ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬. ַ 36 Two issues need to 31 32 33

34

35

36

Hultgren, Paul’sGospelandMission, 57. Cf. Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 132. Kraus, TodJesu, 41. An argument for the biblical background for ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 is that many of the other terms in the context are also biblical. As we have seen in the previous chapter, the redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις) Paul talks about in this context has to be understood from the biblical background of God’s deliverance of Israel. Accoding to recent scholarship it is probably composed between 90-100 CE. See the discussion in van Henten, “Tradition-Historical Background,” 116-126; Campbell, Rhetoric of Righteousness, 219-228; Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 448; Jan Willem van Henten, “Jewish Martyrdom and Jesus’ Death,” in DeutungendesTodesJesuimNeuen Testament, ed. Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter, WUNT 181 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 139-168, esp. 143; Kraus, „Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit,“ 204. This goes against the views held earlier by scholars such as Lyonnet, “The Notion of Sin,” (156) that the text probably is composed “in Greek shortly before or shortly after Christ.” For a comprehensive list of occurrences of the term in the Hebrew Bible, see Bernd Janowski, SühnealsHeilsgeschehen, WMANT 55 (Düsseldorf: Neukirchener, 2000), 271; Brown, HebrewandEnglishlexicon, 498. Ex 25:16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21; 31:7; 35:12; 37:5, 7 (twice), 8; Lev 16:2 (twice), 13, 14 (twice), 15 (twice); Num 7:89. There are four occasions where ‫ תֶרֹּפַּכ‬is not translated: Ex 30:6; 37:7; 39:35; 40:20. The Symmachus translation of Gen 6:15 refers

300

CHAPTER SEVEN

be addressed: in 6 places, ἱλαστήριον stands for other Hebrew words; and in 6 other places, ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬is used in the Hebrew Bible but the translation is not ἱλαστήριον. Before we examine these issues, we first note what the Hebrew and Greek terms have in common: they designate the same golden plate above the Ark of the Covenant. That ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬means ‘a cover’ distinct from ἱλαστήριον is rejected in recent scholarship.37 Janowski rightly stresses that ‘Sühneort’ or ‘place of atonement’ can gloss ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬as well as ἱλαστήριον.38 Leviticus 16 is particularly important in this regard, because in it ἱλαστήριον is used 7 times, each time for the ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬. ַ Indeed many scholars regard Lev 16:15-22 as the background for Paul’s use of the term. It is one of the three key passages read publicly on the festival of YomKippur, so pious Jews would have associated ἱλαστήριον with the Day of Atonement.39 The Day of Atonement rituals aimed principally to remove the sins that polluted the altar. It was not the killing of the animal as such that affected the atonement. This was rather a prerequisite, to provide blood40 to purify the mercy seat and the rest of the temple. Therefore Jesus cannot be compared to the animal that is slaughtered. Rather, ἱλαστήριον is here the place where the Day of Atonement rituals take place and it is this idea that it carries when used as a technical term for ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬. ַ 41 Luther’s translation of the term as ‘Gnadenstuhl,’ like those English translations that render it as ‘mercy seat,’ is a correct reflection of the sense of Leviticus 16. Yet before we equate ἱλαστήριον with ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬, ַ we must consider the meaning of ἱλαστήριον when used with ἐπίθεμα in Ex 25:17. We must also examine the instances in the LXX where ἱλαστήριον does not stand for ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬and where ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬is not rendered by ἱλαστήριον (by ἐξιλασμός in 1 Chr 28:11 and by καταπέτασμα in Ex 26:34).42

37 38 39 40

41 42

Noah’s as a ἱλαστήριον. See Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen, 361-362. As the instances where ἱλαστήριον renders other than ‫ תֶרֹּפַּכ‬is of serious concern, those texts will be critically analysed in the following paragraphs. Cf. Janowski, SühnealsHeilsgeschehen, 274-276. Cf. Janowski, SühnealsHeilsgeschehen, 272, note 457. Cf. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 131, note 1. See Christian A. Eberhart, “Characteristics of Sacrificial Metaphors in Hebrews,” in Hebrews:ContemporaryMethods-NewInsights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 37-48. Cf. Fahy, “Exegesis on Rom. 3:25f,” 106. Manson suggests that in 1 Chr 28:11 it is probably the rendering of a Hebrew variant or misreading of kippurim: Manson, “ἱλαστήριον,” 2. With regard to the rendering of Ex 26:34 by καταπέτασμα, Deissmann, Bible Studies, 127, views that it is probably because of a misreading of kprt as pkrt.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

301

The use of ἱλαστήριον with ἐπίθεμα in Ex 25:17 is the only LXX use ָ ‫ וְ ָע ִ ֥שׂ‬is rendered without the article.43 The Hebrew text ‫ית ַכ ֖ ֹפּ ֶרת זָ ָהב ָטהוֹר‬ by καὶ ποιήσεις ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα χρυσίου καθαροῦ. As we have seen, Deissmann argues that ἐπίθεμα is the proper translation of ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬. ַ More to the point, he adds elsewhere that ἱλαστήριον takes the article in the LXX.44 Manson proposes that the use can be a gloss.45 Büchsel suggests that ἱλαστήριον is here an adjective qualifying ἐπίθεμα.46 This has led to it being taken as an adjective in Rom 3:25. But Bailey objects: “The corollary is that ἱλαστήριον is never an attributive adjective in the Old Testament, not even in Exod 25:17, where it is in apposition to ַ it is ἐπίθεμα.”47 Considering its wide use in the Pentateuch for ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬, more plausible to take ἱλαστήριον as a noun in apposition to ἐπίθεμα. There are also five instances of ἱλαστήριον in Ezekiel 43 (vv 14 three times, 17, 20) where it stands for ‫עזָ ָרה‬, ֲ part of the altar of Ezekiel’s 48 vision of the new, ideal temple following the disappearance of the Ark of the Covenant. According to Manson, it refers to the stone platforms on which the altar stood.49 Many scholars consider this to be merely another use of ἱλαστήριον. Bailey tries to solve the problem with a linguistic analogy.50 Kraus suggests that these five instances in Ezekiel show that ἱλαστήριον can stand for ‘eschatological sanctuary.’51 In Amos 9:1 ἱλαστήριον appears to stand for the Hebrew ‫כּ ְפתּוֹר‬, ַ which is considered as a misreading of ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬. ַ 52 We will now look for any signals in Rom 3:25 that might suggest which of these meanings best fits the context. Büchsel argues for Paul’s thorough acquaintance with the Hebrew Scriptures and their LXX 43

44 45

46 47 48

49 50

51 52

The only other instance where it is used without the article in the Bible is Rom 3:25. However, in Rom 3:25 it stands by itself, whereas in Ex 25:17 it is used with ἐπίθεμα. Cf. Deissmann, BibleStudies, 125-126. Manson, “ἱλαστήριον,” 3. Against this suggestion, Morris, “Meaning of ἱλαστήριον,” 35, argues that the evidence adduced is not really strong and sufficient weight has not been attached to the principle of difficiliorlectiopotior. Büchsel, “ἱλαστήριον,” 321. Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 236. Lyonnet, “The Notion of Sin,” 159-160, sees the uses of the term in Ezekiel, where there was no ark, as occupying the place of the propitiatory of the ark. Manson, “ἱλαστήριον,” 3. For a detailed analysis of the Ezekiel text and the linguistic analogy, see Bailey, Jesus astheMercySeat, 152-53. Kraus, TodJesu, 154; Kraus, „Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit,“ 208. Cf. Manson, “ἱλαστήριον,” 2. Lyonnet, “The Notion of Sin,” 160, note 32, explains it further by noting that “the LXX reads wrongly in Hebrew hakkapporet instead of the reading of TM hakkaptor.”

302

CHAPTER SEVEN

translation. “The indisputable centre of the earlier expiations of the Law is the Day of Atonement, when ἱλαστήριον, or ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬, ַ must be sprinkled with blood to mediate the remission of all sins. Paul obviously assumes that the church to which he writes is acquainted with the Mosaic Law, 7:1. Hence it is natural that he should depict Jesus in this context as a higher ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬.” ַ 53 This position is supported by the view that the language of Rom 3:24-26 is not radically discontinuous with the imagery of the mercy seat in Leviticus 16.54 In any case, scholars have seldom argued that the ἱλαστήριον of Ezek 43:20 is that of Rom 3:25. One of the reasons is the exegetical force of the use of προέθετο in 3:25 as an open ‘setting out’, in contrast to the hidden ἱλαστήριον of the Pentateuch. We shall deal with this issue in the next main section where we study the text of 3:25 in detail. In any case, the sense of ἱλαστήριον in the LXX is different from that of classical Greek. It is that of taking away sin, rather than of placating an angry God. ἱλαστήριον is mostly used in the LXX as an independent noun and most commonly for the ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬of the Ark of the Covenant. We established in chapter 2 that Paul often quotes from the LXX in Romans 1-3, arguing on the basis of his citations. This suggests that we should prefer the LXX background of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25. 7.1.2.4 TheSenseoftheNounἱλασμόςin1Jn2:2and4:10 We now turn to a short analysis of the uses of the noun ἱλασμός, a cognate of ἱλάσκομαι,55 in 1 Jn 2:2 and 4:10. These two occurrences of ἱλασμός seem to appear in a formalistic clause.56 Significantly the Latin Vulgate translates different Greek expressions, ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 and ἱλασμός in 1 Jn 2:2 and 4:10, with propitiatio. This Latin translation had a tremendous influence on English translations, which follow it in translating two different Greek words by a single English word.57 There is debate about whether ἱλασμός connotes expiation or propitiation. Even Dodd, the champion of ‘expiation,’ admits that he has less confidence in appealing to LXX usage here. “Thus, we should not be 53 54 55

56

57

Büchsel, „ἱλαστήριον,“321. Cf. Janowski, SühnealsHeilsgeschehen, 352; Seifrid, „Romans,“ 619. ἱλάσκομαι and its cognates are used in eight instances of in the NT: Mt 16:22; Lk 18:13; Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 8:12; 9:5; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10. Roloff, “ἱλαστήριον,” 186. Roloff also states that the text can be part of an older tradition that depicted Christ as “expiation for our sins.” Cf. Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 248.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

303

surprised to find that the writer followed that prevailing non-biblical usage of ἱλάσκομαι, and used ἱλασμός in the sense of ‘a propitiatory offering.”58 On the contrary, Büchsel argues that John is following the OT: “ἱλασμός does not imply the propitiation of God. It refers to the purpose which God Himself has fulfilled by sending the Son.”59 There is nothing in the immediate context of these texts that evidently supports propitiation. Raymond E. Brown agrees: “There is no mention of wrath in the context, and the Son is sent from God – if he was propitiating God, the action would be in the other direction.”60 Similarly, the recent research by Toan Do shows that ‘expiation’ can be exegetically and theologically preferred. His study of ἱλασμός in the context of 1 Jn 1:5-2:2 suggests that it refers to the death of Jesus as the expiation for all human sinfulness.61 He observes that “in both 1 John 2,2 and 4,10 ἱλασμός ἐστιν, or ἱλασμὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, has a clear reference to Jesus as the mediating agent whereby reconciliation between God and humans is achieved.”62 His detailed study of ἱλασμός in these passages excludes the possibility of a propitiatory meaning.63 Indeed, he also argues that ἱλαστήριον should also be understood as ‘expiation’in Rom 3:25.64 Roloff has argued that ἱλασμός in these texts can be better understood against the background of Rom 3:25: “the meaning becomes clear when one observes its proximity to Rom 3:25 in tradition history: Jesus Christ is the place established by God where the expiation made possible by him takes place.”65 We must question the tendency, following the Vulgate, to equate ἱλαστήριον with ἱλασμός. Scholars have drawn attention to their 58 59 60

61

62 63 64

65

Dodd, “ΙΛΑΣΚΟΜΑΙ Its Cognates,” 360. Büchsel, “ἱλαστήριον,” 317. Raymond E. Brown, TheEpistlesofJohn, AB 30 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), 220. Cf. Toan Joseph Do, “Jesus’ Death as Hilasmos According to 1 John,” in TheDeath ofJesusintheFourthGospel, ed. G. Van Belle, BETL 200 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 537-553; Toan Do, Re-thinking the Death of Jesus: An Exegetical and Theological StudyofHilasmosandAgapēin1John2:1-2and4:7-10, CBET 73 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 190-192. Do, “Jesus’ Death as Hilasmos,” 546. Do, Re-thinkingtheDeathofJesus, 206-212. Cf. Do, “LXX Background,” 641-657. One of the argument for this conclusion is that “the context of the LXX is solely theocentric, whereas the context in the NT has become christocentric,” Do, Re-thinking the Death of Jesus, 212. This generalized statement cannot be a reason for a conclusion because, in our view, the context of Rom 3:25 and 1 Jn 4:10 is theocentric. Roloff, “ἱλαστήριον,” 186.

304

CHAPTER SEVEN

differences. Thus Bailey: “I object to the translation “sacrifice of atonement” for ἱλαστήριον because a ἱλαστήριον is never a sacrificial victim. But I would not raise the same objection against such a translation in 1 John (e.g. REB “a sacrifice to atone for our sins’). There are places in the LXX where ἱλασμός denotes a victim… ἱλαστήριον is never used this way in known sources, and this difference should be kept in mind in translation.”66 We note that 1 John probably has sacrificial and priestly motifs. The standard LXX rendering περὶ ἁμαρτίας for ‘sin offering’ is combined with ἱλασμός in both 1 Jn 2:2 and 4:10.67 This combination is not found in any use of ἱλαστήριον. We conclude that we cannot equate ἱλασμός with the ἱλαστήριον of Rom 3:25. That Paul and 1 John use different words warns us not to assume that they mean the same. Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ death is theologically different from that of John. What we can assert with confidence is that recent studies do not support a propitiatory meaning for the noun ἱλασμός in these texts either. Rather, ἱλασμός is understood against one of the main functions of ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬in the LXX. Unlike ἱλασμός in 1 Jn 2:2 and 4:10, ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 seems to stand directly for the ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬of the MT. 7.1.2.5 TheUseofἱλαστήριονinHeb9:5 Heb 9:5 is the only other NT occurrence of ἱλαστήριον. ‘Mercy seat’ is undisputed here. Büchsel sums this up: “Heb 9:5 simply follows the LXX usage in its description of the ark of the covenant.”68 The text clearly locates the term on the Ark of the Covenant: ὑπεράνω δὲ αὐτῆς Χερουβὶν δόξης κατασκιάζοντα τὸ ἱλαστήριον. Here ἱλαστήριον, with the definite article, is the direct object of the verb κατασκιάζω. Further, the context of 9:1-10 reveals this meaning: it points to the regulations of the Day of Atonement in Lev 16, when mentioning the tent (9:2, 3, 6) and uses the term in describing the Ark of the Covenant. “The writer follows the LXX in designating the lid on the Ark of the Covenant ἱλαστήριον… The lid was sprinkled with the blood of the sin-offering on

66

67

68

Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 249. BDAG, 474, (ἱλασμός 2) notes this possible sense for the term in 1 Jn. LSJ 828, (ἱλασμός) presents the gloss ‘a means of appeasing.’ Cf. Lev 5:6-7,11; 16:3, 5, 9; Num 6:16; 7:16; 2 Chr 29:23-24; Neh 10:33; Ezek 42:13; 43:19. Büchsel, “ἱλαστήριον,” 323.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

305

the Day of Atonement (Lev 16: 14-15).”69 This is a clear reference to the ‘mercy seat.’ While Heb 9:5, consistent with the LXX, includes the definite article, Rom 3:25 does not. It has been argued that Heb 9:5 is a specific reference to ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬, ַ whereas Rom 3:25 signals a more general meaning, but this is to confuse English and Greek grammar. “The notion of supreme and singular atonement is contained in the word ἱλαστήριον itself because of its frequent LXX rendering of kprt, and not in the article.”70 Kraus has made an important point in this regard, “ἱλαστήριον ist im Röm 3,25 Prädikatsnomen. Beim Prädikatsnomen und wenn es sich um Formelsprache handelt, kann der Artikel fehlen.”71 We should not forget that the definite use of a noun is possible even without the definite article. Paul is not consistent in his use of the article. He does not usually employ the definite article in front of a noun in the predicative position. Stuhlmacher brings this point in when he notes: “Da im neutestamentlichen Formelgut, im Definitionstil und beim Prädikatsnomen der Artikel normalerweise nicht gesetzt wird (vgl. z.B. Röm 1,16 f.; 3,20; 4,25; 8,3 f.; 2 Kor 5,21; Kol 1,15.20b usw.), ist das Fehlen des Artikels vor ἱλαστήριον in Röm 3,25 nicht weiter verwunderlich, denn das Wort steht hier ja als Prädikativum.”72 Thus the missing definite article in Rom 3:25 is not a sufficient reason for considering it different from Heb 9:5. We conclude this section, having found that the only other NT occurrence of ἱλαστήριον refers to ‘the mercy seat’ of the Ark of the Covenant and that the missing article in Rom 3:25 does not necessarily change the meaning. Our results so far point to two contrasting meanings for ἱλαστήριον: the Hellenistic, extra-biblical use of appeasing angry gods; and the biblical use of atonement related to the ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬. ַ We have already shown reasons to prefer the scriptural background and the mercy seat for Rom 69

70 71

72

Lane, Hebrews 9-13, 221. Ribbens, “Forensic-Retributive Justification,” 565-566, draws the connection between Rom 3:24-26 and Hebrews 9-10 as expounding on the same traditional material. In this regard, he asserts that ἱλαστήριον must have a similar meaning in both texts. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 111, note 2. Kraus, „Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit,“ 201. We want to add that in some places Greek does not allow the article to be used even when we need some definite point. One of them is when a noun is a predicate complement and the subject is also a noun. When the subject is a pronoun then mostly the predicate gets the article. But when the subject is a noun and the predicate is a noun then the absence of the article actually has the meaning that it is definite. Here we have no option of using the article. Even without the article the noun can be definite. The article is often absent in prepositional phrases even when its meaning is intended. Stuhlmacher, “Zur neueren Exegese,” 322-323.

306

CHAPTER SEVEN

3:25. However, before reaching a decision, we should consider the context of ἱλαστήριον in 3:21-26. 7.1.3 The Meaning of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 It is often argued that a reference to Jesus as the mercy seat would not be apt in the context of Rom 3:21-26. James Denney objects that the context simply does not fit: There are grammatical reasons against this rendering. Paul must have written, to be clear, τὸ ἱλαστήριον ἡνῶν, οr some equivalent phrase… A “mercy-seat” is not such a self-evident, self-interpreting idea, that the Apostle could lay it at the heart of his gospel without a word of explanation.73

However, the ἱλαστήριον of the OT fits well into the context of Rom 3:21-26 and with Paul’s theme in Romans 1-3 of humanity’s breaking away from a just relationship with God. We established God’s relational justice as the central theme of Romans 1-3 in our second chapter, and we have seen that Paul is arguing on the basis of Scripture. This is why we hold that ἱλαστήριον can be understood as a reference to the ‘mercy seat’ in Rom 3:25. Nevertheless, we must ask whether there are serious grammatical reasons against this rendering. We must also seek a reasonable explanation of the difficulties identified by scholars. This we will do in the next sections. 7.1.3.1 TheGrammarofἱλαστήριον The controversy is firstly grammatical: is ἱλαστήριον being used as an adjective or a noun? This nuance of meaning is crucial. The adjectival use of ἱλαστήριον was noted in the previous section.74 And linguistically it could be an adjective in 3:25. Some Bible translations take this view and some commentators, understanding it in this sense, accordingly explain it in theological terms. Within this group are those who read it as a masculine singular accusative adjective agreeing with the relative

73

74

James Denney, “St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament,ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1900), 611. See above p. 275 for the only occurrence of ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα in the LXX, Ex 25:17; ἱλαστήριον μνῆμα in Josephus, Ant. 16.182 (p. 271); τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου θανάτου αὐτῶν in 4 Macc 17:22 (p. 272).

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

307

pronoun ὅν: whom God set forth as someone ‘making propitiation’75; and others who read it as a neuter accusative adjective implying either as something that brings out as ‘a propitiatory offering/sacrifice’76 or ‘an expiatory offering/sacrifice.’77 If it is really used as an adjective, it has to correspond in case, number and gender with ὅν, which is then a continuation of the noun Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ in 3:24. For this reason, it is at least grammatically possible to take ἱλαστήριον as a masculine singular adjective. However, the translations above show that even if it is an adjective, it is an adjective used as a noun. Perhaps the presence of προέθετο and αἷμα in the context require such a rendering of the term with sacrificial nuances. The analysis of these terms would further show that προέθετο and αἷμα should not be taken in this sense. Further, the context does not talk about an angry God who needs to be appeased. In the grammatical construction of Rom 3:25 we have a subject, a verb and double accusative: ὅν, the direct object and ἱλαστήριον, the predicative accusative. In such a construction there is no place for a real adjective and ἱλαστήριον is therefore more likely to be used as a noun and, as such, is not dependent in gender on ὅν. Hence, the case for taking ἱλαστήριον as an adjective is weak. Taking ἱλαστήριον as a noun, we still have the choice of masculine or neuter. The Vulgate translation of ἱλαστήριον as propitiatorem seems to favour taking it as masculine, but there are no extant proved occurrences of the nominalised masculine form, in the Bible or elsewhere.78 Paul could have used ἱλαστής if he had wanted a masculine noun here.79 Thus, the most probable case is that it is a neuter accusative noun. This choice is supported by the frequency with which neuter of adjectives in –ιος, especially those in –ηριος, are nominalised.80 In Rom 3:25 it functions as a double accusative along with the relative pronoun ὁν. In the double accusative we have the first accusative ὅν, which is the direct 75

76

77

78 79

80

See Denney, “St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” 611; Sanday and Headlam, Epistleto theRomans, 88. Barrett, EpistletotheRomans, 77-78. See Kenneth Escott Kirk, The Epistle to the Romans, The Clarendon Bible (Oxford: Clarendon, 1947), 65; Murray, Romans, 117; Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 216217; Murray, Romans, 117. See Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht, 152; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 107; Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 133. Büchsel, “ἱλαστήριον,” 319. Cf. Fryer, “Meaning and Translation,” 104. It is to be noted that the personal noun ἱλαστής itself does not appear in the LXX or in the NT. Cf. Fryer, „Meaning and Translation,“ 104-105; Kraus, „Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit,“ 201.

308

CHAPTER SEVEN

object of God’s action. The second accusative is a kind of predication81 that explains the way in which the action is done to the direct object. Thus, we consider this use of ἱλαστήριον to be as a noun in the neuter accusative, which is explaining God’s action in Christ Jesus. It can then be a nomen loci, relating Christ to the ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬of the Hebrew Bible. We have already made clear that this is its most common rendering in the LXX. In Rom 3:25, then, we find the best grammatical rendering to point to Jesus as the new mercy seat, established by God for the salvation of all humanity. However, we are still confronted by other problems that must now be addressed. 7.1.3.2 TheProbabilityofanAllusionto‫כפרת‬ The primary question is how Paul’s readers would have understood ἱλαστήριον.82 Any Jew familiar with the LXX would have naturally associated it with the ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬of the Pentateuch. But it has been argued that Paul’s Gentile readers may not have made this association.83 Yet it is clear from Paul’s frequent use of Scripture and the expressions: ‘what does the Scripture say’? (4:2) and ‘I am speaking to those who know the law’ (7:1), that Romans presupposes at least some familiarity with the Torah. As Hultgren rightly notes, “the Roman community would have been comprised in part of Jewish Christians and Gentiles who (as former Godfearers) had become familiar with the Torah in the synagogue.”84 It is unlikely that Gentile readers would reject an allusion to Scripture and our study of Philo and Heb 9:5 has established that an association of ἱλαστήριον with ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬was prevalent in the first century. The context favours a scriptural allusion rather than an extra-biblical one. Paul writes that the present revelation of God’s merciful justice is in continuity with the law and the prophets (3:21). This continuity with Scripture calls for scriptural understanding. The central claim of 3:25 is that by means of Christ’s death God made available a new means of access to him that went beyond the sins of humanity. Sins were 81

82

83

84

Cf. Turner and Moulton, GrammarofNewTestamentGreek, 3:246; Robertson, GrammaroftheGreek, 480; Wallace, GreekGrammar, 182. Some of the other objections, including the missing article and the possibility of a martyological background have already been dealt with in the previous section. The question of its belonging to a pre-Pauline formula, addressed extensively in the first and third chapters, will not again be taken up here. See Deissmann, BibleStudies, 129; Morris, “Meaning of ἱλαστήριον,” 40-41; Cranfield, TheEpistletotheRomans, 215. Hultgren, Paul’sGospelandMission, 59.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

309

provisionally passed over in view of the establishment of a new mercy seat capable of dealing with them forever. The reference to αἷμα would have furthered such an association. As we have argued in the previous chapters, this meaning is supported by the uses of δόξα θεοῦ (3:23), ἀπολύτρωσις (3:24), and the frequent use of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in the pericope. It also fits with Paul’s statements about Christ establishing εἰρήνην πρὸς τὸν θεόν (5:1) and God establishing καταλλαγή by means of Christ (5:10). All these expressions and their motifs are best understood in relation to the Day of Atonement. An association of ἱλαστήριον with the OT ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬fits the pattern of this imagery. Some scholars have found that this association creates a typology that is not feasible, because it makes Christ both the site of the offering and the offering itself.85 Schnelle raises such an objection when he writes, “a typological interpretation of Lev. 16 leads to paradoxical imagery, so that if Christ is identified with the mercy seat, Christ as mercy seat would be sprinkled and cleansed with his own blood.”86 Wilckens rightly notes that this complaint reflects “jedoch moderne Logik, die derjenigen urchristlicher typologischer Auswirkung des Alten Testaments gar nicht entspricht.”87 If we take αἷμα with the verb rather than with ἱλαστήριον, as we have argued in the third chapter, we can overcome this difficulty. It will help us understand how Jesus can function as the ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 if we understand the function of ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬/ἱλαστήριον ַ in the Pentateuch.88 Its occurrences there highlight two functions. First, the mercy seat is the place of the revelation of God (Ex 26:32; Lev 16:2; Num 7:89). God appeared above the mercy seat and spoke to Moses. We have already established that the main thrust of Rom 3:21-26 is the revelation of God’s merciful justice, so this function fits well with the immediate context. Second, the mercy seat is the place of atonement for sins (Lev 16:14-15). Again, this fits the context of Paul’s argument, which is concerned to show how God’s handling of sins once and for all brings about an at-one-ment. ἱλαστήριον carries both these functions in Rom 3:25, functions that underpin the passage. 85

86 87 88

See for example, the objections raised in Käsemann, An die Römer, 91; Haacker, Römer, 91; Schnelle, ApostlePaul, 447. Schnelle, ApostlePaul, 447-448. Wilckens, Römer, 191. Cf. Fryer, “Meaning and Translation,” 106; Schnelle, ApostlePaul, 447; Kraus, „Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit,“ 205. Park, Stellvertretung Jesu Christi (218) writes that Christ becomes “der theoogisch wichtige Ort, an dem aufgrund der Gegenwart Gottes irdischer und himmlischer Bereich einander berühren.”

310

CHAPTER SEVEN

How exactly do these functions take place in the Christ-event? Is Christ’s death is being compared to a specific object? Can we not more readily associate the meaning with the functions of the mercy seat, than with the mercy seat itself? These questions lead some scholars to argue that ἱλαστήριον is to be taken with the ceremonies that surround the ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬, ַ and not with the ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬itself. Thus Campbell writes that ἱλαστήριον is “a metaphorical description of Christ’s death as the supreme, divinely-ordained sacrifice for sin, in analogy to the great feast of atonement, YomKippur.”89 We will address the difficulties with this rendering in what follows. Paul begins Rom 3:21-26 by stating that the present manifestation of God’s merciful justice is attested by the Scripture (3:21). We have already noted how Paul’s “attested by the law and prophets” has received little attention, because there is no quotation in the pericope. However, it supplies an interpretive key, for it obliges us to understand ἱλαστήριον against its scriptural background. If Paul had wanted his readers to understand it otherwise, he should have made this clear. Even those recent scholars who accept that allusion to the mercy seat vary in their understanding of the reference, disclosing their uncertainty as to how exactly the allusion works in Rom 3:25. Fryer, who firmly refutes the arguments against the mercy seat, nevertheless argues that “it is not the Apostle’s aim to identify Christ with the kapporeth in a strict sense. Christ crucified was the ‘place’ parexcellence where God’s mercy was supremely manifested.”90 As we have seen, Kraus doubts that Paul would have identified Christ with ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬alone: “In diesem Verständnis sind alle mit der ‫ כפרת‬verbundenen Vorstellungen eingeschlossen, jedoch nicht allein auf diese fixiert.”91 The absence of ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬in the five occurrences of ἱλαστήριον in Ezekiel 43 leads him to propose that it can stand for ‘eschatological sanctuary.’92 We have seen how Bailey questions this understanding, arguing that Jesus should be identified metaphorically with the ‘mercy seat’, not with the eschatological sanctuary as a whole.

89 90 91 92

Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 133. Fryer, “Meaning and Translation,” 108. Kraus, TodJesu, 154; Kraus, „Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit,“ 208. Just as Kraus, Seifrid, “Romans,” 619, also argues that ἱλαστήριον has eschaltological connotations. Although this theological explanation is very appealing, ἱλαστήριον does not refer to the sanctuary as a whole in Ezekiel, neither in any text in the LXX nor in Hellenistic Jewish literature. For the refutation of the eschatological view, see Haacker, Römer, 91 and Flebbe, SolusDeus, 100.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

311

This can be understood as the beginning of the metaphorical use of ἱλαστήριον in the Hebrew Bible itself.93 We see two possibilities, which need not be mutually exclusive. One is that Paul is using ἱλαστήριον as a metaphor for Christ. The point of a metaphor is that it confronts two semantic fields that are not formally connected. That Jesus is the lid of the Ark of the Covenant fits this condition, including the category mistake that is characteristic of metaphors. The formal denial of what this predication asserts then invites us to ask how the characteristics of the mercy seat might legitimately apply to Christ. The second possibility, which seems to have been overlooked elsewhere, is that Paul is using mercy seat as a metonym for the functions of the mercy seat. Metonymy and metaphor are closely associated topes of language, both of which use formally untrue statements to evoke connections between two apparently unconnected semantic fields. In the present case, either possibility seems to work, but the metonymy in particular seems to be entirely comfortable. In our view, Paul had in mind the ἱλαστήριον of the Ark of the Covenant as such, but for him and for any other devout Jew, this would evoke, through metonymy and without further explanation, not just the physical mercy seat, but the functions attached to it. Thus Paul could connect God’s self-revelation in Christ and his redemption of humanity by means of Christ’s death with God’s self-revelation at the mercy seat and the atonement that there took place, evoking through ἱλαστήριον all its Pentateuchal fullness, pointing his reader to the functionality of the mercy seat, far beyond its physicality. This link between Rom 3:25 and the functions of the Pentateuch mercy seat enables us to make sense of Paul’s words. We therefore translate ἱλαστήριον as ‘mercy seat,’ allowing the reader to use this central OT evocation of God’s self-revelation and atonement. For Paul, it is the same God who offers redemption both before and after the Christ-event. What is new is that God now redeems everyone unconditionally in Christ. As Hunter states, “what was symbolically figured forth on the Day of Atonement has been fulfilled in Christ.”94 Paul’s connection of these two fields through a trope of language enables him to give theological meaning to the death of Christ. ‘The mercy seat’ is essential to this association. Without it, the trope and its meaning 93 94

See Bailey, JesusastheMercySeat, 199-201. Archibald M. Hunter, TheEpistletotheRomans (London: SCM, 1961), 47.

312

CHAPTER SEVEN

is lost. The semantic field surrounding the mercy-seat cannot be limited to what is contained in the Pentateuch, but embraces the functions associated with the mercy seat in all their depth. These will become clearer as we study προέθετο, the verb associated with ἱλαστήριον in 3:25, the two clauses that follow, and their meaning. 7.1.3.3 TheConnotationoftheVerbπροέθετο We need to determine the meaning of προέθετο itself, before we look into its sense in relation to ἱλαστήριον. In Rom 3:25 it is the aorist indicative middle of προτίθημι, with a special emphasis on the action of the subject ὁ θεός.95 The middle is not reflexive. Its first meaning is as an intensifier, that God is engaged, highly involved. προέθετο could then mean ‘God proposed him’; or ‘God has purposed him’ (as a way of saying that God proposed him, with a connotation of public display),96 implying that ‘God set him forth publicly’ or ‘displayed him publicly.’ This meaning is tenable in 3:25, for the structure with a double accusative requires a verb of action, not just of resolve.97 Sanday and Headlam have convincingly argued in this line: Both meanings would be in full accordance with the teaching of St. Paul both elsewhere and in this Epistle… But when we turn to the immediate context we find it so full of terms denoting publicity (πεφανέρωται, εἰς ἔνδειξιν, πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν) that the latter sense [i.e. ‘whom God set forth publicly’] seems preferable.98

In addition, this reading of προέθετο is often found in the LXX with a connotation of public presentation.99 Above all, there are stylistic, grammatical and theological arguments in favour of this position. 95

96

97 98 99

Cf. Fahy, “Exegesis on Rom. 3:25f,” 70. This theocentric focus of the text is noted by a number of scholars. See Barth, EpistletotheRomans, 105; Lohse, DerBriefandie Römer, 135; Schnelle, ApostlePaul, 451; Flebbe, SolusDeus, 102; Wolter, DerBrief anDieRömer, 255. Cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 349. Flebbe, SolusDeus, 96, notes that both these meanings are possible in Rom 3:25. An argument for a meaning of ‘proposed him to himself,’ can be found in Cranfield, TheEpistletotheRomans, 209-210; Zeller, “Sühne und Langmut,” 57; Haacker, Römer, 107. A meaning of ‘displayed him publicly’is supported by Wilckens, Römer, 189; Dunn, Romans1-8, 170; Lohse, DerBriefandieRömer, 135; Jewett, Romans, 283. Cf. Moule, NewTestamentGreek, 35. Sanday and Headlam, EpistletotheRomans, 87. Ex 29:23; 40:23; Lev 24:8; Ps 53(54):8; 2 Macc 1:8, 15. The use of προτίθημι in these texts often means ‘to publish,’ ‘to proclaim’ or ‘to display.’ Cf. Stuhlmacher, „Zur neueren Exegese,“ 328.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

313

However, as the ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬of the OT was hidden in the Holy of Holies, is ‘set forth publicly’ appropriate for Rom 3:25? We hold that Paul presents God’s redemptive work through Christ before the eyes of the world, in marked contrast to the old high priest, who performs the acts ‘mysteriously’ and in private. The mercy seat of the LXX was hidden; now there is a mercy seat in public. If anything, this enriches the mercy seat interpretation, by adding development of visibility to continuity of understanding. We tend to agree with Hans Wilhelm Schmidt that this contrast is the strongest argument for understanding ἱλαστήριον as the mercy seat.100 The old ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬contrasts with the new ἱλαστήριον, as Paul contrasts the old and the new in Rom 1-3. It fits particularly well in a pericope (3:21-26) which begins with νυνὶ δέ. The new ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬is no longer hidden behind the veil, but “is brought out into the midst of the rough and tumble of the world and set up before the eyes of hostile, contemptuous, or indifferent crowds.”101 The verb then speaks of ‘a singular action’ of God, in which the action of the setting forth of his son as ἱλαστήριον, is the very action that effects atonement.102 Christ is publicly set forth as the new place of meeting with God.103 προέθετο points towards the public character of the proclamation of the gospel, semantically corresponding to προεγάφη in Gal 3:1, “before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed.”104 This use of προέθετο develops the pericope’s main thrust, ‘the manifestation of God’s merciful justice’. In any case, the emphasis of the phrase ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον is on divine initiative in the process of human salvation, setting forth Christ as ἱλαστήριον. This is entirely in line with the structure of the argument and of the line of thought of Rom 3:21-26, which we set out in chapter three. It is also crucial to the main thrust of the pericope, for if this reading of the verb and of the theocentricity of the pericope is correct, there is no connotation of ‘propitiation,’ either in the phrase or in the overall context. We conclude, therefore, that the meaning of the verb προέθετο as “set forth publicly” fits well with an understanding of ἱλαστήριον as the mercy seat of the Pentateuch. It remains now to consider how this works in association with the two following clauses, διὰ πίστεως and ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι. We have already

100 101 102 103 104

Cf. Schmidt, AndieRömer, 68. See also the discussion in Schnelle, ApostlePaul, 447. Manson, „ἱλαστήριον,“ 5. Cf. Hultgren, Paul’sGospelandMission, 57. Cf. Stuhlmacher, „Zur Neueren Exegese,“ 328. Cf. Fryer, “Meaning and Translation,” 110.

314

CHAPTER SEVEN

discussed a number of issues with these phrases in our study of the syntax of 3:25 in chapter three (section 3.4.5.2). Here we show how concretely they are associated with the verb and ἱλαστήριον. 7.1.3.4 Christtheἱλαστήριονδιὰπίστεως A number of scholars take the view that the presence of διὰ πίστεως complicates the understanding of Rom 3:25, as it is “difficult to translate, interrupts the flow of the thought in the borrowed formula. It is not clear with what it should be understood.”105 The clause raises two problems: how to associate it with what precedes and what follows; and what it means in relation to ἱλαστήριον. Most commentators suggest considering διὰ πίστεως as a Pauline addition to a borrowed formula. Strangely, πίστεως then has no object, except if it is read in relation to ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι.106 But this odd expression is nowhere found in the Pauline writings and ‘faith in the blood’ does not make sense. Contrary to this view, there are some who argue that διὰ πίστεως should be taken with ἱλαστήριον.107 This serves then as a parallel to δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως in 3:22.108 We have shown in our third chapter that this is syntactically possible, because a similar syntactic construction is to be found in Rom 1:4 and Gal 3:26. Taken in this sense, it shows an important aspect of Christian salvation, namely, that we gain access to the salvation that God offers in Christ only by laying our trust in Christ. The thought of accessibility is also present in Rom 3:25, with the public setting forth of Jesus (προέθετο). Manson rightly stresses the importance of πίστις for appropriating the mercy of God in the OT: “In the case of the kapporeth and the ‘ǎzarah they include ritual requirements. Certain ritual acts must be performed, and then God accepts his people and displays his mercy. For Paul the place of ritual is taken by faith.”109 Hence, διὰ πίστεως Jews and 105

106 107

108 109

Fitzmyer, Romans, 350. A similar view is held by Dunn, Romans1-8, 172. There are, however, at least a few scholars who hold that διὰ πίστεως is part of the original quoted formula. Although the arguments presented in favour of such a view are not convincing, the difficulty noticed that it would break apart the otherwise cohesive unit is understandable. An argument in this line can be seen in Longenecker, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ in Romans 3.25,” 478-480. See Haacker, Römer, 92; Flebbe, SolusDeus, 100. See Manson, “ἱλαστήριον,” 5; Büchsel, “ἱλαστήριον,” 321; Bailey, Jesus as the MercySeat, 268. Cf. Büchsel, “ἱλαστήριον,” 321. Manson, “ἱλαστήριον,” 5.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

315

Gentiles are united rather than divided. “For the point is, not that God has chosen Him as ἱλαστήριον, but that He has given Him to men [humanity] as the basis of their faith.”110 πίστις here should be understood as the believer’s trust in, or reliance on, Christ. Whereas observance of the ritual on the Day of Atonement leads to atonement for a devout Jew, Paul affirms that the salvation that God offers in Christ is inherited by laying our trust in him. In the OT, the cult itself was given much importance and the performance of the ritual is presumed to atone for sins automatically. Paul, however, insists on a proper response. Both Jews and Gentiles can then approach God by means of their trust. In our opinion, this understanding of πίστις is central to the pericope. 7.1.3.5 TheAssociationofἱλαστήριονwithἐντῷαὐτοῦαἵματι Many commentaries and translations seem to take ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι in conjunction with ἱλαστήριον. For some, it carries then a general sense of ‘means of propitiation/expiation’111 or ‘means of dealing with sin’112 This meaning is unacceptable if we are to take προέθετο in the sense of ‘to set forth publicly.’ It would require a specific object, which is lacking in such translations. By making a transposition of the order of the phrase in translation, Fitzmyer suggests that this phrase must be understood with προέθετο.113 Nevertheless, he does not attach much importance to διὰ πίστεως, which according to him is a Pauline addition to the adapted pre-Pauline material. The significance of αἷμα in the NT is debated, particularly as regards its use in Rom 3:25. The argument is whether shed blood indicates the release of life or death.114 A more relevant question is: does blood suggest sacrifice?115 Reading ἱλαστήριον together with αἷμα may lead 110

111 112 113

114

115

Büchsel, “ἱλαστήριον,” 321. Schnelle, ApostlePaul, 449, underlines contrast between OT sacrifices that were restricted to Israel and Paul’s making it universal. Dodd, Romans, 55; Morris, “Use of ἱλάσκομαι,” 232. Barrett, SecondEpistletotheCorinthians, 77. See Fitzmyer, Romans, 348-349. By doing this, he argues that Rom 3:25 is part of an inherited formula to which Paul added διὰ πίστεως. We do not need to enter into an elaborate treatment of the controversy. See the discussion in Johannes Behm, “αἷμα,” in TDNT1 (1965): 175-176. Campbell’s (Rhetoric ofRighteousness, 113-115) analysis of the term provides a short summary of the arguments. However, in recent scholarship there is a general agreement that in Rom 3:25 αἷμα stands for the death of Christ. See Haacker, Römer, 92; Flebbe, SolusDeus, 101. It is an important issue because, as we have seen in the first chapter (pp. 40-41), scholars have argued that it can mean either a cultic sacrifice or martyrological sacrifice. In addition, we have seen that some have argued that blood suggest sacrifice in

316

CHAPTER SEVEN

to the sacrificial understanding. As blood is a crucial part of the Day of Atonement sin offering, the presence of blood here is associated with the ‘blood of sacrifice.’116 Christ’s death is then understood as a sin offering parallel to the blood on the mercy seat, making Christ the fulfilment of the OT sacrifices. We see no clear evidence in the context to justify this sacrificial tone. Stuhlmacher rightly upheld that in “Röm 3,25f. bleibt der Moment des Opfers Jesu unbetont, und betont wird, dass Gott selbst in seiner Hingabe des Lebens Jesu Sühne geschaffen habe.”117 Schnelle too underlines this point: “There is nothing in the crucifixion of Jesus that really corresponds to these fundamental elements of sacrificial ritual.”118 We notice a lot of reading into the text of traditional sacrificial categories. This association is furthered by Heb 9:5, which is surrounded by sacrificial language. But it does not make sense to argue that the idea of sacrifice is always present when Christ’s blood is mentioned. Moreover, the verb used here, “protithesthai is not, in the LXX, a technical term for making a sacrifice.”119 We are arguing that Rom 3:25 expresses God’s activity. God is the subject of the sentence. There is no room to interpret the text as a sacrifice that Christ offers to God. We therefore favour taking ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι as a prepositional phrase qualifying προέθετο. This helps answer the objection of how Christ can be both mercy seat and sacrificial animal, for it answers the question derived from προέθετο: why and where was the mercy seat put forth publicly? The answer is ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, referring to Christ’s death. It is the dying Jesus who is the ἱλαστήριον. It is in the dying Jesus

116

117 118 119

the sense of God’s anger need to be appeased. Our purpose here within the limited scope of this study is to examine whether these traditional sacrificial interpretations and translation (NRSV: a sacrifice of atonement) could be fitting in the context of Rom 3:25. Stowers, RereadingofRomans, 209, object a sacrifial reading as it would imply a supersessionism. Hultgren, Letter to the Romans, 671, replies this criticism saying “That need not be the case any more than it does when Paul speaks of Christ as ‘our paschal lamb’ that ‘has been sacrificed (1 Cor 5:7)” or Eucharist as a ‘new covenant’ established in the death of Christ (1 Cor 11:25).” Cf. Dunn, Romans1-8, 171. In this regard, Flebbe, SolusDeus, 99, notes: “Mit ἱλαστήριον und ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι wäre Jesus nämlich doppelt identifiziert, und zwar einmal mit der Kapporet und einmal mit dem Opfertier, dass das Blut zur Besprengung liefert.” Against a sacrificial understanding, Hultgren, Letter to the Romans, 668, notes: “There are not two stages – in which (1) God puts forth Christ, and then (2) Christ offers his life as a sacrifice – but a singular action of God.” Our understanding of the revelation of God’s merciful justice will also go against a sacrificial reading. Stuhlmacher, „Zur neueren Exegese,“ 328. Schnelle, ApostlePaul, 450. Fryer, “Meaning and Translation,” 102.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

317

that God’s love and mercy is made manifest. Paul is still more explicit in Rom 5:8: “God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.” God’s setting forth Jesus as the new mercy seat expresses his unconditional love mercy towards the whole of humanity. This sentence then reads, as we have shown in the previous chapter, as the continuation of what Paul says in 3:24: justification and redemption as God’s unconditional favour. The emphatic αὐτοῦ in the phrase fits the mercy seat interpretation. Unlike the old ἱλαστήριον sprinkled with the blood of the animals, the new one is sprinkled with his own blood. Interpreted in this way, Rom 3:25 is in harmony with Heb 9:12, 25 which distinguish between the Levitical High Priest, who enters the Holy of Holies with blood not his own, and Jesus, who enters with his own blood.120 Even though Hebrews is written later and not by the same author, the convergence seems illustrative. In Rom 3:25 Paul communicates that God installs the new mercy seat by means of Jesus’ own blood, an installation made necessary by God’s passing over of sins (3:25ε). This corresponds to Lev 16:15-16. The blood ritual at the mercy seat, in both cases, is due to God’s taking notice of the sins of humanity. We conclude our study of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 by recalling our argument: ἱλαστήριον is best understood as a reference to the mercy seat; this mercy seat can be read as a metaphor for Christ, but more, it is metonymy for the self-revelation of God and the atonement that take place at the mercy seat. This meaning is grammatically sound. It also finds solid support from the context. It fits both Paul’s argument in Romans 1-3 that God’s justice is in question, because humanity has turned away from a just relationship with God; and his use of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 3:21-26. The meaning of προέθετο in 3:25 and the other related phrases in the verse lend strong support to this understanding. In Rom 3:25, therefore, Paul presents Jesus, in his death, as the new place of God’s self revelation and of atonement, the new mercy seat, established by God’s act of love and purified not by the blood of an animal but by the blood that he provides, open and accessible to all, both Jews and Gentiles, through trust alone, who thereby become the new people of God. Neither does Christ propitiate God nor does he offer a sacrifice to God. On the contrary, Paul writes that God offers his son forus. Paul’s concept of salvation by means of Christ’s death is seen to be theocentric. 120

Cf. Manson, “ἱλαστήριον,” 5.

318

CHAPTER SEVEN

We will now explore how this meaning of ἱλαστήριον fits with the meaning of the other words and clauses in Rom 3:25. In particular we will investigate the other two hapaxlegomena in 3:25. 7.2 AN EXEGETICAL STUDY OF πάρεσις The meaning of πάρεσις, as we have seen in the first chapter, is disputed. When we look at the lexica, we find that they have no agreement regarding the meaning of this rare word. BDAG offers ‘deliberate disregard,’ ‘passing over,’ and ‘letting go unpunished.’121 Although LSJ includes these, it adds ‘dismissal,’ ‘release,’ ‘remission,’ ‘slackening,’ ‘paralysis’ and ‘neglect.’122 L-N (30.49) includes ‘overlook,’ ‘purposely pay no attention to’ and ‘disregard.’ TDNT treats πάρεσις under ἄφεσις and claim that both bear the same sense: “The forgiveness denoted by ἄφεσις and πάρεσις is almost always that of God.”123 ‘Forgiveness’ then can be another possible meaning. Faced with these many nuances, we must look into its employment in extra-biblical literature and the context of πάρεσις in Rom 3:25. When dealing with the pre-Pauline formula and the semantic issues in Rom 3:24-26, Meyer outlines further exegetical possibilities of πάρεσις. It could mean a) present remission, either in the sense of ‘forgiveness’ or of ‘dismissal of charge’ or b) past remission, either in the sense of ‘provisional pardon’ or ‘postponement of action.’124 If it is hard to be sure what Paul really means by πάρεσις, the two major understandings (‘forgiveness’ and ‘passing over’) make sense. Is there a meaning that could be more fitting to the context of Rom 3:21-26? Before we can deal with this question, we need to consider how πάρεσις is used in the extra-biblical literature and how the verb παρίημι is used both in the biblical and extra-biblical literature. After this, we will turn to the best meaning in the context of Rom 3:25.

121 122 123

124

BDAG, 776. LSJ, 1337. Rudolf Bultmann, “πάρεσις,” in TDNT 1 (1963): 511. Quoting Trench, Bultmann defends the distinction between ἄφεσις and πάρεσις. See also note 9. The case for present remission in the sense of ‘dismissal of charges’ or ‘pardon’: Dahl, Studies in Paul, 129; Martens, La Justification, 70. In the case of remission in the sense of ‘postponement of action’: Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 112. The case of past remission in the sense of ‘provisional pardon’: Lyonnet, “Notes zur l’exégèse…” as quoted by Meyer. For a more detailed description, see Meyer, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 200-201.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

319

7.2.1 Πάρεσις in Extra-Biblical Literature The single occurrence of πάρεσις in the Bible requires us to look to extra-biblical literature. BDAG presents three extra-biblical occurrences which can be compared to that in Rom 3:25.125 The meaning in these texts is still disputed, so we need to critically analyse the texts in their contexts. We will also examine the text of Colophon’s inscription, recently suggested in support of a christocentric reading. We will proceed in two sections: a critical analysis of the noun in a few classical examples in extra-biblical literature; and an examination of the use of the verb παρίημι together with ‘sins’ or ‘offences.’126 On the one hand, the search for parallels is inevitable in order to establish the most likely meaning of the term. On the other hand, Samuel Sandmel rightly cautions about exaggerating the parallels, source and derivation.127 Keeping this in mind, we turn to some of the texts that employ the noun πάρεσις. 7.2.1.1 OccurrencesoftheNounπάρεσις Many extra-biblical uses of the noun πάρεσις point to ‘paralysis’128 in a medical sense. Philo and Josephus also offer examples. Philo speaks of πάρεσις of the tongue (Praem. 25.143) and of the body (Praem. 25.145), while Josephus speaks of πάρεσις of limbs (Ant. 9.240) and of how Esther got a πάρεσις (Ant. 11.236). But can such meaning make any sense in the context of Rom 3:25? A ‘paralysis of former sins’ need not be a reason for manifestation or demonstration of God’s δικαιοσύνη and does not point up the importance of ‘God’s forbearance (3:25-26). Paul’s view of human sins in the wider context is not of ‘paralysis,’ but of active offence and injustice by which humans break their relationship with God, even going so far as to question the justice of God (1:18-3:20). We will therefore limit our study to passages with similar context. 125 126

127 128

BDAG, 776. As already mentioned in the history of interpretation in the first chapter (1.6.1) this important insight that we should compare the texts where it occurs with ‘sins’ or ‘offences’ comes from Kraus, Tod Jesu, 99. This helps us to disregard many of the uses of the term with medical connotations. Irons, RighteousnessofGod, 284-286, has recently reinforced the importance of limiting parallels to the instances where sins are mentioned. Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL81 (1962): 1-13, esp. 1. For the details of the uses of the term in this sense, see Holmes, “Utterly Incapacitated,” 353-357. He argues that this meaning can be considered in Rom 3:25 to get the sense of ‘incapasitation.’ However, this reading does not pay sufficient attention to the actual syntax of 3:25, which speaks about God’s action.

320

CHAPTER SEVEN

An often quoted passage is Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Antiquitates Romanae 7.37.2: παρὰ δὲ τῶν δημάρχων πολλὰ λιπαρήσαντες (οἱ ὕπατοι) τὴν μὴν ὁλοσχερῆ πάρεσιν οὐχ εὕροντο, τὴν δὲ εἰς χρόνον ὅσον ἠξίουν ἀναβολὴν ἔλαβον.129 The context is the famous account of Coriolanus’ attack on the Roman plebians and their tribunes before the senate. The tribunes condemn the attack. When Coriolanus resists their attempt to seize him, he is asked to stand before the people and to acknowledge his fault. If he submits to the people’s jurisdiction, he will be leniently treated. Unwilling to submit to the jurisdiction of the people he declares himself to be willing to be tried before the Consuls and no one else. This is the context of the cited sentence.130 The denotation of πάρεσις in the citation is disputed.131 According to Creed, the scholars who cite this passage to illustrate that πάρεσις is synonymous to ἄφεσις fail to see the argument developed in the whole episode. As he notes: “It is obvious that πάρεσις cannot here be used in the juridical sense of release or acquittal, for the point at issue is not whether Coriolanus shall be acquitted or condemned, but whether or not the trial itself shall be allowed to take place.”132 All the more, when Dionysius speaks of acquittal or release in the same narrative, he consistently uses ἄφεσις or ἀφίημι.133 In addition, we see that he also uses ἀπολύω in the same work when he speaks about the release of a prisoner.134 This is an important observation. If we find in the same chapter ἄφεσις employed when he speaks about the acquittal or release and ἀπολύω employed in the same work 129

130

131

132 133

134

Dionysius Halicarnassus, TheRomanAntiquitiesofDionysiusofHalicarnassus, vol. 4, ed. Earnest Cary, LCL (London: William Heinemann, 1950), 250. Earnest Cary (Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 351) translates the quoted the sentence: “But from the tribunes, in spite of many entreaties, they were unable to obtain an absolute dismissal of the charges against Marcius, though they get a postponement of his trial for as long a time as they asked.” Kümmel, “Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις,” 157, cites this passage for his argument of πάρεσις as equivalent of ἄφεσις. Although Campbell, Rhetoric of Righteousness, 47, admits that it is more difficult to evaluate the meaning of the word in the context. He seems to conclude that it is more likely to be used in the sense of acquittal. Creed notes that even Trench (Synonyms of the New Testament, 109) who in general supports a distinction in meaning between πάρεσις and ἄφεσις, has been misled by his predecessors. Trench comments that it is only because ὁλοσχερής is joined with πάρεσις that a meaning of juridical acquittal or release is conveyed here. For details, see Creed, “ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ,” 29-30. Creed, “ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ,” 29. For example, when he describes the motive of the tribune Sicinius in making his appeal to Coriolanus he uses ἄφεσις: See AntiquitatesRomanae 7.34. This point is noted by Creed, “ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ,” 30. Contra, Campbell (RhetoricofRighteousness, 47) who considers ἀπολύω and ἀφίημι as parallel notions to πάρεσις. See, for example, the talk about Marcius release in 43.2, 3.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

321

for a simple release, these are clear indications that they should not be equated with πάρεσις. We consider that at least in this situation πάρεσις is not equivalent to ἄφεσις. Another occurrence of the noun is in Appian, Basilica 13.1: οἱ δὲ Λατῖνοι ἐγκλήματα εἰς Ῥωμαίους ἐποιοῦντο τήν τε πάρεσιν αὐτῶν τὴν ἐπὶ σφᾶς, ὄντας ἐνσπόνδους καὶ συγγενεῖς. It is the continuation of a talk of alliance by a treaty between the Latins and the Romans. The Romans are accused of overlooking this treaty, in spite of being allied to them, and of the same blood. Even Campbell, who argues for a translation of ‘remission’ for πάρεσις, concurs that it here denotes the sense of passing over. Kümmel has not examined this passage in his analysis of the extra-biblical literature. Campbell goes into further detail when he writes: “It should be noted, however, that in a fourth occurrence in Appian (overlooked by Kümmel) the meaning clearly seems to be ‘overlook’ or ‘pass over.’”135 In our understanding, this text is clearly about overlooking or neglecting a treaty. Hence, it goes against those who argue for a meaning of remission. The term πάρεσις also appears in Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 30.19: τινὰς μέντοι καὶ λίαν ὀλίγους πάρεσίν τινα ἔχειν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ δεδέσθαι μέν, ἐλαφρῶς δὲ πάνυ δι’ ἐπιείκειαν. This discourse forms part of the dying words of Charidemus. From the context we gather the meaning that God’s graciousness grants some consolation to the privileged few from the unbreakable chain of fate. Campbell argues that πάρεσις in this context can have the general meaning of ‘release’ or ‘relief’ and not likely to carry the sense of ‘overlook.’136 However, in our reading of the text in the context, it does not speak about a release. Rather, it is about some consolation that selected people experience. The second part of this quote clarifies it by saying that they are still bound by chains. All the more, in the same discourse, Dio Chrystostom uses ἀπαλλάσσω (30.24) when he speaks about a complete release from punishment. In fact, the complete freeing of punishment here (καθόλου τῆς τιμωρίας ἀπαλλάξαντες) stands in contrast to some consolation (ὀλίγους πάρεσίν). Hence, πάρεσις here does not stand for a complete release or remission. Another use is in Plutarch, ComparatioDionisetBruti 2.3: Δίωνα δ’ ἡ Διονυσίου πάρεσις ἐκ Συρακουσῶν καὶ τὸ μὴ κατασκάψαι τοῦ προτέρου τυράννου τὸν τάφον ἐπαίτιον μάλιστα πρὸς τοὺς πολίτας 135 136

Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 47. Cf. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 46-47.

322

CHAPTER SEVEN

ἐποίησεν. The text says that “whereas Dion, for letting Dionysius escape from Syracuse, and for not demolishing the tomb of the former tyrant, was held most culpable by his countrymen.”137 Since the text continues to compare Dion with Brutus, we do not have many clues from the context to what is the nature of the action meant by πάρεσις. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that πάρεσις could probably here mean a ‘release.’ Kraus notes that it is difficult to conclude the meaning of the term here, as the context of the passage is not of sin, but of the freeing of captives.138 Colophon’s inscription employs πάρεσις in line 154, as a continuation of line 146 that employs the cognate verb παρίημι. These lines read: πολλοῖς μὲν τῶν χρεοφιλετῶν διάφορα παρείς, διαμαρτυρουμένην ἔσχεν τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν πρασσομένων χάριν, ἑκάστου τῶν εύεργετουμένων ἐν τοῖς δημοσίοις χρηματιστηρίοις ἐπίσημον πεποιηκότος τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς παρέσεως φιλανθρωπίαν.139 Penna considers that πάρεσις means here ‘pardon.’140 However, in our opinion, this text conveys that Ploemeus has overlooked the differences among many debtors and showed his generosity in noting in the public records the merits of this neglect. Our choice for a meaning of neglect for πάρεσις can be asserted not only by the use of the verb παρίημι in the quote but also elsewhere, in the inscription of Colophon. He speaks of neglecting any opportunity (καιρὸν οὐθένα παιείς)141 in a similar sense to his use of the expression μηθένα καιρὸν παραλιπόντα in the present inscription (line 259). This helps us to set our preference. πάρεσις in this text does not speak about a complete pardon or forgiveness, but rather of a provisional neglect. Thus, the examples of πάρεσις in the above cited texts and contexts have a dominant denotation of overlooking or passing over. Yet we cannot aprioriconfirm this meaning, for πάρεσις also denotes paralysis in certain other contexts. This suggests that we should examine the contexts where πάρεσις is used in similar situations to that of Rom 3:25. Such an investigation will lead us to see the cognate παρίημι in situations where sins or offences are in discourse. We shall, therefore, now examine the 137 138

139

140 141

Translation by Bernadotte Perrin, Plutarch’s Lives 6 (Loeb edition), 251. Cf. Kraus, TodJesu, 99. Plutarch also uses the noun in the sense of paralysis in QuaestionesConvivales 112.652. Louis Robert and Jeanne Robert, ClarosI:DécretsHellénistiques (Paris: Recherche sur les civilisations, 1989), 11-62. Penna, “Meaning of πάρεσις,” 253-255. Robert and Robert, ClarosI, 64-66. Penna, “Meaning of πάρεσις,” 255, admits that here “the verb evidently has the sense of ‘neglect, disregard, omit’.”

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

323

use of the verbal equivalent of πάρεσις in conjunction with sins, before reaching a conclusion on its probable meaning. 7.2.1.2 OccurrencesoftheVerbπαρίημιTogetherwith‘Sins’ Given that πάρεσις is a hapaxlegomenon and that scholars have tried to glean the meaning of the noun from the use of the verb, it would be useful then that we consider the use of the verb in the extra-biblical literature. BDAG presents the noun πάρεσις as similar in meaning to the verb παρίημι.142 TDNT suggests that the noun is used in the same sense: “This word, which is not found in the LXX, has the same legal meaning as παριέναι.”143 Although the noun may have many possible meanings, it seems to have a consistent meaning when dealing with sins or offences. Thus, when we look for comparable passages in other writings we will not concentrate on the use of the noun πάρεσις or the verb παρίημι alone. As Kraus rightly points out, “in Röm 3,25 geht es um πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων, d.h. um den Umgang mit ‚Sünden/ Verfehlungen’ und nicht um den Erlaß von Geldschulden.”144 Hence many of the parallels cited by the scholars are devoid of significance in the context of Rom 3:25. Creed also thinks that the verb in extra-biblical literature is used in the sense of ‘pass over.’ As he notes: “If we turn to the usage of the corresponding verb παριέναι a similar distinction in meaning from ἀφιέναι is usually perceptible.”145 Accordingly, we consider four passages where παρίημι, in conjunction with sin(s) or offences, occurs. We shall argue, moreover, that the meaning remains consistent in all such occurrences. The first nuanced occurrence is in Xenophon, Hipparchicus 7.10: τὰ οὖν τοιαῦτα ἁμαρτήματα οὐ χρὴ παριέναι ἀκόλαστα (εἰ δὲ μή, ὅλη ἡ χώρα στρατόπεδον ἔσται) ἐκεῖνο καλῶς προνοοῦντα, καὶ ποιήσαντά τι φθάσαι ἀποχωρήσαντα πρὶν τὸ πολὺ βοηθοῦν ἐπιγενέσθαι. The pericope relates to mistakes made by soldiers and to whether the soldiers’ carelessness should be allowed to pass or not. The answer given, for 142

143 144

145

Cf. BDAG, 777. A distinction in meaning between παρίημι and ἀφίημι is evident in BDAG. Whereas παρίημι means to ‘avoid doing something,’ ‘neglect,’ ‘to be weak,’ ‘slacken’ etc., ἀφίημι denotes ‘dismiss or release,’ ‘to remit,’ ‘to give up,’ ‘pardon’ etc. For the meaning of ἀφίημι, see BDAG, 156. Bultmann, “πάρεσις,” 511. Kraus, TodJesu, 99. We find this suggestion by Kraus most useful to limit our search for parallels of παρίημι. For complete references to the extra-biblical literature, see LSJ, 1337. Creed, „ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ,“ 30.

324

CHAPTER SEVEN

strategic reasons, is no. To leave such a thing unpunished would give rise to further carelessness. There is no talk of remission or forgiveness. The meaning of the clause is rightly noted by Schlier as he writes: “τὰ οὖν τοιαῦτα ἁμαρτήματα οὐ χρὴ παριέναι ἀκόλαστα, meint wohl nicht ‘Verfehlungen erlassen,’ es steht ja ein ἀκόλαστα dabei, als eher ‘nicht ungestraft hingehen lassen.’”146 Therefore, the above sentence would mean ‘these offences now one must not let go unpunished.’147 Aristophanes, Ranae 699 reads: πρὸς δὲ τούτοις εἰκὸς ὑμᾶς, οἳ μεθ’ ὑμῶν πολλὰ δὴ χοἰ πατέρες ἐναυμάχησαν καὶ προσήκουσιν γένει, τὴν μίαν ταύτην παρεῖναι ξυμφορὰν αἰτουμένοις. This usage forms part of instructions relating to what is just and good for the city and for its citizens, in order to take away their fear. It conveys that it is fair that they let pass the misfortune of those who fought at sea. Here παρίημι conveys the meaning of pass over or overlook. This point can be deduced from a previous sentence (691), when he talks about a general offence a person might have committed, introducing it with ‘and if someone stumble by an offence’ (κεἴ τις ἥμαρτε σφαλείς). Notably he uses the verb λύω in the context to express the remission of this offence (λῦσαι τὰς πρότερον ἁμαρτίας). This helps to nuance the meaning of παρίημι as pass over or overlook. Josephus in Antiquitatesjudaicae15.48 writes: ὁ δὲ τὴν μὲν ἕως τῆς ἐγχειρήσεως ἐάσας προελθεῖν ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ τοῦ δρασμοῦ συνέλαβεν, παρῆκεν δὲ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. The context surrounds Alexandra’s attempt to escape from the palace of Herod. The news of her plan to flee reaches the ears of the king. Herod pretends to know nothing, until he catches her in the very act of fleeing. The meaning gleaned from this context is rightly analyzed by Schlier: “Dann aber heißt der Satz gerade nicht: er vergab ihnen das Vergehen, sondern: er ließ es ihnen im Augenblick hingehen.”148 The translation by Ralph Markus captures the meaning: “But he overlooked her offence because he did not dare take any harsh measures against her, even though he would have liked to.”149 In the following sentences it is clear that the plan of the King was not to 146

147 148 149

Schlier, DerRömerbrief, 112. Similarly, Wolter, DerBriefanDieRömer, 261, states that the text means. “solche ἁμαρτήματα darf man nicht ungestraft übergehen.” With Kraus, TodJesu, 100; Schlier, DerRömerbrief, 112. Schlier, DerRömerbrief, 112. Josephus, JewishAntiquities, 23. In our view, this translation better reflect the sense of the passage in the context. However, Flavius Josephus, Judean Antiquities 15: TranslationandCommentary, ed. Steve Mason, trans. Jan Willem van Henten, Flavius Josephus 7b (Leiden. Boston: Brill, 2014), 37, translate παρίημι here as ‘remit.’

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

325

forgive them. He was only faking nobility and clemency to punish her later. Finally, we go to a text by Dionysius of Halicarnassus in Antiquitates Romanae 2.35.4: παρίεμεν οὖν αὐτοῖς τὴν ἁμαρτάδα ταύτην ἀζήμιον καὶ οὔτε ἐλευθερίαν οὔτε κτῆσιν οὔτ’ ἄλλο τῶν ἀγαθῶν οὐδὲν τοὺς πολίτας ὑμῶν ἀφαιρούμεθα. This forms part of the king’s speech to the wives of captives in war. In what precedes he speaks about his mercy and this act itself is spoken of as an opportunity for repentance. In the previous section we have concluded that Dionysius does not use πάρεσις as an equivalent of ἄφεσις.150 Again there is no talk about forgiveness when Dionysius uses the cognate verb παρίημι. In the opinion of Kraus it is not about an offence resulting in confiscation of property or loss of freedom for citizens, but about citizens remaining unpunished. Thus, the translation of the clause may read ‘for them we let this offence go unpunished.’151 In these four extra-biblical instances, while the verb παρίημι is used together with sin or offence, we notice that it is never used as a synonym of ἀφίημι. In all the four, transgressions are passed over but not pardoned. Some of these authors also use ἀφίημι or ἄφεσις to speak of an act of release or remission. It is clear that when παρίημι is used in conjunction with sins or offences, it refers not to a final state of forgiveness or remission, but to a provisional state, where sins or offences are left unpunished, with a view to dealing with them later. That would lead to the conclusion that the verb παρίημι means ‘let go,’ or ‘overlook.’ Further, we have seen that πάρεσις is also used in situations where an action is postponed. The authors of these texts use πάρεσις for a provisional handling of a situation. We may, therefore, conclude that πάρεσις or παρίημι in conjunction with sins or offences was used in extra-biblical literature mostly in situations where provisional letting go or postponement of an action was concerned. 7.2.2 Supporting Evidence from the Biblical Uses of παρίημι Before examining πάρεσις in the context of Rom 3:25, we will examine the biblical use of the cognate verb παρίημι, recalling that scholars have

150

151

See previous discussion on Dionysius of Halicarnassus in Antiquitates Romanae 7.37.2. The details of this can be also found in Creed, “ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ,” 30. Cf. Kraus, TodJesu, 100.

326

CHAPTER SEVEN

argued that πάρεσις can be seen in relation to παρίημι.152 παρίημι is used 22 times in the Bible: 20 times in the LXX and twice in the NT. As in the extra-biblical literature, we will find instances where παρίημι is used for a provisional overlooking, or a neglect of the matter. In the LXX, παρίημι is used with various nuances of meaning. However, a closer examination reveals that these fall into two main streams. The first, as we have already noted, is the (medical) sense of ‘slacken’ or ‘weaken’ (Num 13:20; Deut 32:36; 2 Sam 4:1; Sir 2:12, 13; 25:23; Zph 3:16; Jer 4:31; 20:9; Odes Sol. 2:36). These uses are in line with the meaning of paralysis that we have already observed in the extrabiblical literature. The second, more interesting stream is when παρίημι is used in the sense of pass over and of neglect. Accordingly, we find it in the sense of neglect in Ex 14:12; 1 Sam 2:5; Mal 2:9; 3 Macc 2:13; Odes Sol. 3:5 and in the sense of pass over or let go in Jdt 12:12; 4 Macc 5:29; Ps 137:8; Sir 4:29; 23:2. More specifically, in some instances, it can mean neglecting the matter at the moment in view of a future outcome (Ex 14:12; Mal 2:9; Odes Sol. 3:5). These instances are followed by a ‘so that’ clause. All the more relevant is the instance where it is used in the sense of pass over or let go for the sake of some future advantage (Jdt 12:12). In 4 Macc 5:29, it forms part of the instructions to keep the laws and sacred oaths. Ps 137:8 uses it in the context of God’s mercy and deliverance, urging that we never overlook the works of God’s hand. There are two instances where παρίημι is combined with sins. In 3 Macc 2:13 we read: “Because of our many and great sins we are crushed with suffering and subjected to our enemies, and overtaken by helplessness (ὑπετάγημεν τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἡμῶν καὶ παρείμεθα ἐν ἀδυναμίαις).” There is nothing much in the context that explains the meaning of our term. However, the use of παρίημι in the context of sins and offences in Sir 23:2 is revealing. There παρίημι occurs as part of a prayer for protection from errors and sins. “Who will set whips over my thoughts, and the discipline of wisdom over my mind, so as not to spare me in my errors, and not overlook my sins?” (ἵνα ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀγνοήμασίν μου μὴ φείσωνται καὶ οὐ μὴ παρῇ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα αὐτῶν). As a prayer to obtain power from God not to sin and not to let the offences go unattended, the implied subject of παρῇ here is God.153 The reason is specified in the following clause: “Otherwise my mistakes may be multiplied” (23:3). Two parallel nouns ἀγνόημα and ἁμάρτημα express 152 153

See first chapter (pp. 52-53). Cf. Kraus, TodJesu, 101.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

327

offences and sins, and the two parallel verbs of action, φείδομαι and παρίημι, convey the meaning of spare and overlook.154 These observations help us to conclude that παρίημι is used here with the meaning of pass over or overlook. Campbell misleadingly states that παρίημι in the LXX can be translated as ‘remit’: “In any case, ‘remitting’ is also a possible translation for the verb, as Josephus, Ant. 15:48, and 1 Macc. 11:35 also show quite clearly (the latter statement is parallel to 10.29-30 where again ἀπολύω [once] and ἀφίημι [twice] occur as cognates for παρίημι.”155 There are two serious problems with this statement. First of all, παρίημι does not occur in 1 Macc 11:35, and in fact nowhere in 1 Maccabees. Second, he does not provide with any information on how the usage in 11:35 [which does not exist] to be in parallel to other verbs in 10:29-30. This is distortion of facts to confirm one’s own preconceived ideas. We argue that the LXX employs ἀπολύω and ἀφίημι for a release or remission and that this contrasts with the occasional uses of παρίημι for neglect or pass over. In the NT παρίημι is used twice. As in the LXX, these uses cover two situations. Thus the medical sense of ‘slacken’ or ‘weaken’is referred to in Heb 12:12, where it is used in parallel with παραλελυμένα.156 Second, Lk 11:42 communicates the sense of ‘pass over’ or ‘neglect,’ in parallel to παρέρχομαι (pass by, neglect).’ Here it is used in parallel to παρέρχομαι (pass by, neglect). The context is specifically about the Pharisees’ neglect of justice and love of God. This verse pronounces woe to them who overlook or neglect the real values and uphold false values.157 They should have carried out their duties without neglecting the ritual observances. In short, the biblical usages of παρίημι employ two semantic ranges of meanings. Apart from the text that uses the verb in the medical sense of ‘slacken’ or ‘weaken,’ we have seen many usages maintain a sense of pass over or neglect. What is important to note is that there is no single instance where παρίημι is used in the sense of a full remission or forgiveness. ἀφίημι, or some other words, are used when it is desired to express this meaning. παρίημι has the sense of a provisional overlook or neglect. 154 155

156 157

Cf. Kraus, TodJesu, 101-102. Campbell, RhetoricofRighteousness, 48, note 4. His analysis of the uses of παρίημι in this footnote also claims that it is used in Pr 9:15 and 15:10. It is not παρίημι that is used here, rather πάρειμι (be present). Cf. Holmes, “Utterly Incapacitated,” 364. Cf. François Bovon, Luke2:ACommentaryontheGospelofLuke9:51-19:27, trans. Donald S. Deer, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2013), 161.

328

CHAPTER SEVEN

Thus, this examination of the verb leads us to a preference for this sense for the noun πάρεσις. We shall now turn to the immediate context of Rom 3:25 and see how this meaning fits. 7.2.3 The Meaning of πάρεσις in the Context of Rom 3:25 In Rom 3:25 πάρεσις forms part of a prepositional phrase that is preceded and followed by many other prepositional phrases. We have already established the syntactic relation of these phrases in our third chapter. Here we will look for contextual signals regarding the meaning of πάρεσις and highlight how some of the phrases in the context can shed light on its meaning We will first examine the exegetical significance of πάρεσις in the context of the pericope. 7.2.3.1 TheExegeticalSignificanceofπάρεσιςinRom3:25 The debate among scholars, presented in the first chapter, points to the exegetical importance of πάρεσις in Rom 3:25. As a hapaxlegomenon in the Bible, its exegetical scope has been explored in the context of the letter. It can signal a total shift in the understanding of the whole pericope and can influence the formation of a Pauline theology. Assuming the meaning of πάρεσις on the basis of above analysis, as ‘passing over’ or ‘overlooking,’ would suggest that Paul is construing it as conveying God’s act of overlooking former sins in Rom 3:25.158 πάρεσις understood as ‘forgiveness’ would favour a christocentric reading, as Christ’s death effects forgiveness of former sins. Holmes has recently read πάρεσις anthropologically as human ‘incapacitation’ caused by former sins.159 So we see how different understandings of πάρεσις can influence the interpretation of the whole pericope. The semantic solutions concerning this word will determine the meaning of ἔνδειξις in 3:25. Creed states “ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ probably refers to the pre-Christian epoch of history and the πάρεσις of sin characteristic of this epoch implies a contrast to the ἄφεσις which has been opened to man by the expiatory work of Christ.”160 Thus, we are left with three main choices of meaning, which leads to three contrasting theological understandings of 3:24-26. 158

159 160

It is not necessary to repeat the literature for the various positions. For details, see pp. 52-55. Holmes, “Utterly Incapacitated,” 365 (see details on pp. 56-57). Creed, „ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ,“ 29.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

329

How we understand πάρεσις influences the interpretation of τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων. On this point, Käsemann criticizes Lietzmann’s translation of πάρεσις as ‘remission,’ which results in a shift from a past to a present act, severely weakening his own perception of the tension in the passage. This, he argues, creates a redundancy, as 3:26a unnecessarily repeats 3:25.161 The observation of Käsemann implies that Paul has deliberately constructed the sentence to maintain tension between the past action of God and the present time of redemption. According to Fitzmyer, “if πάρεσις can be interpreted as ‘pardon,’ it can be seen as the fourth way in which Paul expresses an effect of the Christ-event in this passage.”162 πάρεσις, then, provides an exegetical key to the whole pericope and to the formation of Pauline theology and is a key word in our theocentric reading. 7.2.3.2 ΠάρεσιςinRelationtoἔνδειξις In Rom 3:25, the meaning given to πάρεσις determines to some extent the understanding of εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ in the preceding clause. The more common meaning of the noun is ‘proof,’ ‘sign’ or ‘demonstration.’ But why should there be a proof or a demonstration of the δικαιοσύνη of God? To whom does he show his δικαιοσύνη? What leads him to doubt the δικαιοσύνη of God? An issue is whether the present remission of the former sins proves God’s δικαιοσύνη, or whether the previous passing over of the sins now requires a demonstration of God’s δικαιοσύνη. To answer these questions, we need to understand the following clause, διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων. One of the most influential studies in this regard is Kümmel’s article, Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις, regarded as foundational by many subsequent authors.163 After making a lexical study of the words πάρεσις and ἔνδειξις, he concludes that only the context can really determine which of the possible meanings Paul intends in Rom 3:25-26. Based on the grammatical and theological concerns of the immediate and wider context of the letter, he develops his argument. According to him the double ἔνδειξις in 3:25-26 refers to an active showing (“Erweis”) rather than a factual 161 162 163

Cf. Käsemann, AndieRömer, 88. Fitzmyer, Romans, 352. Kümmel, „Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις,“ 154-167. Wolter, DerBriefanDieRömer, 259, notes that both these words are “Verbalsubstantive und nomina actionis. Beide bezeichnen ein Handeln Gottes.”

330

CHAPTER SEVEN

proof (“Beweis”). Taken in this sense, it corresponds to the active manifestation (πεφανέρωται) of δικαιοσύνη of God in 3:21-22 and to the justification (δικαιούμενοι) in 3:24. The question is: If ἔνδειξις is taken as ‘proof,’ to whom might God want to prove his righteousness? He elucidates this when he writes that, “der Gedanke einer Beweisführung durch Gott höchst auffällig wäre, zumal ja keineswegs deutlich gesagt wäre, wem gegenüber Gott diesen Beweis führen wollte.”164 All the more in Rom 9:19-20, Paul thinks that no one could doubt God’s action and that there is therefore no need for God to prove himself against such doubts.165 His conclusion is that the translation ‘proof,’ does not fit here. He suggests understanding ἔνδειξις as an ‘expression.’ Piper finds such an argument unnecessary because the alternative suggested by Kümmel for ἔνδειξις does not have much difference in meaning. In his opinion, “one could translate ἔνδειξις as ‘a showing forth’ or ‘an expression’ and not lose anything essential to the ‘satisfaction theory’ which he is opposing. One would simply argue that what was showing itself in the death of Christ is God’s exacting demand of a recompense for sin.”166 In his view, the passing over of former sins may cause one to misunderstand the sacred name of God. Piper argues, that in the OT God’s name is held in derision among the nations (Ezek 36:20; 22:16; Isa 52:5). Therefore, it would agree with God’s zeal for his own name if he should act to clear his name and prove that such disrespect is folly. Piper sees the need to prove that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ comes from his firm commitment always to act for his name’s sake.167 The traditional Anselmian interpretation denotes ἔνδειξις as ‘proof’ and πάρεσις as ‘passing over,’ and δικαιοσύνη as an attribute of God designating his righteousness.168 Kümmel’s objection to this understanding of the text is rather complicated. We have noted the main objection of Kümmel regarding the meaning of ἔνδειξις that God need not prove his δικαιοσύνη to the world. On the other hand, Cranfield takes it to the other extreme as he states, “God would not be righteous, if He neglected to show Himself to be righteous: it is essential to His being the righteous, 164 165 166 167 168

Kümmel, “Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις,” 161. Cf. Kümmel, “Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις,” 162. Piper, “Righteousness of God,” 14. Cf. Piper, “Righteousness of God,” 14-16. For this understanding of the text see Cranfield, TheEpistletotheRomans, 211-213; Moo, Romans1-8, 241-244; Schreiner, Romans, 195. Each of them has minor difference in the understanding of the terms and their explanation of the verses. But we have already established a different conception of God’s δικαιοσύνη in the fouth chapter.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

331

the loving and merciful God, that He should show that He is righteous.”169 A similar argument can be seen in Jewett as he observes: “this ‘demonstration’ carries forward the leitmotif of divine triumph over human opposition expressed in the psalm citation in 3:4.”170 We may find that even the OT assumes that the divine δικαιοσύνη needs to be openly displayed: “the heavens declare his righteousness, for God himself is judge” (Ps 50:6, NRSV). The same idea is further stated by the psalmist as he writes: “the heavens proclaim his righteousness; and all the people behold his glory” (Ps 97:6, NRSV).171 Accordingly, we think that the fact that God wants to demonstrate his δικαιοσύνη to humanity will not be understood as he is forced by the humans to do so. Can we not understand it as God’s inherent desire to demonstrate to the world that he is just? All the more, as we have already seen in our second chapter, Rom 1:18-3:20 shows how the increase of human sins questions the justice of God. Paul answers the problems raised there in 3:21-26: the present manifestation of God’s merciful justice aims to address this issue. We suggest that perhaps the best way to understand ἔνδειξις is to see it in relation to πάρεσις. It is διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων, which requires God to prove his δικαιοσύνη. In our study of the exegetical issues in the third chapter we have shown that διά with the accusative may have its usual causal sense here.172 If we understand πάρεσις as ‘passing over’ or ‘overlooking,’ we may ask how a just God can pass over former sins. The passing over of sins seems to call the justice of God into question, because he has not ultimately dealt with the sins. It is perhaps tenable that Paul wants to communicate that God’s setting forth of Christ as ἱλαστήριον demonstrates that he has passed over sins temporarily with a definite plan. This reading fits smoothly in the context. On the contrary, an understanding of πάρεσις as ‘forgiveness,’ which is suggested by Kümmel, calls for an exceptional reading of many of the words. Hence, the understanding of πάρεσις as ‘passing over’ seems to be a more suitable continuation of the preceding clause εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ. In the following section we shall examine how this fits with what follows.

169 170 171

172

Cranfield, TheEpistletotheRomans, 212. Jewett, Romans, 289. The Pseudo-ClementineRec. 3.38.5 claim that the righteousness of God will be displayed as sinners are judged and the righteous are blessed at the last judgment. As cited by Jewett, Romans, 289. See the details in the third chapter, pp. 131-133.

332

CHAPTER SEVEN

7.2.3.3 ΠάρεσιςinGod’sἀνοχή We will see that the above interpretation of πάρεσις gets further support from the immediate context. In 3:25 διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων is followed by the prepositional phrase ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ. Although in the Greek text this phrase is in 3:26, many English translations like KJV, ASV, NIV and NRSV include it in 3:25 to complete the sense of the passage. In this way, it can be considered as a prepositional phrase that clarifies why God has passed over the former sins.173 It conveys the past as the period of God’s forbearance where God has not completely dealt with all sins. The difficulty of understanding it as ‘forgiveness’ is revealed when Penna tries to explain the connection with ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ as it “connotes not the period in which the sins were committed, but the act of their expiation carried out through Christ.”174 Some others take the view that in 3:25-26 are two parallel constructions, one stating that God’s forgiveness of sins in the past is presented parallel to his demonstration of righteousness in the present.175 We have two objections to this interpretation. First, does the forbearance of God really forgive all the sins and injustice in the past? Second, if God’s forbearance in the past has already forgiven the sins and handled the problem of sins, what is the significance of the justification and redemption, of which Paul speaks, that God has achieved by means of Christ (3:24-26)? In our understanding Paul is speaking about two unique acts of God’s mercy in 3:25-26. One is relates to the past, where God’s forbearance has not completely dealt with all the sins and those who committed these sins and injustices. Another act of mercy is that he has once and for all dealt with all the sins (including those of the Gentiles) and justified and redeemed everyone in Christ. Supporting this view we find ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ (in 3:26aα),176 which may be seen as a continuation of the previous clause. Meyer evaluates the meaning of the clause in its context by noting a special construction: “ἀνοχῇ, inasmuch as it belongs to a prepositional phrase continuing προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων, bears the sense of ‘forbearance’ or ‘patience,’ referring to the Mosaic past; it does 173 174 175

176

Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 160. Penna, “Meaning of πάρεσις,” 263. See Campbell, Rhetoric of Righteousness, 49; Kümmel, “Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις,” 154–167. Meyer, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 201, mentions the two different possible understanding of ἀνοχή in 3:26: it points to God’s ‘patience, forbearance’ (e.g. in postponing action on sins) or his ‘clemency’ (e.g. in forgiving them).

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

333

not here signify God’s ‘clemency’ in the present.”177 In this sense, the past era can be seen as the time of God’s forbearance. Thus, Paul is saying that the passing over of former sins demonstrates God’s forbearance. Fitzmyer notes this plan of God as he writes, “God’s tolerance was ultimately based on his plan of salvation, according to which he knew that these sins would be expiated through the death of Christ in due time.”178 Thus, it is argued that by using πάρεσις and ἀνοχή Paul brings “den Aspekt der Zurückhaltung und Geduld Gottes zur Sprache, was jedoch nicht als dessen Untätigkeit miszuverstehen ist, sondern als ‘Zurückhaltung’ oder ‘An-sich-Halten Gottes’.”179 This is evident in Paul’s thought communicated in Rom 2:4 where he speaks about his the kindness of God (χρηστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ) along with his forbearance (ἀνοχή). Thus, Rom 3:25 communicates that God has set forth Jesus as the new mercy seat in order to demonstrate his merciful justice because, in his forbearance, God has passed over former sins. This reading goes along with our conception of the central theme of the passage as the manifestation of God’s merciful justice. 7.2.3.4 WhatdoesπρογεγονόταἁμαρτήματαReferto? In Rom 3:25 πάρεσις is followed by τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων. Whose sins God passed over and how long the period denoted by τὰ προγεγονότα was? It is evident that sin is Paul’s primary concern in Romans. Out of the entire Pauline Corpus, Paul refers to ‘sin’ the most in the Letter to the Romans. For instance, when we look into the 64 occurrences of the term in the Pauline letters almost three-quarters occur in the letter to the Romans. There are various terms used in the letter to denote the concept of sin. By far the most frequently used term in the NT (as in the LXX) is ἁμαρτία. Out of the 59 occurrences of the word in the Pauline Corpus, 48 appear in Romans. Strikingly in the NT, Paul and Mark are the only authors who employ the term ἁμάρτημα.180 Generally, scholars have seen that ἁμαρτία as denoting primarily a failure to achieve an 177 178 179

180

Meyer, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 204- 205. Fitzmyer, Romans, 352. Schumacher, Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache, 345. See also a similar view in Kraus, „Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit,“ 198. Mk 3:28; 3:29; Rom 3:25; 1 Cor 6:18. The verb participle is used also in Mk 4:12; Rom 5:16; 2 Pet 1:9. Cf. Walter Grundmann, “ἁμαρτάνω,” in TDNT1 (1963):308316, esp. 310. For detailed list of all the words used for sin in entire Pauline Corpus, see Kraus, TodJesu, 108.

334

CHAPTER SEVEN

ethical standard in the broadest sense, both through a deed and its outcome.181 As many scholars have studied Paul’s notion of sin,182 our purpose here is not to further explore it. Rather, we only aim to discern what προγεγονότα ἁμαρτήματα means in Rom 3:25. We have already established, in our second chapter, that in Romans 1-3 Paul views ‘sin’ as the breaking of relationship with God. What does Paul mean by προγεγονότα? The difficulty in understanding the term arises from the fact that it is a hapaxlegomenon in the entire NT.183 The lexical meaning of the term is ‘happen in time before,’ ‘occur previously,’ or ‘former.’184 The expression τὰ προγεγονότα ἁμαρτήματα, therefore, denotes the sins that were previously committed or that have occurred in former times, that is the time when God also showed forbearance. The task before us is to examine the context of the text so as to understand what Paul might mean by this expression. Where does this former period begin and end? Does it refer only to the previously committed sins of Jews, or only the former sins of Gentiles or that of both Jews and Gentiles? Another possible question is how far it is related to the concept of original sin. A similar expression can be found in Paul’s use of προαμαρτάνω (sin previously) in 2 Cor 12:21 and 13:2. It is difficult to understand what Paul means by προαμαρτάνω in these verses. Bultmann thinks that it may not specifically refer to those who sinned prior to Paul’s second visit to Corinth, but to pre-baptismal sins in the pagan period.185 Charles Kingsley Barrett claims, moreover, that this refers to sexual sins and it bears little relation to the offences of 12:20.186 The verb προγίνομαι is also found in LXX, 2 Macc 14:3 ‘former high priest’ and 2 Macc 15:8 ‘former help,’ where it is not used in conjunction with sin or culpability. 181

182

183

184 185 186

Peter Fiedler, “ἁμαρτία,” in EDNT1 (1990): 66. Very recently, Bernd Wannenwetsch, “Sin as Forgetting: Negotiating Divine Presence,” SCE 28 (2015), 3-20, has described ‘sin’ as forgetting God’s presence and his grace ‘near’ us. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 547: “Paul treats sin as a trespass and as a power.” For a description of how sin becomes an enslaving power, see Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “The Cosmic Power of Sin in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” Int 58 (2004): 229-240, esp. 232. Jewett points out a close parallel in Apollonius Rhodius Cho. Frag. 4.411-13. The reference to ‘former sins’ can be also found in Polybius Hist.5.25.1; see also Eunapius Vit.sop.10.1.13. As cited by Jewett, Romans, 290, note 208. Cf. BDAG, 866. Cf. Bultman, SecondLettertotheCorinthians, 240. Cf. Barrett, SecondEpistletotheCorinthians, 332. He rejects the proposal that προαμαρτάνειν refers to sins one has committed before the conversion, for conversion means that one has repented of the previous sins.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

335

The observation of Kraus in this respect is worth quoting: “mit den verschiedenen Formen von προγίνομαι werden also frühere, in der Vergangenheit abgeschlossene Angelegenheiten ausgedrückt. Ein Rückschluß darauf, wie lange dieses schon zurückliegen, ist nicht möglich.”187 So then, one cannot ipsofacto conclude how far in the past is denoted by προγεγονότα. Just as the periods denoted by the use of προαμαρτάνω or προγεγονότα in the above mentioned texts may depend upon the context, the usage of προγεγονότα in Rom 3:25 has to be understood from the context. There are various views as to whose sins are here referred to. Scholars have seen it as a reference to universal sinfulness188 or to the Gentile sins alone189 or to sins before the coming of Christ.190 When we examine the context of Rom 1:18-3:20, as we have done in our second chapter, Paul repeatedly states that ‘all’ have sinned. In Romans 5:12 Paul mentions the sin of Adam. However, by the use of τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων in the plural, we may rule out the possibility of it referring only to ‘original sin,’ although it may also be included. We argue that the question of whose sins are mentioned in 3:25 has to be read with πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον in 3:23. It is at this point that 3:23, especially the scope of πάντες in the expression πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον, becomes crucial. We consider that it is neither about believers’ sins nor about Jewish or Gentile sins. Rather it is all the sins before the Christ-event. We may also notice that 3:23 does not merely state that all humans have sinned, but that by doing so they have come short of the glory of God. The harm done by the sins of the humanity is that the worth and glory of God and his justice have been despised. This problem has to be solved and it is this problem that Paul is addressing here. Thus, God has passed over or overlooked humankind’s previously committed sins from the time of first fall until the time coming of Christ. This means that God neither makes

187 188

189

190

Kraus, TodJesu, 104. Fahy, “Exegesis on Rom. 3:25f,” 71, argues that Christ’s atonement covered the sins of human beings throughout time. Jewett, Romans, 291, thinks is a reference to God having overlooked the sins not covered by the temple cult. See also, Matere, Romans, 99. Some other scholars however consider that these are the Against such a view Dunn, Romans1-8, 166, thinks that gentile sins in Rom 3:25 are less likely. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 212; Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 239, 240; Kraus, TodJesu, 104; Hultgren, LettertotheRomans, 160. According to Kraus, the sense here can be either “perfektisch” or “plusquamperfektisch”. προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων designates sins of a past “abgeschlossene Epoche”. This is the “abgescholossene Zeit” of the Christ-event. These sins have a present relevance.

336

CHAPTER SEVEN

an immediate and full punishment of sins nor does he totally forgive the offences formerly committed. To conclude, our analysis of the context of πάρεσις in Rom 3:25 and its use in extra-biblical literature suggests that the meaning of ‘passing over’ should be preferred. In almost all cases, πάρεσις is used when a provisional overlooking or postponement of action is concerned. Moreover, in all the instances when the verbal equivalent of πάρεσις is found in conjunction with sins, the sense of ‘passing over’ is clearly denoted. This would rule out the possibility of considering it as equivalent to ἄφεσις. The very fact that Paul uses πάρεσις instead of ἄφεσις indicates that he does not want to communicate the notion of remission. We have also seen that the biblical uses of the cognate παρίημι communicates overlook or neglect. All the more, we have pointed out that this meaning fits well into the immediate and wider context of Rom 3:25. Paul’s use of ἔνδειξις and ἀνοχή in the preceding and following would also support the understanding πάρεσις as ‘passing over.’ Taking into consideration the past time of πάρεσις as the time of forbearance of God (3:25), which is in implicit contrast with how God deals with it in the present (3:26), the meaning ‘passing over’ can certainly be preferred. Considering that πάρεσις is part of a prepositional phrase in 3:25, we also examined the meaning of τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων, yet another hapaxlegomenon in the NT. We have argued that it must refer to all the sins that preceded the death of Christ. Having understood διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων in this sense, we shall now move on to a theological explanation of God’s setting forth of Christ as the new ‘mercy seat,’ which makes possible the passing over of the former sins. We will also examine the implications of such an understanding. 7.3 THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF ROM 3:25 Our exegetical study of the three hapaxlegomena in Rom 3:25 has established the probable meaning of these terms in the context. This enables us to look at the theological implications of the text as we now understand it. What we see is how the rich theology of God’s passing over former sins has been neglected in the search for a uniform theology of forgiveness. This forgiveness motif has favoured a christocentric reading focused on the death of Christ. This reading has in turn shaped the theology that has been found there.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

337

We will argue that the well-known atonement models of theology do not fit well into what Paul communicates in Rom 3:25. Our argument will clarify the issues that arise in this verse and that relate to the death of Christ. We will also make clear why God overlooked sins, how that questions the justice of God, what are the problems associated with this overlooking of sins and how these problems are overcome in the Christevent. The issues that confront us can be described as anthropological, christological and theological. They concern former sins (anthropological); our understanding of the death of Christ (christological); and the justice of God (theological). 7.3.1 The Neglected Theology of the Passing over of Former Sins As we have seen, theology has neglected the riches of God’s passing over of former sins. As a result, a theology of forgiveness has been read into Rom 3:25. This has coloured the way the role of Christ’s death has been understood in the passage. What explains this neglect of an insight so striking? No doubt the desire to find a uniform interpretation of Paul’s understanding of the death of Christ should carry some of the blame. Bieringer has set out some of the different expressions used in the Bible to express God’s way of dealing with human sin. The results are striking, not least as concerns the different expressions used in the NT and LXX: forgive(ἀφίημι): Ps 31:1 LXX, quoted in Rom 4:7; frequent in Synoptics; forgive(χαρίζομαι): Col 2:13; cover: Ps 31:1 LXX, quoted in Rom 4:7; notcount: Ps 31:1 LXX, quoted in Rom 4:7, 2 Cor 5:19b; 2 Tim 4:16; overlook, pass over: Rom 3:25; not watch/observe closely: Ps 129:3 LXX (only here); not remember: Is 43:25; Jer 31:34; Ezek 18: 22; Heb 8:12, 10;17; expiate: Ps 129:3 LXX, Rom 3:25; put behind one’s back: Is 38:17; remove as far as the east is fromthewest: Ps 103:12; blotout: Is 43:25; wipeaway: Col 2:13; sweepawaylikemist: Is 44:22.191

Bieringer’s research suggests that the NT contains more than one model of how God deals with sin. There is no umbrella term in this regard. 191

The research of Bieringer reveals that from the different expressions cited above only the following suggest removal of sins: send away, forgive (ἀφίημι): Ps 31:1 LXX, quoted in Rom 4:7; blotout: Is 43:25; wipeaway: Col 2:13; sweepawaylikemist: Is 44:22; remove as far as the east is from the west: Ps 103:1; expiate : Ps 129:3 LXX, Rom 3:25. Other expressions suggest that sin is there, but that it does not have an adverse effect on their relationship. Bieringer, Reconciliation, 34.

338

CHAPTER SEVEN

‘Passing over’ is one model. The most commonly used term in the NT, ἄφεσις, appears in the Pauline corpus only in a quotation in Rom 4:7 and in Deutero-Pauline Col 1:14 and Eph 1:7. Clearly, therefore, the forgiveness of sins assuchis not a primary concern of Paul’s theology. We share Jewett’s observation that, since forgiveness is of decidedly secondary interest in Paul’s theology, it is unlikely that he shared an atonement theory that concentrates on forgiveness.192 What does strike us is Paul’s abundant use in Romans of ‘justification’ and the words related to it.193 In fact, Bieringer’s research overlooks this important term, δικαιόω. It is δικαιόω that is used twice in 3:24, 26, when Paul talks about God’s dealing with sin. Yet the term most often used to sum up the effect of the Christ-event is forgiveness. Forgiveness means that we do not want to stay with sin. ‘Overlooking’ means something quite different. It means that sin is there, but that is not looked into. It implies accepts the fact of sin, but does not deal with it at the moment. By the phrase διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων in Rom 3:25, Paul points us to God’s mercy and forbearance, towards humanity and towards each human being, his passing over, his overlooking their former sins. If the point is missed, it is repeated and underlined by ‘forbearance’ in the following phrase. To forbear means ‘to bear with or endure.’ God endured the injustice of sins not being dealt with. Looking in his compassion upon sinful humans, he did not punish them as they deserved, but tolerated them. “The ‘passing over of sins’” says Seifrid, “entails God’s former bearing of reproach for apparently being unjust in dealing with the world. The patience of God once endured and still endures the injustice, oppression, and murder that torment the creation (1:18-32). That violence reached its ultimate in Jesus’ death on the cross.”194 Why did God do this? It was, writes Paul, “in view of demonstrating his merciful justice in the present time that he himself is just and [that] he justifies the one who trusts in Jesus” (3:26). The passing over of former sins is a unique action of God. To assert this is theologically sound. Paul does not conceive of God dealing with sins in a single manner, but of him acting towards humanity in all the riches and variety of his compassion.

192 193

194

Cf. Jewett, Romans, 286. It is used almost fifty times in the letter to the Romans. Cf. Stendahl, PaulAmongJews andGentiles, 25. Seifrid, “Romans,” 621.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

339

The traces of God’s passing over sins can be found both in the LXX and in the NT. Ps 103:10 helps us to understand this merciful action: “He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities.” He did not punish them, but overlooked their iniquities. Prior to the coming of Christ, God postponed the full penalty of sin. God’s attitude toward sinners is evident from the beginning, for instead of Adam and Eve’s disobedience in Gen 3:15 leading to their destruction, God provides them and all humankind with the hope of salvation. The same can be seen in the story of David, who took another man’s wife and sent her husband to die. Yet, God tells him through the prophet Nathan, ‘the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die’ (2 Sam 12:13). God seems to have passed over adultery and murder. The merciful God overlooks the sins of humans so that they may repent, says Wis 11:23. “Who is a God like you,” we read in Micah 7:18, “pardoning iniquity and passing over the transgression of the remnant of your possession?” A prayer to overlook sins is also found in Sir 23:2. In Dan 9:9 we read that justice and mercy (ἡ δικαιοσύνη καὶ τὸ ἔλεος) belongs to our God even when we have rebelled against him. Nor is this understanding of God alien to the NT. “God has overlooked the times of human ignorance,” says Acts 17:30. It also notes that in past generations God allowed all the nations to follow their own ways (Acts 14:16). The gospels present a holy and righteous God who makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous (Mt 5:45). Paul, in Rom 2:4, speaks of the forbearance and the patience of God. What we want to show in these examples is that some traces of God’s overlooking sins can be found in the Bible. Why did God prefer such an action over forgiveness or over punishment? If God was to fully forgive humanity for its sins and offences that, too, would create problems. How can God just forgive and forget the problem and imbalance created by the sins of humanity? For God to fully forgive sins there and then would be like giving silent approval to sin. Such an act could not be expected from a just God. At the same time, to punish and to destroy sinners there and then would also be against God’s covenantal faithfulness.195 Passing over the previously committed sins affirms divine mercy and trustworthiness. That is, God remains always trustworthy, despite not always immediately vindicating the right and

195

Cf. Dunn, Romans1-8, 174. Murray, Romans, 119-120, notes that passing over sins is not justification and justification requires an act that vindicates God’s justice.

340

CHAPTER SEVEN

judging the wrong.196 The delay in dealing with sin may be understood as God’s hope for the return of those who have sinned in ignorance. It is also expressive of God’s hope, of God’s plan, to restore the broken relationship. In line with what we have seen, “the former sins” of Rom 3:25 may not only refer to Gentile sins.197 Nor is it that they refer to sins committed before conversion, that is, before embracing Christ. Rather, “the former sins” are all those sins committed under the old economy, before the coming of Christ. Paul’s argument in Rom 1:18-3:20 and particularly that in 3:23, testifies that he has both Jews and Gentiles in mind. So we understand that God has passed over the sins of both Jews and Gentiles. What, then, of the sacrifices and offerings in the period before Christ? Did they then not expiate sin, but cover them, as it were, provisionally. The sacrificial system would then remain as a legitimate way of God’s dealing with sin in OT times, not as a radical or complete answer to the problem they raised, but enabling God to pass over them, covering them temporarily and conditionally. This was the way God covered the sins of Jews. But Paul says that the forbearance of God has passed over sins of both Jews and Gentiles so as to be able to deal with them in a radical way in and through the revelation of God’s gracious love in Christ. 7.3.2 The Question of the Justice of God For God simply to pass over sins indefinitely would raise a grave problem. Somehow the harm sin has done to the relationship between God and humanity has to be repaired. To pass over should not mean to neglect. What is needed is a just way for God to pass over past sins. Injustice is not only to wrongly convict, but also to wilfully ignore breaches of the 196

197

Cf. James D. G. Dunn, “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology?,” in Celebrating Romans, ed. Sheila E. McGinn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 19. Kraus, TodJesu, 102-105, looks at the passing over of previously committed sins in relation to ἱλαστήριον and notes that God has overlooked the sins not covered by the temple cult. Based on Kraus’ observation, Jewett (Romans, 229-231) argues that God’s overlooking of sins refers to Gentile sins alone. To support the claim he refers to apocalyptic literature and 2 Macc 6: 12-17. ‘For in the case of the other nations the Lord waits patiently to punish them until they have reached the full measure of their sins; but he does not deal in this way with us’ (2 Macc 6:14). This suggests, according to him, that not Jews but Gentiles are the beneficiaries of God’s long suffering. Accordingly, in the period before the cross event, God has merely shown forbearance towards those sins not covered by the temple rites, that is all transgressions outside Israel’s ethnic boundaries. Christ’s death overcomes this difficult state for Gentiles, replacing the temple as a place or means of atonement.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

341

law. How can God be holy and just if he does not deal with the problem of sin? For a holy and just God to compromise with sin could raise doubts about his justice. Unhandled sin threatens the justice of God. When seen from a forensic perspective, passing over the former sins made God appear unjust, particularly when the Law prevailed as the norm for justice. From this perspective, being a good judge requires action against the offences committed. A judge who lets criminals go free causes chaos. Such a view suggests that Paul wrestles with this problem in Rom 3:25, a problem that calls for public vindication of God’s justice. God’s present act of justification, from a forensic perspective, also challenges the justice of God. A forensic perspective sees justification as being vindicated before a court. From this perspective, δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν metaphorically calls on us to imagine ourselves standing before a court and the judge pronouncing us not guilty. This is certainly clear as regards the future.198 The acquittal, the solemn pronouncement of ‘Not guilty,’ transforms the possibilities of the future. No longer is there the prospect of condemnation. The future is now open. But how can a just judge declare justified one who is clearly guilty? Our proposal, that the heart of Rom 3:21-26 is the manifestation of God’s merciful justice, can help us understand Paul’s portrayal of the justice of God. God’s merciful justice speaks of God’s relational justice. God’s δικαιοσύνη expresses that quality of God that is not vengeful, that remains faithful to his original love. Courts know nothing of δωρεάν, for it is not a jurist’s word. The justification and redemption conveyed in this text is relational. Cut off by our own failures from life-giving relationship with God, the Bible portrays human life as without hope, like death, without a future. This situation puts us humans totally at the mercy of God. How will he react? Paul tells us that God reacts with grace, with 198

Reimund Bieringer and Mary Elsbernd, “The ‘Normativity of the Future’ Approach: Its Roots, Development, Current State and Challenges,” in NormativityoftheFuture: ReadingBiblicalandOtherAuthoritativeTextsinanEschatologicalPerspective, Reimund Bieringer and Mary Elsbernd, ANL 61 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 3-26, underlines the need for considering ‘future’ as a norm in interpreting the biblical texts. In Rom 3:24-25, the main question of the normativity of the future is what are the implications for the future of humanity that flow from the statement that we are justified. 3:25 could seem to be about the past. But this past action has implications for the future (ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ). In this verse, there is at least an implicit awareness that before this event the future of humanity was precarious at best. Paul is presupposing the consequence of sin for the now and for the future of human life. If the consequences of sin are undone, new futures become possible.

342

CHAPTER SEVEN

unconditional love, with the unconditional gift of mercy. When all seemed lost, hope is reborn, new possibilities open up. God shows his concern for right and wrong, not by punishing the wrong, but by solving the problem. God’s solution for human sins is to set forth Christ as ἱλαστήριον. Christ’s death for all the sins of humanity means that they are not simply ignored. The problem of God’s forbearance, his passing over the former sins, is solved by the revelation of his merciful justice in Jesus Christ. God’s forbearance came not from indifference, but from his concern to establish his merciful justice, with Christ as the mercy seat of God. 7.3.3 Re-Visiting the Theology of the Cross and Theories of the Atonement Research often mines Rom 3:25 for arguments to make the case for Paul’s conception of the death of Christ elsewhere. The danger is that such an approach can start with a pre-conceived position, assume that Paul is everywhere consistent and then look for support from within 3:25. Rather, we should let the text speak for itself. We have seen how the rendering of ἱλαστήριον as propitiation has led to a christocentric interpretation of Rom 3:25 that stresses the work of Christ in averting the wrath of God. This interpretation goes on to argue that it is the propitiatory death of Christ that enables God to hold back his just wrath against sinners. Cranfield makes a summary of this view: “He willed to forgive sinners and because, being truly merciful, he willed to forgive them righteously, that is, without in any way condoning their sin, purposed to take upon himself in the person of His Son the full weight of that righteous holy wrath which they deserve.”199 So the retributive wrath of God against the sins of humanity is absorbed by the death of Christ and this death proves that God remains just even if he previously passed over the sins. In our view, this interpretation brings in ideas foreign to Paul. Specifically, we hold that the portrayal of an angry God who needs to be appeased is nowhere to be found in Romans. The importing of such a concept unnecessarily complicates the understanding of the text. As is well-known, there are three major models or theories of interpreting Jesus’ death on the cross in traditional Christian theology. Each of 199

C. E. B. Cranfield, OnRomansandtheOtherNewTestamentEssays (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 74.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

343

these tries to show, within the limited reference of human experience, how Christ’s death saves us humans.200 Of course, any attempt to explain, in terms of human thinking and experience, an event that is fundamentally of God, can only ever be partial. It is beyond the capacity of human understanding to wholly grasp or to master the work and purposes of God. Any explanatory theory or model has the double limitation that it is only partial and that it is obliged to use limited human experience to explore and to illuminate something that goes outside that very human experience. Like all theory, it has the character of metaphor. If it helps us grasp something of what is going on, it is useful. But we must beware of its limitations, the time when it has reached the limits of its explanatory power. The theory or model cannot be allowed to impose itself on God. God always has the right to tell us that the theory has reached the point where it is redundant. The ‘Christus Victor’ model views the death of Jesus as the victory over the oppressive powers of evil. In this model, the death and resurrection of Jesus together establish this ultimate victory over evil. The ‘satisfaction theory,’ widely associated with Anselm, presents Christ’s death as a ransom for our sins. Christ dies in the place of humans, to appease God’s wrath, or to satisfy God’s sense of justice. The ‘moral influence’ theory, associated with Abelard, argues that the problem is not with God’s nature, but with human nature. Jesus’ faithful death is a manifestation of divine mercy and love, that sets an example for our imitation, or for powerful moral influence. When Rom 3:25 is read with any one of these theories as an apriori, we will understand the text differently. The ‘Christus Victor’ model leads to a christological interpretation, highlighting the faithfulness of Christ and finds, in the pericope, a number of effects of the Christ-event. However, this reading blinds us to the pericope’s main thrust, the manifestation of God’s merciful justice. The dominant ‘satisfaction theory’ finds, at first glance, extensive support in the passage, in particular through the reference to redemption or ransom in 3:24, to ἱλαστήριον, and to blood. However, we have shown that this is to misconstrue these terms in the specific context of the pericope. The satisfaction theory tends to drive a wedge between the attitude of God and the work of Christ. On the one hand it can readily be understood as presenting an angry God who is concerned about his dignity, on the other hand a victim Christ. It has been 200

For a detailed view on classical atonement models, see Gustaf Aulén, ChristusVictor: AnHistoricalStudyoftheThreeMainTypesoftheIdeaoftheAtonement (London: SPCK, 1980).

344

CHAPTER SEVEN

accused of sustaining a culture of abuse and oppression by enabling unscrupulous and ill-advised individuals to use the threat of damnation to manipulate others and to exert control over them. It has also lent itself to the injustice that abandons those who will not yield to its threats, making them its victims.201 The ‘moral influence’ theory, which at its best is certainly inspiring, yet is insufficient or unconvincing when it seeks to explain how God has dealt with human sin. It has been criticised for presenting God as sentimental, and for neglecting the destructive effects of sin on human life.202 More to the point, Christ’s faithful or obedient death as a model for humanity is not Paul’s concern in Romans. When Paul presents a model for trust, he presents Abraham. Paul’s concern in Romans is not the human Jesus, rather it is Jesus Christ, the representative of God. We conclude that these classical models do not fit into Paul’s discussion of atonement in Rom 3:25. As we have already shown, the theology of the cross in Romans has a different focus.203 In our view, the emphasis of the text is not on Christ’s death, or the effects of the Christ-event, but on God’s action in offering Christ as the new mercy seat. Like the old mercy seat of the Pentateuch, Christ becomes the focal point of divine revelation. By putting forward Jesus, God recovers the ‘mercy seat’ lost in the exile. Paul’s focus in 3:25, therefore, is on the divine activity and the activities of Christ and of humanity can only be understood in this light. Atoning theories which stress the saving activity of Christ, rather than beginning with the action and aim of God, or that put the destructive action of humanity before the overwhelming love of God, find no support here. It is God who puts forward Christ as the new ‘mercy seat’ and justifies all who have trust in him. To read the pericope coherently, we must start from the aim and the action of God. The death of Christ, however, does not stem directly from the will of God. It is the result of Christ’s obediently carrying out the mission of God, in the unjust structures of world. The suffering and death of Christ, then, are not desired by God, even if they might be foreseen by God. They come from the world and its problems, not from the will of God, 201

202

203

Cf. Joanne Carlson Brown and Rebecca Parker, “For God So Loved the World?,” in Christianity, Patriarchy and Abuse: A Feminist Critique (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim, 1989), 9. Cf. Kathryn Tanner, “Incarnation, Cross, and Sacrifice: A Feminist-Inspired Reappraisal,” ATR 86 (2004): 35-56, esp. 37. See the discussion of the various references to the Death of Jesus in Romans on pp. 75-75.

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

345

even if God permits them. It is not Christ who offers a sacrifice to God. It is God who offers his son, putting him totally at risk, for our salvation. Along the lines of the research of Bieringer,204 we argue that the death of Jesus on the cross is not the primary means chosen by God, even if it was an outcome that God was prepared to accept. Nowhere in Paul, least of all in Romans, do we find that God has chosen Christ’s death on the cross as a means-to-an-end. Rather, Paul is talking in terms of the theological interpretation of the Christ-event. It is humans who have chosen this way. The surprise is, that humanity having chosen the way to the cross, we find that we have not chosen the outcome, because the purpose of God triumphs over the choice of humanity. What we thought was the outcome, the death of Christ, is overtaken and overwhelmed by the power of God’s purpose to our redemption. In that way, “God writes straight in the crooked lines of humans.”205 Even in his passivity in allowing the cross, God is still bringing redemption out of this event. It is not the event of the cross that brings redemption, as it were without God. It is God who amazingly brings redemption out of the cross-event that he neither wanted nor willed at any point. His purpose of redemption is so powerful that it overwhelms the evil infused in the cross-event by corrupt humanity, leaving recued humanity as the unexpecting and unexpected beneficiary. Paul says therefore in 3:24 that redemption is God’s work in Christ, through which he freely bestows his grace upon everyone, justifying them, redeeming them. The kind of God we believe in is important. In a theocentric reading, the kind of God we believe in determines what happens. It is hard to believe that God really wanted Christ to die. In the perspective of the normativity of the future, it is not an option to predicate any violence or suffering on the side of God.206 To believe that is to give special conditions to God, something that theology has, in the past, been too ready to do. So much past theology suggested that God was involved in the premeditated killing of an innocent person because that was what was needed in order to change the human situation in a way that was highly desirable, not just for humanity, but for God. That is to give God special 204

205

206

See Reimund Bieringer, Dialoog En Participatie: Over Hedendaagse Uitdagingen VanHetChristelijkGeloof (Leuven: Acco, 2010), 123-124. Cf. Mary Elsbernd and Reimund Bieringer, “Interpreting the Signs of the Times in the Light of the Gospel Vision and Normativity of the Future,” in Normativity of the Future:ReadingBiblicalandOtherAuthoritativeTextsinanEschatologicalPerspective, ed. Reimund Bieringer and Mary Elsbernd, ANL 61 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 64. Cf. Bieringer and Elsbernd, “Normativity of the Future,” 15.

346

CHAPTER SEVEN

conditions. It is to say that if God murders somebody, it is not murder. Such a theology of the cross compromises the image of God. The only thing that Paul says in Rom 3:25, in this particular text, is that God sets Christ forth as ἱλαστήριον. Paul does not say that God wants Christ to be crucified. When the text speaks of the death of Christ, it is giving a theological explanation. God sets Jesus forth as the mercy seat. When humans choose to crucify Jesus, God sets him forth as the mercy seat, in and through his blood. The text is not explicit about who is responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. Its focus is on what God does at that moment and that is to set Christ forth as the mercy seat. If we read into the text that God has chosen this crucifixion, it is because we are so influenced by the anselmian way of thinking. But it is not there. The best way to understand what is there is that only when others have chosen does God take the situation and transform it, making something extraordinary and humanly unforeseeable out of. Not in the day-to-day sense, but in the literal sense, God makes the best of it. Theology and atonement theories often speak of the death of Christ as the condition for our redemption. But Jesus’ death is not the condition for our redemption, nor is it the cost he paid to redeem us. Rather, what Paul says here is that God’s offer of redemption is unconditional (δωρεάν). This is not a categorical historical statement about the death of Christ. It is important to look at what is the theological interpretation in this statement on the death of Christ. We usually translate what is a theological statement into a historical statement. This is the danger in the interpretation. Paul is here using historical events to make a theological statement. But the historical events are not telling us everything. We turn the theological statement into a historical statement and in doing so we theologise history. The problem is that we fill in the gap too quickly. Paul’s atonement imagery, as sets it out in Rom 3:25, is completely theocentric. Atonement is divine action. When we read these verses in the recognition that Paul’s atonement imagery is entirely theocentric, we find that they speak of divine action which reveals God’s merciful justice and which justifies everyone who trusts him. It is trust that, in Rom 3:25 (and also in 3:22, 26), grounds the universal dimension of the atonement, over against the Levitical offerings performed only on behalf of the sins of Israel. This universal atonement, this divine initiative in redeeming all of humanity, offers a starting point for inter-religious dialogue. God’s setting forth of Jesus as the mercy seat in his blood substantiates his promise in Lev 16:30: “For on that day atonement shall be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the

THEOCENTRIC READING OF ‘ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ AND ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ

347

Lord.” But Paul sees this promise as extended to everyone who trusts, whether expressing that trust as trust in Christ, or as trust in God. At this point, the universal offer takes on an individual appeal. The choice is now open to each individual human being, whether to respond, or not to respond, to God’s action in Christ and to become, or not to become, part of the new people of God. This is the good news. This is the gospel. The Day of Atonement was for Jewish believers only. Gentiles were excluded. Whereas the offerings in the temple were restricted to the Jews and did not require a decisive action from the part of the recipient, through the Christ-event God atones for all who lay their trust in Christ. In that sense, the OT sacrifices looked forward to this new ‘mercy seat’ that would wipe away sins. The Christ-event justifies the time of God’s forbearance, in which he mercifully passed over the sins of the whole of humanity. In this way, Paul’s theology of atonement shows us how God extends the atonement to all, because all have sinned. God brings Jewish and Gentile converts together, unifying them in their trust in the Christ, which is also their trust in God. God’s act of setting Christ as the new mercy seat justifies his passing over sins in the past. God remains just. In Christ, God shows his unconditional love and mercy towards everyone. Rom 3:25 is about what God has done for us all, in Christ. This text is not only theocentric, but also embraces theology, christology and anthropology. CONCLUSION Our exegetical study of Rom 3:25 in this chapter has provided us with several insights. We have seen how the theocentricity of the text calls into question traditional propitiatory and sacrificial interpretations of this verse. Our study of ἱλαστήριον, in both extra-biblical and biblical usage, has shown two contrasting meanings: the Hellenistic use of appeasing angry gods; and the biblical use of atonement related to the ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬. ַ Showing that the context favours a scriptural allusion, we have argued that ἱλαστήριον can be metaphorically identified with the mercy seat of the Pentateuch and, by metonymy, with the self-revelation of God and with atonement. This understanding is both grammatically sound and wellsupported by the context. To translate ἱλαστήριον as ‘mercy seat’ enables the reader to make the association with the central OT image of God’s atonement. This understanding is supported by the meaning of the verb προέθετο and other related phrases in 3:25. In Rom 3:25, therefore,

348

CHAPTER SEVEN

Paul presents Jesus as the new mercy seat for the new people of God which includes all, both Jews and Gentiles. We have also shown that God’s setting forth of Christ as the new mercy seat has to be read together with his passing over the former sins. Our study of πάρεσις and of instances where the verb παρίημι is used together with sins or offences in extra-biblical literature, has established this point, by showing that they are used mostly in situations of provisional letting go or postponement of an action. There is no biblical or extra-biblical instance where the cognate παρίημι is used in the sense of a full remission or forgiveness. That Paul used πάρεσις instead of ἄφεσις indicates that he does not want to communicate the notion of remission. When we consider the past as the time of God’s forbearance (3:25) and the present way in which God deals with sins (3:26), the meaning ‘passing over’ is certainly to be preferred. Thus, πάρεσις in 3:25 conveys a temporal ‘passing over’ or ‘overlooking.’ In the final part of this chapter, we have argued that the well-known theories of interpreting Jesus’ death on the cross are of little help in understanding the meaning of death of Christ as set out in Rom 3:25. We have argued, through the evident theocentricity of the text, that the death of Christ is to be understood in terms of God’s love and mercy towards humanity. We have also brought out the rich theology of God’s passing over former sins and have addressed the questions relating to the justice of God, demonstrating that this theocentric reading can well maintain the balance of anthropology, christology and theology.

GENERAL CONCLUSION The aim of this book has has been to discern the meaning, implications and relevance of Rom 3:21-26, a pericope that is central to the understanding of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. The key has been a theocentric reading. In particular, we have sought to establish the main theme of the pericope, to clarify the most difficult words and phrases it contains and to set out its theological meaning. We have drawn on the resources of scholarly discussion and have examined both the broader and more immediate context of the pericope. We have studied the many grammatical, text-critical, source-critical, semantic and theological issues it presents. It would be too much to claim that we have been able to provide comprehensive answers to all the issues we have raised. Nonetheless, we believe that our theocentric approach to reading the pericope has enabled us to draw out its most probable meaning in its context. We now draw together our main findings. Our review of the history of interpretation of the pericope identified six major exegetical issues, connected with: δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ; πίστις (Ἰησοῦ) Χριστοῦ; the alleged pre-Pauline material; ἀπολύτρωσις; ἱλαστήριον; and πάρεσις. Having shown how the position taken on these issues affects the interpretation of the pericope, we noted areas that call for further examination. We have pointed out just how much research has been dominated by justification by faith, by a christocentric focus on the faithfulness of Christ, or by the death of Christ. Scholarly interpretations have led to the emergence of anthropocentric, christocentric or theocentric readings which differ as to their emphases and implications. We have found that careful consideration of Paul’s central concern in Romans 1-3 opens up the issues of the pericope. In seeking out the central theme that guides Paul’s argument in these three chapters, we have given our reasons for opting for God’s relational justice. This paved the way for pulling together otherwise seemingly incoherent themes. A relational understanding of God’s justice enables us to make sense of the description in 1:18-3:20 of how God’s justice prevailed in relation to the law, of the epoch of God’s compassionate justice described in 1:16-17 and 3:21-31, of the high word frequency of Θεός, of the presence of words from the semantic field of justice and of the characterization of God. It helped us to grasp Paul’s understanding of God in his argument

350

GENERAL CONCLUSION

for the unity of Jews and Gentiles. Overall, our conclusion that God is central to these chapters sustains us in our belief that our reading should be theocentric. We sought to pinpoint aspects of our theocentric reading. Until recently, Paul’s theo-logy in its strict sense, the language that Paul uses when he speaks of God, was not an issue in Pauline studies. Among the reasons for this neglect are the search for what is typically Christian and radically new in Paul. In addition, the last decades have seen a growing tendency to focus on Jesus’ obedience and faithfulness to God as a significant theme of Romans. This has led to a christocentric reading that emphasises participation in the faithfulness of Christ as the key to salvation. Although properly christocentric, this assumes that Paul started with a theocentric outlook (as in 1 Thessalonians), becoming progressively more christocentric as he approached Romans and its characteristic theology of the cross. Against this, we have argued from Paul’s vision of God that a theocentric reading enables us to address many of the apparent puzzles in Romans. To demonstrate this point we examined the frequency with which the terms Θεός and Χριστός appear in Romans. We then asked some key questions concerning the theocentricity of Romans: how is the salvific role of Christ described and how is his death to be interpreted; should this role be read over and against that of God, or in parallel with it? Further, we investigated Paul’s views on the relationship between God and Jesus, the oneness of God, the interpretation of the death of Christ, and the role of scripture as found in Romans. Seeing them from the perspective of the whole Letter we suggested that Paul views Jesus Christ as God’s representative, or as the one who mediates on his behalf. This reading sees the death of Christ as an expression of God’s love for his people and shows that most occurrences of ‘Christ’ are in theocentric contexts. Our theocentric reading of Rom 3:21-26 enabled us to integrate theology, christology and soteriology. Rather than speaking about God in abstract terms, the text speaks of God’s activity in Christ towards humans. In other words, God is the subject and the text is theocentric; Christ is the medium of God’s manifestation and redemptive activity; and the whole of humanity are beneficiaries of this divine activity, making this a central passage where all the elements of classical theology are brought together. Our theocentric reading underscored this relational framework in the text and showed how, on close examination, each of these six verses highlights God’s activity. We have shown that not just every verse, but nearly every clause, refers to God, mostly in the form of

GENERAL CONCLUSION

351

genitives: δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ; ἡ δόξα τοῦ θεοῦ; ἡ ἀνοχή τοῦ θεοῦ. In addition, God manifests his δικαιοσύνη (21-22; 25-26); God justifies all (3:24, 26); he puts forward Jesus as ἱλαστήριον (3:25); he has passed over the former sins (3:25); and he demonstrates that he is a just God (3:26). We have further demonstrated that God accomplishes redemption in and through Jesus Christ and has thereby manifested his love and mercy towards the whole of humanity. Our syntactic and semantic analysis of the passage ruled out the possibility of a christocentric reading, because each of the five references to Jesus Christ in the pericope is in relation to God’s activity. The saving death of Jesus indeed plays a significant role, but it is not the focus of the text. In this passage the role of Christ is instrumental and the basic framework on which the passage builds is the interaction between God and humanity, by means of God’s own activity in and through Christ. Jesus is not the subject of a single statement. Rather, he is the object, or the means, of God’s action. The christological statements are all in prepositional phrases: διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστου (3:22); ἐν Χριστῷ (3:24); ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (3:25); ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ (3:26). Therefore the pericope cannot be christocentric. Rather, these statements enable Paul to declare that God is just and trustworthy, because of what he has accomplished in the Christ-event. We have proposed and argued that the central theme of the pericope is the manifestation of God’s merciful justice. When recognised as such, it stands as the climax of Paul’s characterisation of God in Romans 1-3. This theme is introduced in the first clause of 3:21 and repeatedly asserted in the text. Paul sandwiches a theocentric interpretation of the death of Christ between the two statements of the manifestation (φανερόω) or the demonstration (ἔνδειξις) of God’s merciful justice in 3:21-22 and 3:25-26. We proposed to translate δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as God’smercifuljustice. This was because the most common translations do not cover the important element of mercy, which we have shown to be both in the background texts and in the context. Taking on those scholars who have shown the potency of δικαιοσύνη to stand for the Hebrew root ‫ צדק‬and ‫ח ֶסד‬, ֶ we have argued that it is used to communicate God’s relational and merciful justice. When Paul is using δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, this potential is realized and its Hebrew meaning comes to the fore. While we gained a lot from the past research on its Hebrew equivalent ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬or ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬in the OT and in the extra-biblical literature, we argue that the search for a uniform meaning, for all the uses of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in all instances, has failed to see its particularity in Romans.

352

GENERAL CONCLUSION

An important clue regarding δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is that in Rom 3:21 Paul states that its manifestation is attested by Scripture. The observation that in Romans many of Paul’s quotations are from the Psalms and Isaiah, moved us to suggest that Paul is most likely influenced by the LXX uses of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in these books as an attribute of God. Not only do these uses connote God’s mercy and justice with relational meaning, but the context of these texts also exhibits its inclusive nature. We have also seen how this point can be reinforced by one of Paul’s significant allusions, Ps 142:2b in Rom 3:20. We also suggested that here we find similar vocabulary to Isa 66:23. Most significantly, what the Psalmist pleads for in this psalm is not distributive justice. It is for merciful justice. We have also shown that all the eight occurrences of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Romans have a strong relational meaning, embracing mercy. More specifically in 3:21-26, we observed that mercy is implied by “justified by his grace as a gift,” by “mercy seat” in 3:24-25, and by the context of “all have sinned” in 3:23. The only possible justice in such circumstances, other than universal punishment, is mercy. The beneficiaries of this mercy can have no merit. For all who receive it, the gift is gracious, altogether underserved. Based on these observations we argued that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ signifies God’s merciful justice, highlighting his impartiality. Christocentrism is sustained by a subjective genitive reading of πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases. We examined the core issues in this debate and addressed various challenges raised by such a reading. We have also observed that the πίστις Χριστοῦ dispute has been overly concerned with the meaning of the genitive. We focused rather on the meaning and source of the Pauline πίστις. Our investigation revealed that there is a remarkable consistency when πιστ- words stands for the Hebrew hiphil form of ‫אמן‬, meaning ‘cause/make one stand firm.’ It is this word choice of the LXX, and the strong relational sense evident in the πιστ- words that seems to have influenced Paul. Again taking scripture as the key, we examined two significant quotations that employ πιστ- words. Moreover, we argued that considering the semantic relation between the noun and the verb, that Paul elsewhere substitutes a noun for the verb, and that Christ never occurs as the subject of the verb, πίστις in Rom 3:22, 25, 26 does not refer to Christ’s faith(fullness). Rather, it means πίστις in God through Christ. We then proposed to translate both πίστις and πιστεύω as ‘trust’ because it does justice to the quotes that we examined and that it helps to avoid reading the later developments of ‘faith’ into Paul. Paul’s insistence is on trust in Christ, in whom God is definitively

GENERAL CONCLUSION

353

revealed. Hence the stress is neither on the behaviour of Christ nor on his faith or faithfulness, but on divine revelation through Christ to all those who trust in him. We have argued that Paul does not understand redemption and justification (christocentrically) as something attained by means of a payment or purchase made by Christ’s death. This question was particularly addressed by our study of ἀπολύτρωσις in Rom 3:24. By challenging the assumption that it means only a ransom in the extra-biblical literature, we pointed out that there are at least two different lines of meaning in these writings: those that continue the classical Greek sense of λύτρον; and the biblically-inspired use as general deliverance. We found that the Greco-Roman writings indicate some development in the meaning of the word. We argued that Paul was part of that development. Paul’s metaphorical usage of the term in a theocentric context in Rom 3:24 expresses a general concept of ‘redemption,’ rather than a specific mechanism of liberation in the context of slavery. This metaphor then has to be seen from the background of God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt. In support of this view we pointed out the combination of δωρεάν with τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, which underlines justification and redemption as God’s unconditional favour. It is this emphasis on unconditionality that enables us to see that Jesus’ death was not a condition for human redemption. This suggests that redemption is not to be seen either from the anthropological viewpoint, as something purchased, or from the christological viewpoint of propitiation or ransom. Rather it can best be understood in the framework of God’s love and mercy for his people. It is important to see these contextual signals and syntactic relations so that we can apprehend the unconditional redemption and justification that God offers in Christ. In our study of the alleged pre-Pauline formula in Rom 3:24-26, we sought to determine whether and to what extent Paul quotes and expands traditional material in these verses. The central point in the arguments for a pre-Pauline formula is the presence of rare words, three hapaxlegomena, the difference in style, and the newness of theme in the context, making it difficult to interpret the text. We have shown that these differences in style and vocabulary and difficulties in interpretation are not sufficient to prove a pre-Pauline tradition. No scholar has identified a tradition that matches this section. The presence of the Pauline elements within the so-called pre-Pauline formula undoubtedly creates a problem for the tradition-critical hypothesis. For, it is generally agreed that expressions like τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, διὰ πίστεως, πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν and even ἐν

354

GENERAL CONCLUSION

τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι are typically Pauline. Despite the difficulties in syntax, we have seen that there is both internal and external coherence in argument, as one thought flows logically from another. We found it to be a coherent unit, whose parts are tightly bound together. Thus there is no compelling reason to identify any of its components as pre-Pauline. Although we acknowledge the seriousness of the question raised, regarding the difficulties in 3:25, none of the studies has given a convincing explanation for these difficulties. On the basis of these observations, we assume that 3:24-25 is an authentic Pauline composition. It was important to investigate the meaning of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25, which is the subject of a longstanding debate. Scholars have understood it variously as referring to the mercy seat, propitiation or expiation. A survey of the variations in translations has made clear that the history of translation of ἱλαστήριον has been as varied as the history of its interpretation. The issue is not just linguistic, but historical and theological. Our examination of the extra-biblical sources and the biblical uses of the term revealed that there are two possible but contrasting meanings: the Hellenistic use of appeasing angry gods and the biblical use of atonement related to the ‫כּפּ ֶֹרת‬. ַ We also have argued that the tendency to parallel Rom 3:25 to the martyrological background of 4 Macc 17:22 is misguided. The most common rendering is ‫ ַכּפּ ֶֹרת‬of the Ark of the Covenant and this is the dominant meaning of the term in the LXX. Besides, the only other NT occurrence of the term in Heb 9:5 is a clear reference to the ‘mercy seat.’ The ‘mercy seat’ of the Pentateuch functioned as the place of divine revelation and as a place of atonement. Both these functions are implicitly mentioned in Rom 3:25. Hence the best rendering of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 is a metaphorical identification with the mercy seat of the Pentateuch, for both grammatical and contextual reasons which extends, by metonymy, to embrace the divine revelation and the atonement that happened at the mercy seat. Therefore, Paul presents Jesus as the new mercy seat for the new people of God, which includes both Jews and Gentiles. We have examined how scholars have understood the rare word πάρεσις either as a synonym of ἄφεσις or in relation to παρίημι. Our inquiry into the use of πάρεσις in extra-biblical literature suggested that it is often used when a provisional overlooking or postponement of action is concerned. The study of the verb παρίημι together with sins or offences both in the extra-biblical and biblical literature has also shown similar results. Moreover, our analysis of the context showed that ‘passing over’ is a more tenable translation in reference to ἱλαστήριον in 3:25, which

GENERAL CONCLUSION

355

serves as a fitting continuation of εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ in the preceding clause. All the more, this meaning of πάρεσις provided a better understanding of προγεγονότα ἁμαρτήματα and ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ in 3:26. These observations lead us to the conclusion that πάρεσις in Rom 3:25 is not used as a synonym of ἄφεσις, but rather is a unique term, denoting ‘passing over’ or ‘overlooking’ temporarily. The argument of this book calls into question the traditional interpretations of Rom 3:25 and the popular atonement models that are read into the passage. We pointed out how christocentric readers have neglected the rich theology of God’s passing over former sins, in their search for a uniform theology of forgiveness. But Paul does not present God’s act of justification and redemption from a forensic setting. Rather, he draws from a biblical setting of God’s relational justice that is the last resort for all those who are lost. It is at this point that our theocentric understanding of the passage, as the manifestation of God’s merciful justice, is at its best, because it expresses that quality of God that is not vengeful but longsuffering, that remains eternally faithful to his original love. Thus the theology of the cross is not the theology of appeasement or of the satisfaction of an angry God, or of propitiatory sacrifice, or of purchase by means of a payment. The rich theology of the cross presented in Rom 3:25 is that of God offering (indeed, “sacrificing”) his son and thereby showing his merciful justice to all. In sum, we have pointed out why we think that Paul’s argument in Romans, especially in 3:21-26, must be read with God at the centre, theocentrically. Our reading of the text is distinct from a christocentric reading, but not because it diminishes what has been done for us through Christ. It is distinct from a christocentric reading that, stressing the effects of the Christ-event, focuses on justification, redemption, expiation/propitiation and forgiveness. We argue that Paul’s concern is to depict what God has done through Christ. The central message of Rom 3:21-26 is not what humans have done, perhaps more surprisingly not what Christ has done, but what God has done. What he has done is to manifest his merciful justice, by justifying all those who trust in Jesus Christ. In that way, it is not about Christ paying, or about humans buying salvation. It is about God redeeming everyone, unconditionally, and thereby restoring the broken relationship. This stress on the unconditionality of redemption has gone unnoticed. We propose this as the central point of the manifestation of the merciful justice of God.

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 1. J.A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities, Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, earlyJewishandearlyChristianTraditions, Kampen, 1990 2. P.W. Van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. An Introductory Survey of a MillenniumofJewishFuneraryEpigraphy(300BCB-700CE), Kampen, 1991 3. E. Talstra, Solomon’s Prayer. Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings8,14-61, Kampen, 1993 4. R. Stahl, Von Weltengagement zu Weltüberwindung: Theologische Positionen im Danielbuch, Kampen, 1994 5. J.N. Bremmer, SacredHistoryandSacredTextsinearlyJudaism.ASymposiumin HonourofA.S.vanderWoude, Kampen, 1992 6. K. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a MantologicalWisdomAnthology, Kampen, 1994 7. B. Aland, NewTestamentTextualCriticism,ExegesisandChurchHistory:ADiscussionofMethods, Kampen, 1994 8. P.W. Van der Horst, Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity: Essays on their Interaction, Kampen, Second Enlarged Edition, 1998 9. C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch: die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung, Kampen, 1994 10. J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, Kampen, 1994 11. Tj. Baarda, EssaysontheDiatessaron, Kampen, 1994 12. Gert J. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline SpeechesoftheActaApostolorum, Kampen, 1995 13. D.V. Edelman, TheTriumphofElohim,FromYahwismstoJudaisms, Kampen, 1995 14. J.E. Revell, TheDesignationoftheIndividual.ExpressiveUsageinBiblicalNarrative, Kampen, 1996 15. M. Menken, OldTestamentQuotationsintheFourthGospel, Kampen, 1996 16. V. Koperski, The Knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. The High Christology of Philippians3:7-11, Kampen, 1996 17. M.C. De Boer, JohanninePerspectivesontheDeathofJesus, Kampen, 1996 18. R.D. Anderson, AncientRhetoricalTheoryandPaul, Revised edition, Leuven, 1998 19. L.C. Jonker, Exclusivity and Variety, Perspectives on Multi-dimensional Exegesis, Kampen, 1996 20. L.V. Rutgers, TheHiddenHeritageofDiasporaJudaism, Leuven, 1998 21. K. van der Toorn (ed.), TheImageandtheBook, Leuven, 1998 22. L.V. Rutgers, P.W. van der Horst (eds.), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, Leuven, 1998 23. E.R. Ekblad Jr., Isaiah’sServantPoemsAccordingtotheSeptuagint.AnExegetical andTheologicalStudy, Leuven, 1999 24. R.D. Anderson Jr., GlossaryofGreekRhetoricalTerms, Leuven, 2000 25. T. Stordalen, EchoesofEden, Leuven, 2000 26. H. Lalleman-de Winkel, JeremiahinPropheticTradition, Leuven, 2000 27. J.F.M. Smit, About the Idol Offerings. Rhetoric, Social Context and Theology of Paul’sDiscourseinFirstCorinthians8:1-11:1, Leuven, 2000 28. T.J. Horner, ListeningtoTrypho.JustinMartyr’sDialogueReconsidered, Leuven, 2001 29. D.G. Powers, Salvation through Participation. An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’CorporateUnitywithChristinEarlyChristianSoteriology, Leuven, 2001 30. J.S. Kloppenborg, P. Hoffmann, J.M. Robinson, M.C. Moreland (eds.), TheSayings GospelQinGreekandEnglishwithParallelsfromtheGospelsofMarkandThomas, Leuven, 2001 31. M.K. Birge, TheLanguageofBelonging.ARhetoricalAnalysisofKinshipLanguage inFirstCorinthians, Leuven, 2004

32. P.W. van der Horst, JaphethintheTentsofShem.StudiesonJewishHellenisminAntiquity, Leuven, 2002 33. P.W. van der Horst, M.J.J. Menken, J.F.M. Smit, G. van Oyen (eds.), Persuasionand DissuasioninEarlyChristianity,AncientJudaism,andHellenism, Leuven, 2003 34. L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, PaultheMissionary, Leuven, 2003 35. L.M. Teugels, Bibleandmidrash.TheStoryof‘TheWooingofRebekah’ (Gen. 24), Leuven, 2004 36. H.W. Shin, TextualCriticismandtheSynopticProbleminHistoricalJesusResearch. TheSearchforValidCriteria, Leuven, 2004 37. A. Volgers, C. Zamagni (eds.), Erotapokriseis. Early Christian Question-and- AnswerLiteratureinContext, Leuven, 2004 38. L.E. Galloway, FreedomintheGospel.Paul’sExemplumin1Cor9inConversation withtheDiscoursesofEpictetusandPhilo, Leuven, 2004 39. C. Houtman, K. Spronk, EinHelddesGlaubens?RezeptionsgeschichtlicheStudien zudenSimson-Erzählungen, Leuven, 2004 40. H. Kahana, Esther. Juxtaposition of the Septuagint Translation with the Hebrew Text, Leuven, 2005 41. V.A. Pizzuto, A Cosmic Leap of Faith. An Authorial, Structural, and Theological InvestigationoftheCosmicChristologyinCol1:15-20, Leuven, 2005 42. B.J. Koet, DreamsandScriptureinLuke-Acts.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2006 43. P.C Beentjes. “HappytheOneWhoMeditatesonWisdom”(SIR.14,20).Collected EssaysontheBookofBenSira, Leuven, 2006 44. R. Roukema, L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, K. Spronk, J.W. Wesselius (eds.), TheInterpretationofExodus.StudiesinHonourofCornelisHoutman, Leuven, 2006 45. G. van Oyen, T. Shepherd (eds.), TheTrialandDeathofJesus.EssaysonthePassion NarrativeinMark, Leuven, 2006 46. B. Thettayil, InSpiritandTruth.AnExegeticalStudyofJohn4:19-26andaTheological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel, Leuven, 2007 47. T.A.W. van der Louw, TransformationsintheSeptuagint.TowardsanInteractionof SeptuagintStudiesandTranslationStudies, Leuven, 2007 48. W. Hilbrands, Heilige oder Hure? Die Rezeptionsgeschichte von Juda und Tamar (Genesis38)vonderAntikebiszurReformationszeit, Leuven, 2007 49. J. Joosten, P.J. Tomson (eds.), VocesBiblicae.SeptuagintGreekanditsSignificance fortheNewTestament, Leuven, 2007 50. A. Aejmelaeus, OntheTrailoftheSeptuagintTranslators.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2007 51. S. Janse, “You are My Son”. The Reception History of Psalm 2 in Early Judaism andtheEarlyChurch, Leuven, 2009 52. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, L.L. Schulte (eds.), ProphecyaftertheProphets?TheContributionoftheDeadSeaScrollstotheUnderstandingofBiblicalandExtra-Biblical Prophecy, Leuven, 2009 53. C.M. Tuckett (ed.), FeastsandFestivals, Leuven, 2009 54. M. Labahn, O. Lehtipuu (eds.), AnthropologyintheNewTestamentanditsAncient Context, Leuven, 2010 55. A. van der Kooij, M. van der Meer (eds.), The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives, Leuven, 2010 56. J. Smith, TranslatedHallelujehs.ALinguisticandExegeticalCommentaryonSelect SeptuagintPsalms, Leuven, 2011 57. N. Dávid, A. Lange (eds.), QumranandtheBible.StudyingtheJewishandChristian ScripturesinLightoftheDeadSeaScrolls, Leuven, 2010 58. J. Chanikuzhy, Jesus,theEschatologicalTemple.AnExegeticalStudyofJn2,13-22in theLightofthePre70C.E.EschatologicalTempleHopesandtheSynopticTemple Action, Leuven, 2011

59. H. Wenzel, ReadingZechariahwithZechariah1:1–6astheIntroductiontotheEntire Book, Leuven, 2011 60. M. Labahn, O. Lehtipuu (eds.), ImageryintheBookyofRevelation, Leuven, 2011 61. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, J.S. Adcock (eds.), TheQumranLegalTextsbetweenthe HebrewBibleandItsInterpretation, Leuven, 2011 62. B. Lang, Buch der Kriege – Buch des Himmels. Kleine Schriften zur Exegese und Theologie, Leuven, 2011 63. H.-J. Inkelaar, Conflict over Wisdom. The Theme of 1 Corinthians 1-4 Rooted in Scripture, Leuven, 2011 64. K.-J. Lee, TheAuthorityandAuthorizationofTorahinthePersionPeriod, Leuven, 2011 65. K.M. Rochester, PropheticMinistryinJeremiahandEzekiel, Leuven, 2012 66. T. Law, A. Salvesen (eds.), GreekScriptureandtheRabbis, Leuven, 2012 67. K. Finsterbusch, A. Lange (eds.), WhatisBible?, Leuven, 2012 68. J. Cook, A. van der Kooij, Law,Prophets,andWisdom.OntheProvenanceofTranslatorsandtheirBooksintheSeptuagintVersion, Leuven, 2012 69. P.N. De Andrado, The Akedah Servant Complex. The Soteriological Linkage of Genesis22andIsaiah53inAncientJewishandEarlyChristianWritings, Leuven, 2013 70. F. Shaw, TheEarliestNon-MysticalJewishUseofΙαω, Leuven, 2014 71. E. Blachman, The Transformation of Tamar (Genesis 38) in the History of Jewish Interpretation, Leuven, 2013 72. K. De Troyer, T. Law, M. Liljeström (eds.), IntheFootstepsofSherlockHolmes.Studies intheBiblicalTextinHonourofAnneliAejmelaeus, Leuven, 2014 73. T. Do, Re-thinkingtheDeathofJesus.AnExegeticalandTheologicalStudyofHilasmos andAgapein1John2:1-2and4:7-10, Leuven, 2014 74. T. Miller, ThreeVersionsofEsther.TheirRelationshiptoAnti-SemiticandFeminist CritiqueoftheStory, Leuven, 2014 75. E.B. Tracy, SeeMe!HearMe!Divine/HumanRelationalDialogueinGenesis, Leuven, 2014 76. J.D. Findlay, FromProphettoPriest.TheCharacterizationofAaroninthePentateuch, Leuven, forthcoming 77. M.J.J. Menken, StudiesinJohn’sGospelandEpistles.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2015 78. L.L. Schulte, MyShepherd,thoughYouDonotKnowMe.ThePersianRoyalPropagandaModelintheNehemiahMemoir, Leuven, 2016 79. S.E. Humble, ADivineRoundTrip.TheLiteraryandChristologicalFunctionofthe Descent/AscentLeitmotifintheGospelofJohn, Leuven, 2016 80. R.D. Miller, BetweenIsraeliteReligionandOldTestamentTheology.EssaysonArchaeology,History,andHermeneutics, Leuven, 2016 81. L. Dequeker, StudiaHierosolymitana, Leuven, 2016 82. K. Finsterbusch, A. Lange (eds.), Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah. The Exegesis of Jeremiah1and10inLightofTextandReceptionHistory, Leuven, 2016 83. J.S. Adcock, “OhGodofBattles!StealMySoldiers’Hearts!”AStudyoftheHebrew andGreekTextFormsofJeremiah10:1-18, Leuven, 2017 84. R. Müller, J. Pakkala (eds.), InsightsintoEditingintheHebrewBibleandtheAncient Near East. What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of AuthoritativeTexts?, Leuven, 2017 85. R. Burnet, D. Luciani, G. van Oyen (eds.), TheEpistletotheHebrews.Writingatthe Borders, Leuven, 2016 86. M.K. Korada, TheRationaleforAniconismintheOldTestament.AStudyofSelect Texts, Leuven, 2017 87. P.C. Beentjes, “WithAllYourSoulFeartheLord”(Sir.7:27).CollectedEssayson theBookofBenSiraII, Leuven, 2017 88. B.J. Koet, A.L.H.M. van Wieringen (eds.), Multiple Teachers in Biblical Texts, Leuven, 2017

89. T. Elgvin, The Literary Growth of the Song of Songs during the Hasmonean and Early-HerodianPeriods, Leuven, 2018 90. D.C. Smith, The Role of Mothers in the Genealogical Lists of Jacob’s Sons, forthcoming

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706