Iv The Revelation Of The Righteousness Of God
IV
THE REVELATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
THE REVELATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
SECTION 26. INTRODUCTION
When we consider further the content of Paul's gospel according to its different facets, we come into contact with a multiplicity of viewpoints and motifs, the unity and mutual relationships of which are not clear at first glance,1 Just as in the preceding chapter we encountered a complex mass of causes and manifestations of the state of man and the world fallen into sin and death, even so, though in a much more glorious and inclusive sense — for redemption is more than restoration from the misery brought about by sin — the unfolding of the redemptive significance of Christ's death and resurrection, the fundamental motif of Paul's gospel, is like a multi-colored spectrum. It enters into the lostness of man and the world in all its dimensions and levels. It has reference to man's guilt and punishability in the divine judgment; to his inner discoid and impotence; to his being encircled by a world that is turned away and alienated from God, his being threatened by powers that are inimical to God. But it speaks as well of the liberation of this world itself, of the redemption of the whole of the groaning creation, of the reconciliation of all things in heaven and on earth, already now and in the great future. From the viewpoint of the fullness of Christ it shows the church its place and task in the world that surrounds it and in the continuation of history, and bends its eye toward the future by holding out to it the prospect of the coming of the Lord, the resurrection of the dead, and the renewal of all things. Henceforth everything is placed in the redeeming light of Christ's death and resurrection, and all the dimensions of salvation become known, the breadth and length and height and depth, which are to be comprehended with all the saints, a knowledge of the love of Christ that surpasses understanding (Eph. 3: 18, 19; cf. Rom. 8: 38, 39).
We take our point of departure in those ideas in the Pauline doctrine of redemption which define the new relationship in which God in Christ has placed man to himself; in connection with which one is to think above all of justification and reconciliation. In so doing we do not set out in the footprints of those who hold the view that the Pauline eschatology bears a basically anthropological character and is oriented to the individual relationship of man to God2 It is true, to be sure, that Paul's gospel, just as that of the entire New Testament, comes to a head in the religious relationship of man to God and in that which results from it. The gospel exists, so we may say, for this purpose, to summon man to faith and conversion, not to a religious gnosis that informs him concerning the secrets of the universe and of the invisible world inaccessible to him. This does not alter the fact, however — and in this respect, too, Paul's gospel does not differ from that of Jesus and from the apostolic tradition emanating from him — that the whole of man's relationship to God, even in its most individual aspects, is to be understood within the framework of God's all-embracing redemptive work in Christ and derives from that its new and peculiar character. What is typical of Paul's preaching is not that he comes to interpret and translate the original eschatological message contained in such concepts as justification and reconciliation, but rather, conversely, that these concepts — which in themselves were not new — now receive their background and their new content out of the realization of the divine plan of redemption embracing man and the world, the revelation of the mystery. For this reason what is said now concerning the relationship of God and man is not to be understood without all these aspects being involved together in the summons of the gospel which teaches man to understand himself in a new way, with respect to God as well as to the world and history surrounding him. This means therefore that in all that will now have to occupy our attention, and in connection with the point of departure just mentioned, we shall have to keep constantly in view the basic eschatological and christological structures of Paul's preaching.
If in treating this new relationship to God proclaimed in the gospel we allow justification to take precedence, some explanation for this is not superfluous.3 One can object that this order is in a certain sense arbitrary. It does indeed form the starting point and to a certain extent4 the theme of the very important epistles to the Galatians and the Romans. But these epistles are governed by a definite interest and a definite antithesis, namely, by the relationship of the gospel and the Jewish-synagogical doctrine of redemption. In other epistles other points of view are dominant, and lor that reason the one gospel of Christ has another point and application: in the epistles to the Corinthians it is confrontation with the Greek gnosis, in those to the Thessalonians questions concerning the future, in that to the Colossians speculation about the cosmic powers, while in Ephesians the place and significance of Christ as Head of the church and Head of the world are central. One can ask himself, therefore, whether the traditional order of treatment which begins with the doctrine of justification is not one-sided and does not involve even the danger of a certain narrowing of viewpoint.
A further question is whether, if one takes his point of departure in this new definition of man's relationship to God, he cannot better begin with reconciliation. This concept, as we shall see still further, is wider in scope than that of justification, for the reason that it is not restricted, as is justification, to the relationship of man to God, but draws the whole of creation, "all things, " into its range of vision.
These objections are certainly not without significance. If we nevertheless follow the traditional order of treatment, we do so for more than one reason. First, already in Chapter II we attempted to indicate the broad fundamental structure of Paul's doctrine of salvation, so that the otherwise not illusory danger of a narrowing of viewpoint need no longer be feared. Second, the entire unfolding of the salvation that has appeared in Christ cannot be understood by those to whom the gospel is directed otherwise than by faith; that is to say, out of the new relationship in which God wills to place man to himself. This does not mean that the whole content of the gospel may be said to find its point of concentration in this relationship; it does mean that it can only be understood by the believer out of this relationship.
And third, so far as the relationship of justification and reconciliation is concerned, although this relationship is capable of being expressed in more than one way5 and one certainly cannot speak here of a hierarchical priority of justification with respect to reconciliation, yet giving justification first place does have this not inconsiderable advantage, that in his most systematic epistle, that to the Romans, Paul himself takes his point of departure in "the revelation of the righteousness of God" for his exposition of the whole of the gospel; while at the same time we find here the best connection with the Pauline doctrine of sin as that has been discussed in the preceding chapter, which, as we have seen, is given its most radical and most characteristic development in the relation of sin and law.
SECTION 27. THE ESCHATOLOGICAL CHARACTER OF JUSTIFICATION
For the proper understanding of the great theme of justification by faith it is necessary above all to obtain an insight into the manner in which it is connected with the basic eschatological-christological structure of Paul's preaching pointed out in Chapter II and, as it were, how it issues forth organically from that preaching. Because this background has frequently been lost sight of, for a long time this theme was ascribed too predominating a significance in the whole of Paul's proclamation of salvation and everything else was subordinated to it; at a later period others have, leading to a still greater dislocation of the organic relationships in Paul's doctrine, thrust this theme entirely into the background, in the interest of what was then regarded as the mystical-ethical main line.6 The inadequacy of the one as well as the other of these two ways of judging Paul's preaching can be recognized easily when we endeavor to understand Paul's doctrine of justification primarily in the light of the general redemptive-historical or eschatological character of his preaching.
There is a clear indication of this even in the manner in which this theme twice comes up for discussion in the Epistle to the Romans:
For therein [namely, in the gospel] is revealed [the] righteousness of God from faith unto faith (Rom. 1:17).
Now, however, apart from the law [the] righteousness of God has been revealed, of which the law and the prophets bear witness (Rom. 3: 21).
Even the opening words of Romans 3: 21 — "now, however" — speak of the time of salvation that has been inaugurated with Christ's advent. It is the "now" of the fulfillment and realization of what has been promised and foretold,7 as is expressly indicated by the words: "of which the law and the prophets bear witness. " What is most characteristic of these pronouncements, however, is the repeated mention of the revelation of the righteousness of God. Intended here is not only a new doctrine or a new experience, but the appearing of that which had been determined in the counsel of God with respect to the fullness of the time. We have to do here with a variation of the expression, so characteristic for the basic eschatological structure of Paul's preaching,8 "the revelation of the mystery, " or "the revelation of Christ. " To that revelation, as eschatological event, the appearing, the gift of the righteousness of God, now also belongs.9 To put it in another way: Paul's doctrine of justification is a definite interpretation and application of his eschatology.10 Exactly the same thing is expressed in Galatians 3: 23 with the words: "the revelation of faith. " Faith, as is clearly apparent in Romans 1: 17; 3: 21, is most closely connected with righteousness, as the means by which righteousness is obtained. What is meant by this "revelation" of faith is not only a certain knowledge or doctrine concerning faith, but the dawning of the time of salvation, in which faith takes the place of the law, for which reason "the coming11 of faith" is also spoken of in the context of Galatians 3: 21.
Already through this presentation of the gospel of righteousness by faith as "the revelation" of the righteousness of God and "the revelation" of faith, it becomes very clear how much this theme participates in and forms a consequence of the redemptive-historical character of Paul's preaching. All this becomes still more evident when we consider more carefully the concept "righteousness of God. "
Unfortunately, there is a profound difference of opinion among the interpreters of Paul as to the significance of this combination, a difference that has continued up to the present time.12 For by this righteousness of God some understand an attribute or an activity of God13 and take the words, that the righteousness of God is now (or has been) revealed, in this way, that God has now revealed himself as the Righteous One, or in his (saving) righteousness. Others see in the righteousness of God the denotation of that which man must have in order to be able to stand in the divine judgment. The revelation of the righteousness of God then intends to say that the time of salvation that has dawned with Christ and the gospel for man brings along with it righteousness, understood in this sense, before God14 (or from God15). We consider it established16 that the words in Romans 1: 17 and 3: 21 are intended in this latter sense; that "righteousness" here is therefore not a divine but a human quality and that the righteousness "of God" further defines that quality as righteousness that can stand before God (cf. Rom. 2: 13;17 3: 20),18 which is valid in his judgment, the righteousness that God attributes to man as opposed to his own righteousness (Rom. 10: 3), as it is also called in Philippians 3: 9: "not having my righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God (ten ek Theou dikaiosynen), upon the foundation of faith. "
It is apparent from this19 explanation that in the concept "righteousness of God" we have to do with a forensic category and indeed in the eschatological sense of the word: it is a matter of what man requires in order to go free in the divine judgment. "Righteousness" can for this reason be used as the antithesis of "condemnation" (2 Cor. 3: 9). In the same sense the verb "to justify" is employed as the divine verdict that means the opposite of the divine condemnation in the judgment (Rom. 2: 12, 13; cf. Rom. 5: 16, 18) and "the just before [i. e., in the judgment of] God" can be spoken of (Rom. 2:13) in contrast with "sinners" (understood in a forensic sense; Rom. 5:19).
On the ground of all this the specific significance of the great Pauline theme of the revelation of the righteousness of God may become entirely clear to us: it says nothing less than that what man requires in order to go free in the judgment of God and to know himself discharged from the divine sentence is not only a matter of the great future which is still to be awaited, but has been revealed with the advent of Christ and in the gospel; as a present reality and as a redemptive gift of God it has been given, attributed, communicated in the gospel to everyone who believes (cf. Phil. 3: 9; Rom. 5:1; 9: 30; 1 Cor. 6: 11). And all this in contradistinction to "the revelation of the divine wrath, " which even now is visible to every eye in those who reject the knowledge of God, and will fall on those who suppose themselves able in the way of the works of the law to obtain righteousness and eternal life (Rom. 1: 18-3: 29).20
In order to grasp still better the profoundly radical significance of the revelation of the righteousness thus proclaimed and to understand fully the peculiar pregnance of the words in which it is expressed, 21 it is necessary here again to point to the historical background from which it emerges in the epistles of Paul, that of the jewish-synagogical scheme of redemption.
Terminologically the whole expression "revelation of the righteousness of God" is derived from Judaism, inasmuch as here, too, the concept "just" or "justice" was understood in close connection with the judicial pronouncement in the divine judgment.22 It is typical of this Jewish background that as soon as the concept "to justify" comes into the hands of the Greek interpreters its forensic meaning is no longer perceived, and they manage to attach an exclusively ethical significance to it.23 Materially, however, there is an absolute antithesis between the Pauline and the synagogical doctrine of justification. And this comes to a head precisely at this revelation of the righteousness of God. Whereas for Judaism it was an incontrovertible matter that this righteousness, as the crucial, decisive factor in the judicial declaration of God, was not to be spoken of other than in a future-eschatological sense, Paul proclaims this righteousness as a present reality already realized in Christ.
We have to do here with the same antithesis that Jesus' preaching of the gospel evokes when in the presence of the scribes he declares that the Son of Man has authority on earth, i. e., here and now, to forgive sins (Matt. 9: 6 and the parallel passages).24 For Judaism the essence of divine justification lay in that it would take place in the future and in the heavenly judgment; that the whole of life consisted precisely in preparation for this, and that therefore it would be blasphemy to wish to anticipate this judgment which belongs only to God (cf. Luke 7: 48-50). Looked at from this point of view justification is a matter still hidden with God, about which no one can obtain certainty any earlier than in the great judgment of God itself. The lack of assurance of salvation can for this reason be termed a prominent characteristic of the Old Jewish religion.25
Over against this Paul now preaches the revelation of this acquitting verdict of God and of the impunity (righteousness) founded on it for everyone who believes; a righteousness which may be spoken of no longer in terms of waiting and uncertainty, but rather in terms, of a matter that has been accomplished and in the certainty of faith (Rom. 5: 1; 8: 31-34, 38); which already contains within itself the certainty of the entire eschatological salvation (Rom. 5: 6-11). Here the christologicalescha tological fulfillment character of Paul's preaching is developed in such a reversal of the Jewish doctrine of redemption that one is able to say that a more fundamental antithesis is inconceivable. It cannot be urged against it that there are also voices to be heard in Judaism that based their hope for the future not only on their own merit, but also on God's forgiveness and mercy.26 For whatever may further be said of that, the difference in principle consists not only in the fact that Paul directs the gaze of the man who knows himself to be a sinner to the possibility of forgiveness27 and to the part of mercy in the coming judgment, but that he speaks of the judicial verdict itself as a matter that has already been settled, the proclamation of which in the gospel is a power of God for everyone who believes.28
It is not in conflict with this present (in principle) character of the righteousness proclaimed in the gospel that Paul continues to speak of it in a future sense. In any case29this occurs in such a passage as Galatians 5: 5: "for through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness."30 The manner in which this future righteousness is here defined, namely, as the content of the hope awakened by the Spirit which is obtained by faith, makes it clear, however, that this future righteousness is not another than that which has already been revealed. It is the same thing, but one can speak of it both in a present and in a future sense. Just as the adoption of sons,31 righteousness can be represented as a benefit already obtained as well as still to be expected. But nothing is hereby detracted from its character of fulfillment and from the assurance of salvation given in it. What is true of all that has been given in Christ thus applies to justification, that we are not dealing here with a matter that has been concluded, which has been settled, and which we should thus be able to leave "behind us. " The revelation of the righteousness of God in the gospel is precisely a power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1: 17), which accompanies the believer as a constantly fresh and relevant thing. It binds him to Christ and his communion and so makes him by the Spirit to wait for the hope of righteousness. With regard to the present as well as the future the situation is thus different in principle for the believer from what it is for the man who lives out of legalistic religiousness. And here is the connection, to be discussed still further,32 between this certainty of salvation and the knowledge of the coming judgment, in which it is not the hearers but the doers of the law who are to be justified before God.
SECTION 28. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN CHRIST
Just as it is true of the entire revelation of the mystery that it has Christ for its content, so also the revelation of the righteousness of God, as the ground for acquittal in the divine judgment, takes place in Christ. And just as the entire Pauline gospel has its center in the death and resurrection of Christ, so also the gospel of justification by faith.
This revelation of the righteousness of God is related to the death and resurrection of Christ in all sorts of ways. Romans 3: 21-31, where once again the basic eschatological-christological structure of Paul's gospel comes clearly to the fore, is very central and very pointed in the further exposition of this theme. Verses 24ff. are especially important here:
. . . being justified by his [God's] grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a means of propitiation, through faith in his blood, as a demonstration of his righteousness because he had passed over the sins which had been committed previously under the forbearance of God; for the showing of his righteousness in the present time, that he might himself be just, and might justify him who has faith in Jesus.
What is of particular importance for us in this context is that justification is founded here on the death of Christ. Moreover, God's righteousness is spoken of in a differentiating sense. God has made Christ a means of propitiation in his death, and in this way manifested his justice in his death. By this nothing other can be understood than that God has shown the adjudicating power of his righteousness in Christ, by giving him for others as a means of propitiation in death. The idea is then joined to this that God till this moment had not meted out the punishment on the sins of men that was due them, but passed over them in his forbearance, i. e., in his withholding of the judgment. Now, "in the present time, " God has abandoned this attitude of waiting, however, and shown his vindicating righteousness, in the death of Jesus. Here again the apostle clearly elucidates the redemptive-historical significance of Christ's death, in the sense that the divine judgment on the sins of the world has, as it were, been drawn together in Christ's death, and in this way the eschaton has become present time. Just as Christ's resurrection is the breaking through of the new creation (2 Cor. 5; see above, pp. 53ff. ), so the final judgment of God has become manifest in his death. God has in this way justified himself toward the world in him and at the same time made known, revealed, the righteousness that is necessary in order that those who have faith in Jesus might stand in the judgment of God. For just as the abandonment of Christ in death took place because of our sins, so his resurrection occurred for the sake of our justification (Rom. 4: 25). Just as Christ's death was a demonstration of God's righteous judgment on the sin of the world, visited on him as the means of propitiation, so his resurrection was the demonstration and proof of the acquitting righteousness of God, revelation thus of righteousness in the sense of Romans 1: 17; 3: 21.
That the expression "the righteousness of God" is used here (in 3: 21ff. ) in a twofold sense (first, in vv. 21, 22, as a forensic quality conferred on man by God, which makes him go free; then, in vv. 25, 26, as the vindicatory righteousness of God33) cannot obscure the unmistakable meaning of this passage. It is indeed elucidated and corroborated in various ways by other pronouncements. Thus, in 5: 9, where there is mention of "being now justified by his [Christ's] blood, " which is entirely in harmony with 3: 25. No less in 5: 18, 19, where Christ's one act of righteousness that led to justification issuing in life is set over against the one sin of Adam that led to condemnation, and the justifying obedience of Christ is set over against the disobedience of Adam that constituted men guilty. Here, too, with the "act of righteousness" and "obedience" of Christ we are concerned with his death (cf. 5: 8, 9). But Christ's death is not considered here from the viewpoint of God's retributive righteousness, but from that of Christ's voluntary and perfect obedience. Furthermore, reference may be made to Galatians 2: 21, where the same connection between Christ's death and justification by faith is indicated indirectly: "for if righteousness is from the law, then Christ died to no purpose. " And how much the vindicatory and retributive righteousness of God is effected in Christ's death and how this can therefore hold as the only ground for the righteousness that is by faith appears very clearly from Galatians 3: 13, where it is said that Christ, by suffering himself to be crucified for us, has become a curse for us, so that the blessing of Abraham might be communicated to the gentiles by faith and not on the ground of works. We find the same thought in Romans 8: 3, where it is said that God "has condemned sin in the flesh" of his Son. All this is summarized finally in such pronouncements as 2 Corinthians 5: 21: God has made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we should become the righteousness of God in him. The forensic idea is certainly very pronounced here. God not only treats the sinless Christ as though he were a sinner, but he makes him (by delivering him up to the death on the cross) to be sin in the forensic sense of the word. And it is in that sense that those who are in Christ through faith become righteous, indeed, become "the righteousness of God, " that is, may identify themselves with that which is acquitted in the judgment of God. It is this connection between Christ's death and the justifying, acquitting judgment of God on those who belong to Christ which Paul expresses in 1 Corinthians 1: 30: "From God, " that is to say, from the power of his saving activity, "are we in Christ Jesus, who was made unto u s . . . righteousness. "
The significance of this abundant testimony is unmistakable: In Christ's death God has sat in judgment, has judged sin, and in this way he has caused his eschatological judgment to be revealed in the present time. But for those who are in Christ, he has therefore become righteousness, and the content of the gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ can be defined as the revelation of the righteousness of God for everyone who believes.
The question quite naturally arises as to the way in which Christ's death and resurrection can have justifying, acquitting power for everyone who believes. We face here again34 the relationship of the "Christfor-us" and the "we-in-Christ, " two conceptions that one cannot separate, although they represent two different thoughts. On the one hand, it is clear that Christ's death and resurrection are considered in their own "objective" significance, without his people as yet being identified with this death and resurrection. This is very clearly the case, for example, in Romans 3: 25, where it is said that God has made Christ publicly35 to be a means of propitiation in his blood. Thus the justifying power of Christ's death and resurrection is sought in the fact that Christ dies in behalf of and — one may in connection with the significance of the propitiatory sacrifice36 also say — in the place of his own. It is not they who are delivered up. for their sins and raised for their justification, but Christ (Rom. 4: 25). In the same way, in Christ's death it is not they, but he in their behalf who is made to be sin (2 Cor. 5: 21), and he became a curse for them (Gal. 3: 13). Here Christ's death is repeatedly considered "in itself, " and those who are justified in Christ's death and resurrection are not involved as those who have jointly died and been raised in his death and resurrection, but as those in whose behalf and in whose stead this death and resurrection took place and thus signified justification for them.
On the other hand, the corporate idea is most closely bound up with this substitutionary one. Christ died for them not as an alien or as one who had been designated to that end from a larger circle, but as the Son of God who for that purpose had entered "in the flesh, " that is, into their mode of existence qualified by the old aeon. In this way God condemned sin "in the flesh" (Rom. 8: 3). In this justifying power of his death and resurrection Christ can therefore rank as the anti-type of the first Adam, and the one righteous act consisting in his obedient self-surrender in death was thus unto the justification of all who were comprehended in him as the second Adam (Rom. 5: 18, 19). And therefore, in the same context in which he terms Christ's death the death of all, Paul is able to define the significance of Christ's havingbeen-made-sin for us in this way: that we should be the righteousness of God, i. e., in this corporate unity with him (2 Cor. 5: 14, 21); and that Christ has become righteousness for those who from God are in him (1 Cor. 1:30).
All this can enable us in some measure to understand the meaning of these profound conceptions, "Christ-for-us" and "we-in-him, " also in their relation to one another. Christ's death and resurrection, which occurred for our sins and unto our justification, could take place in our behalf and in our stead for the very reason that as the Son of God he entered into our mode of existence, and in that mode of existence God not only delivered him up "for us, " but also made us to be "in him. " It may perhaps be said that Paul, at least in the Epistle to the Romans, starts from the justifying power of Christ's death "for us" (Rom. 3: 21-5: 11), in order thereafter, beginning with 5:12ff., to ground still more deeply and to throw light on this redemptive significance in the corporate idea of we-in-him. In so doing, he does not pass "over" from the one "conception" to the other, as though for him the first represented merely the traditional and the second the real, the adequate, idea. Rather, both belong to the unbreakable subsistence of Paul's preaching, and for him they have become an indissoluble unity. It is also in this unity of the "Christ-for-us" and the "we-in-him" that the theme of the revelation of the righteousness of God by faith exhibits in a clear fashion the basic eschatological-christological structure of Paul's preaching. For Christ's death was the demonstration of the judging and justifying judgment of God in the eschatological sense of the word because the old aeon and the old man were judged in him, and justification unto life and the new creation came to light in him as the second Adam. And the justifying power of his death and resurrection could for this reason benefit his own, because he as the second Adam was their Representative and they were in him. In that sense the foundation for the doctrine of justification, too, lies in the corporate unity of Christ and his own.37
SECTION 29. RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH, WITHOUT THE LAW
No less distinctive than the present-eschatological character of the righteousness of God proclaimed by Paul and its revelation in Christ is furthermore that it is brought into the closest connection with faith: "for therein [in the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith unto faith" (Rom. 1:17).
Here again the apostolic preaching stands in the sharpest contrast to the Jewish-synagogical doctrine of redemption, and without this background the great Pauline dictum "by faith, without the law" is not to be understood. This antithesis is no less far reaching than that already discussed in Section 27; it not only means that the manner in which the righteousness of God is received is totally different in the gospel than in the theology of Judaism; but it also has the consequence that in Paul this righteousness itself acquires a content altogether its own and entirely divergent from Judaism, a difference that finds expression above all in the word "to impute" and which in later theology — likewise rooted in Christianity, in which this antithesis is continued — is denoted with the distinction between synthetic and analytic justification.38
When the apostle says in Romans 3: 21, 28: "but now is the righteousness of God revealed without the law, " the contrast with the Jewish conception of the righteousness from the law (Rom. 10: 5; Gal. 3: 21; Phil. 3: 9), or through the law ( en nomo; Phil. 3: 6), or by means of the law (dia nomou; Gal. 2: 21), is clearly indicated. Similarly, he speaks on the one hand of those who are "of the law" (Rom. 4: 16; Gal. 3: 10), or "under the law" (Rom. 6: 15; Gal. 4: 21), and on the other hand of those who are "of faith" (Rom. 3: 26; 4: 16, etc. ). This "without, " "of, " or "by the law, " respectively, is an abbreviated denotation of what is elsewhere called without, of, or by "the works of the law, " or simply without, of, or by "works" (Rom. 3: 20, 28; 4: 2, 6; 9: 12, 32; 11: 6; Gal. 2: 16, etc. ). Paul uses an expression here that has its equivalent in the rabbinic ma'ašê miswōth or, what was still more current, simply in miswōth. The first means literally "works of the commandments, " while the second, "commandments, " has the pregnant meaning of the work resulting from the fulfillment of the commandments. For the fulfillment of the commandment is in this sense not to be conceived of as something abstract, but in the concrete sense of the work resulting from it, the individual fulfillment of the law as act.39 It is these miswōth, these concrete fulfillments of the law, which according to the synagogue doctrine of redemption constitute the righteousness of man before God. By these fulfillments of the law and the merit resident in them the Israelite is able to store up a treasure40 for himself in the day of judgment, on the ground of which he is acquitted by God. 41 In this possession of the law as means to righteousness and eternal life lies the great privilege of Israel. The law was for the Jew, therefore, the real "substance of life. "42 The law guarantees the Jews their position before God: it is for them the divine privilege, in the midst of the universal sinfulness of man, to gain merit, reward, righteousness before God. On that account the multiplicity of separate commandments is a powerful instrument of redemption. "God willed to allow Israel to earn merits, and therefore he gave them much Torah and commandments, as it is said: In order to give Israel merits, it pleased Yahweh to make the Torah big and strong. "43And from Hillel the word is handed down: "where there is much flesh, there are many worms, where there are many treasures, many cares, where there are many women, much superstition... and where there is much law, there is much life."44 It is on account of this attachment of value to the multitude of ordinances, etc., as the means of gaining many merits, that Paul reflects again and again on this complex, detailed character of the law, on its character as "ordinance" (Rom. 7: 8ff.; Eph. 2: 15; Col. 2:14, et al. ).
It is clear that with this view of "righteousness by the law, " the concept righteousness has another content for the Jews than for Paul. It does indeed direct one's thoughts to the judgment seat of God, it does move to be sure in the forensic sphere, but it is not a righteousness conferred on man by God, but rather one ascertained, recognized, by him. Justification, acquittal, accordingly has an analytical character here; it rests on what man has and is, not on what he receives as righteousness from God, and this righteousness Paul is consequently able to set over against the righteousness of or from God, as a righteousness of man's own that he has himself realized or acquired (Rom. 10: 3; Phil. 3: 9; Rom. 3: 17, 21).
It is against this background that one must understand the different ways in which Paul further defines the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel, namely, as a righteousness by faith, a righteousness freely given by God's grace, an imputed righteousness, an imputation of faith for righteousness, a justification of the ungodly (Rom. 3: 22-24; 4: 4, 5, et al. ).
We shall have to return to the Pauline concept of faith in the course of our investigation.45 In the context in which it occurs here, as faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3: 22, 26, et al. ), it receives its specific definition from the contrast with the works of the law, in the sense of the word described above. For in all the pronouncements in which faith is spoken of in connection with righteousness, justification, etc., it has the significance of the means, instrument, way, foundation, channel by which, along which, or on which man participates in the righteousness of God. 46 This finds its most pregnant expression in the seemingly pleonastic phrase "from faith unto faith" in Romans 1: 17, that is, from A to Z a matter of faith and nothing else, righteousness sola fide.47 The purpose of all these expressions, which nowhere make faith itself the ground or cause of justification, but only ascribe to it a mediating or instrumental significance, is none other than to designate the object of faith as the ground of justification. Faith does not justify because of that which it is in itself, but because of that to which it is directed, in which it rests. For this reason the exclusive emphasis with which faith is here placed over against works has a negative significance insofar as it speaks of man and his share in justification. Man is justified not on the ground of what he is himself or has or achieves, but precisely on the ground of that which he does not possess and which he in himself does not have at his disposal, but which he must receive, obtain, by faith. Faith here stands over against works as that which is absolutely receptive and dependent,48 over against that which is productive, which is able to assert itself. The "law" of faith stands over against that of works, because it represents the principle, the order, by virtue of which all human claim and boasting are excluded (Rom. 3: 27).
For this principle of faith Paul appeals especially to Habakkuk 2: 4: "the just shall live by faith"49 (Rom. 1: 17; Gal. 3: 11; cf. Heb. 10: 38), and to the faith of Israel's progenitor Abraham (Rom. 4: 2ff. ). He can rightly do so because, notwithstanding all the differentiation that is involved in the application of these Old Testament words to that for which Paul is contending here,50 faith in these Old Testament examples also consists in renouncing all human possibilities and trusting in the redeeming intervention of God. Such is expressed very plainly in the further characterization of this faith in Romans 4:17ff., where it is first said of Abraham that he believed in that God who gives life to the dead and calls into existence that which is not; a faith that did not weaken even in the face of his (Abraham's) own impotence and the barrenness of Sarah's womb (vv. 19, 20); in the same way this faith is defined in its present form in which it has come with Christ, as faith in him who raised Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead (v. 24). The distinctive feature of faith is here again that it stands over against "works,"51 that is, over against any trusting in its own strength or possibilities, and that it utterly entrusts itself to the divine work of redemption.
For this reason in the antithesis of faith and works the term "faith" can be replaced by "the grace of God, " with which then the true ground of justification is designated as opposed to works. This is voiced in all its fullness in Romans 3: 22-24 where righteousness is first defined as the "righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe, " and then as "being justified freely by his [God's] grace" (cf. Rom. 5: 15, 17). But it is apparent elsewhere that the real antithesis here lies between the way of faith and that of works, for in the first instance the grace of God is the supporting ground of justification, and in the second the merit of men. "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5: 4). "If righteousness is through the law, the grace of God is nullified" (Gal. 2: 21). And if there is even at the present time a remnant of Israel according to the election of grace, then this is "not upon the ground of works, inasmuch as grace would then no longer be grace" (Rom. 11: 5ff). Faith and works thus stand over against each other as grace and law (Rom. 6: 14), and "by faith" is synonymous with "according to grace" (Rom. 4: 16). For this reason "the order of faith" (Rom. 3: 27) means not only (negatively) the exclusion of human boasting, but also (positively) the glory of God. When Abraham, although he observed that his own body was as good as dead, did not doubt through unbelief, but against hope believed in hope, then he gave glory to God (Rom. 4: 18-22; cf. 2 Cor. 1: 20).
Likewise in this indissoluble connection between — one can almost say, in this equation of — "by faith" and "by the grace of God, " for a correct understanding of the character of both we shall have to take full account of the redemptive-historical content of Paul's doctrine of justification as grounded in the death and resurrection of Christ. For by "grace" one is not to understand a timeless attribute of God, which is "discovered" by faith in the way of a consciousness of guilt and awareness of the insufficiency of one's own works. It consists rather in the redeeming activity of God;52 it is the grace that manifests itself in the redemption in Christ, whom God has set forth as a means of propitiation. Accordingly the antithesis between faith and works is not in the first place of the nature of the order of salvation (ordo salutis), in the sense that faith breaks through in a religious-psychological way, renounces works, and learns to understand the gracious disposition of God as the only ground of salvation. The exclusive significance Paul ascribes to faith and to the grace of God in the doctrine of justification has above all a redemptive-historical background. 53
Faith represents a new mode of existence that has been given with Christ's advent; it "comes" with the coming of the fullness of the time (Gal. 3: 23; 4: 4), and with the manifestation of the grace of God in the death and resurrection of Christ. Then it is disclosed that Christ is the end of the law unto justification for everyone who believes (Rom. 10: 4); likewise the insufficiency, indeed the folly, of trusting in the law is understood, the consciousness of one's own imperfection and guilt is born (Phil. 3: 4-8), and the Old Testament evidences are discovered. It is this sequence, and not the reverse, which is able to give us the proper insight into the true nature both of faith and of the grace of God in connection with justification.54
SECTION 30. THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE UNGODLY. IMPUTATION
Understood in this way, the relationship between justification, faith, and the grace of God, in its contrast with justification from works, can now enable us to understand the pronouncements that are perhaps most characteristic for Paul's doctrine of justification, namely, those in Romans 4: 5, where he speaks of the justification of the ungodly and of the imputation of faith for righteousness.
The antithesis with the righteousness that is of the law is nowhere given voice more sharply than in this first expression. It is also out of the question that by "to justify" here anything other or more is intended than what it means for Paul over and over again: acquittal in the judgment of God. That the apostle here arrives at this paradoxical pronouncement is, in the light of all the foregoing, no longer to be considered strange or obscure in its meaning. Just as God has appointed Christ to be an atoning sacrifice and has made him, who had known no sin, to be sin for us (cf. above, pp. 166ff. ), so in Christ's death and resurrection there is acquittal, righteousness, for those for whom he was made to be sin, and they are thus the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. 5: 21). Every attempt to make certain reductions from the absolutely unanalytical character of this justification of the ungodly, whether by understanding justification as an anticipatory pronouncement on the ground of the subsequent ethical transformation of the ungodly, or by looking on the judicial aspect of the work of God in justification in unity with the ethical aspect of the work of God in sanctification, indwelling, etc.,55 must be rejected as a violation or obscuring of the specific significance of Paul's pronouncement.56 In the justification of the ungodly it is a matter of man as a sinner and not yet of his future inner renewal; it is also a matter solely of the forensic aspect of the divine work of redemption. On the other hand, one may not speak here of an "as if, " as though it were only a question of a fictional matter, or of an "alien righteousness" in the sense of a bare relational reality.57 For we may not detach this pronouncement from the whole redemptivehistorical context of Paul's doctrine of justification. The justification of the ungodly is a justification "in Christ, " that is to say, not only on the ground of his atoning death and resurrection, but also by virtue of the corporate inclusion in him of his own. That this involves more than only justification appears clearly enough from the whole of Paul's preaching, but even so cannot alter the fact that as Christ died for the ungodly at the time appointed for it (Rom. 5: 6, 8), so the object of God's justification, from whatever viewpoint one chooses to regard it, is not the righteous, but the ungodly.58
It is in harmony with this, finally, that the "imputation pronouncements" of Romans 4:3ff. are to be understood. Paul in this context derives the word "to impute" in the first place from the words of Genesis 15: 6, that Abraham believed in God and that it was reckoned to him for righteousness. Starting now from the concept impute (in the otherwise not altogether transparent course of the argument of vv. 4 and 559 he places faith and works over against each other with respect to this divine imputation as well. If a man has "worked" then imputation can only be spoken of "according to merit" and not "according to grace. " If, however, there is no question of such works — as with Abraham — and "imputing" is nevertheless spoken of, then this imputation must bear the character of "grace"; in other words, faith is then reckoned for righteousness, just as in Psalm 32 the man is said to be blessed to whom the Lord does not impute sin.
On the meaning of these pronouncements, too — however one interprets the course of the argument — there can be no reasonable doubt. If faith is reckoned for righteousness, the ground for this imputation cannot be situated in that which man himself works or is, but just in that which not he, but God is able to effect and in which man can only receive a share through faith, that is, by grace. If it is thus said of faith that it is reckoned for righteousness, then faith is here again considered as the means or the instrument by which man participates in the divine grace; for this reason this imputation can also be equated with "the (forgiveness of sins. " Finally, the reckoning of faith for righteousness, too, cannot find its ground and origin in faith itself, but only in the grace that is embraced in faith, that is (when it is a question, as here, of acquittal in the judgment of God), Christ, who has become righteousness for his own.
The course of the argument of Romans 4: 3-5 is so difficult to paraphrase because it is not entirely clear where the real starting point of the reasoning lies: whether in the fact that faith is not a "work" (thus Greijdanus, Rom., I, pp. 220, 221; Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit, 1952, p. 161; Schrenk, TDNT, II, p. 207), or in the forensic-imputative significance Paul ascribes to logizomai (thus, e. g., Althaus, Rom., p. 25; Heidland, TDNT, IV, pp. 290ff). Verse 4 argues for the first conception, verse 5 for the second.
The appeal to Genesis 15: 6 and the manner in which this functions in the course of the argument of Romans 4: 1-5 surely deserves further elucidation as well. In the original context of Genesis 15: 6 the words "righteousness" and "to reckon for" do not have the forensic significance that Paul, in harmony with the later legalistic-Jewish climate of thought, here attributes to them. "Righteousness, " "justice, " means in Genesis 15: 6 —just as elsewhere in the Old Testament where the righteousness of the godly is spoken of (cf., e. g., Gen. 6: 9; Job 12:14ff. ), and to which they not infrequently made appeal over against God (cf., e. g., Ps. 1: 5, 6; 5: 13, et al. )—approximately "pious, " "upright before God, " standing in a right relationship to God by fearing him, hoping in him, etc. It does not thus mean so much blamelessly measuring up to a certain moral standard, as indeed living in a right religious relationship to God and his commandments (cf., e. g., Quell, TDNT, II, pp. 174-178; also J. Ridderbos, Abraham de Vriend Gods, 1928, pp. 196-198). Accordingly, "to reckon for righteousness" in Genesis 15: 6 means that God accounted it to Abraham for righteousness (piety, godliness), judged it as righteousness in him, appreciated, that he in faith received God's word of promise. (In our view G. C. Aalders loses sight of this difference in meaning when he interprets Gen, 15: 6 altogether in a forensic sense; Het Oude Testament van verklärende aantekeningen voorzien, I, 1952, p. 23. )
When for the gospel of the righteousness by faith Paul appeals to Abraham and the pronouncement of Genesis 15: 6, he gives a different shade of meaning to the words of Genesis 15: 6. He "translates" them, as it were, into the judicial-legalistic way of thinking of later Judaism. Materially, however, he remains entirely in harmony with the tenor of the Old Testament pronouncement, which is dominated by the gracious character of God's intercourse with Abraham and not by the doctrine of merit of the later synagogue (see also my Rom., p. 92). At the same time, one is indeed on the wrong track when he fails to appreciate this forensic interpretation of Genesis 15: 6 in the context of Romans 4, and in interpreting Romans 4 chooses to start from the original sense of the words of Genesis 15. This is done, in our view, by II. J . Jager in his Rechtvaardiging en zekerheid des geloofs, 1939. Jager posits emphatically that in Romans 4 there is an equivalence between faith and righteousness, that Abraham's faith is his righteousness, and is recognized as such by God (p. 104). It is a matter here, so he goes on to say, of the subjective righteousness consisting in faith that, worked by the Holy Spirit, is acknowledged by God as pleasing to him. "That Abraham unconditionally believed God's promise, that is recognized by God as his righteousness" (ibid., pp. 105ff. ). This, conception, however, does not take into account the forensic context in which Paul places Genesis 15: 6. It falls into the reverse of the error made by Aalders, who interprets Genesis 15 in the sense of Romans 4 and whose exegesis of Genesis 15 Jager therefore rightly rejects. Just as little, however, can one by "righteousness" in Romans 4 understand something "subjective, " an attitude or disposition well-pleasing to God (in this instance, faith). It is a question here, in accordance with the whole argument of Romans 3-5, of righteousness as impunity in the judgment attributed by God to man, which does not rest on an "analytic" judgment of identity (God recognizes man for what he is), but rather on the "synthetic" acquitting verdict of God, which simply gives expression to what God attributes and grants to man as righteousness. If one takes it differently, then the ground for justification lies yet again in something that is present in man (however much granted him by God), whereas the distinctive characteristic of the divine act of justification in this same context is expressed just in this way, that God justifies (not the believer, but) the ungodly; against Jager (and Woelderink) cf. also G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, pp. 84f. Others have taken the locution that faidi is reckoned for righteousness as an abbreviated mode of expression for the idea that God imputes his righteousness given in Christ to one by faith and on that ground acquits him; thus H. Bavinck, Geref. Dogmatiek, IV, 4th ed., 1930, p. 195; cf. also J. Brinkman, De "gerechtigheid Gods" bij Paulus, 1916, p. 166; Greijdanus, Rom., I, p. 224. Materially this is entirely correct, inasmuch as the obedience and the atoning sacrifice of Christ are the ground for justification (cf. above, Section 28). Formally, however, a locutio compendiaria is not to be thought of here, since the expression is borrowed from Genesis 15, where the word "impute for righteousness" does not as yet have this forensic imputative sense. The words "and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness" (Rom. 4) do therefore speak of faith as the imputative ground of justification, but then in the instrumental sense; cf. Philippians 3: 9, where justification is spoken of as tēn dia pisteös Christou, tēn ek Theou dikaiosynēn epi tē pistei. Although the terminology is fluid and, taken by itself, could give occasion to misunderstanding (cf. epi te pistei: "on the basis of faith" [Phil. 3: 9; Acts 3: 16]), the matter itself is perfectly clear. spoken of as tēn dia pisteös Christou, tēn ek Theou dikaiosynēn epi tē pistei. Although the terminology is fluid and, taken by itself, could give occasion to misunderstanding (cf. epi te pistei: "on the basis of faith" [Phil. 3: 9; Acts 3: 16]), the matter itself is perfectly clear.
Thus Paul's doctrine of justification in its various facets — the redemptivehistorical/christological, the forensic, the imputative — is an imposing and carefully integrated whole. The righteousness of God as eschatological redemptive gift, as condition and access to peace with God and eternal life, has now been revealed. It is revealed in the great redemptive event of Christ's death and resurrection, in which God as Judge has manifested his righteousness, both judging and acquitting. And as the redemptive gift of God it is given to those who are in Christ by faith. It consists for them, therefore, in imputation by grace, as a free gift, and not in the accounting of man's own works as merit. In that sense it can be said that faith is reckoned for righteousness, namely, as the means, on the ground of the obedience and righteous act of the One, to come to justification unto life and to peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1, 18, 19).
SECTION 31. JUDGMENT ACCORDING TO WORKS
The question that remains is whether the impressive consistency with which, in his opposition to the Jewish-synagogical doctrine of redemption, Paul rejects every appeal to human works and elucidates the whole of justification as an act of God's grace is capable of being reconciled with other pronouncements of his in which great emphasis is placed precisely on the fact that man is judged according to his works. It has already been mentioned that righteousness is not only a matter that has already been revealed, but is also still to be awaited as a future gift of God (Gal. 5: 5). It has not yet been taken into consideration, however, that in more places than one the future judgment of God is closely connected with what each will have done. Not the hearers, but the doers of the law will be justified (Rom. 2: 13). God will render to every man according to his works, for there is no respect of persons with God (Rom. 2: 6ff. ). This whole passage of Romans 2: 1-16 is governed to such an extent by this motif that some have taken it as only a hypothetical preparation for Paul's real message: justification by faith and not by works. Paul is said here to speak of double retribution only in a "dialectical" sense; he is supposed to have wished here in the way of an untenable hypothesis to take the idea of the righteousness from works ad absurdum and therefore to place himself here on the "pre-evangelical standpoint."60 But, however true it may be in itself that in Romans 2 and 3: 1-10 Paul is elucidating over against Judaism the impossibility of justification by faith as the only way of salvation, this does not mean that on this latter, "evangelical, " standpoint the judgment to come has beert abrogated for believers with the death and resurrection of Christ, nor either that in this judgment the criterion would lie only in the presence of faith and not also of works. For, in the first place, Paul speaks of the latter not only in such passages as Romans 2 and 3, which impress on the man who seeks his salvation in the law the unconditional requirement of God, but no less in his paraenesis to the church in which he exhorts believers to the life that is from the Spirit and to the exhibition of the fruit of the Spirit (cf. Gal. 6: 7ff. ); he points them there to the judgment seat of Christ, before which they must all appear (2 Cor. 5: 10; cf. Rom. 14: 10, 11; Eph. 6: 8; Col. 3: 22-4: 1), and he places the emphasis on the inadequacy of human judgment or of man's own conscience (1 Cor. 4:1-5).
This reference, recurring again and again in Paul's epistles, to the coming judgment and to the verdict, which will then be concerned with works, is likewise not, as some in fact have thought, as a lingering Jewish element to be distinguished from the real, evangelical "main doctrine,"61 nor is it to be judged as an inconsistency. For the idea of the final divine judgment is so fundamental in all of Scripture and Paul appeals to it in a great many connections so much as a matter of course (cf., e. g., Rom. 3: 6), that it is inconceivable that by proclaiming the righteousness by faith as the content of the gospel he would consciously or unconsciously have deprived this fundamental religious notion of its force. Rather, one will have to see in this self-evidentness the proof that for Paul both these realities, on the one hand that of justification by faith, on the other hand that of God's judgment of every man according to his works without respect of persons, are in no respect whatever in contradiction with one another.62
It should be added to all this, in the second place, that the whole idea that Paul's concept of faith is in fundamental conflict with such a retribution according to works must be rejected. Not only will it yet appear in the subsequent course of our investigation that justification and sanctification, Christ's dying for the sins of his people and their dying in him to these sins, are inseparable in Paul's preaching, not merely as indicative and imperative, but in the first place as two redemptive realities coinciding in Christ's death and resurrection; but the contrast "faith" and "works, " as we have met with it in such an absolute sense, is not to be understood in any other way than as a contrast between the grace of God on the one hand and human achievement as the ground for justification on the other. That faith and works, however, are mutually exclusive only in this sense, but for the rest, where meritoriousness is not in question, belong inseparably together, is evident from the whole of Paul's preaching. Not only is faith at work through love (Gal. 5: 6), but the apostle speaks in so many words of "the work of faith, " i. e., the activity that goes out from faith and which can be mentioned in one breath with the labor of love and the steadfastness of hope (1 Thess. 1: 3; cf. 2 Thess. 1: 3). When it is said therefore in Romans 4 that to the one who does not "work" but who believes in him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness, this is not in any way to be brought to bear against the "working" character of faith itself and likewise not against the judgment of the believer according to his works. For just as absolutely as faith is involved in justification by the grace of God and by nothing else, even so work emanates from this same faith; as faith it cannot remain empty and work-less, but becomes known as faith precisely in works. Indeed, in the pronouncements on the justification of the ungodly and the imputation of faith for righteousness and those concerning the just judgment of God according to every man's work, we have to do with the two poles of the same matter. For the first expresses as pregnantly as possible that the ground or cause of divine justification does not lie in human work as merit, but only in the grace of God. And in the second all the emphasis is placed on the work of faith, in the sense of its indispensable fruit. Yet this does not mean that justification by faith may be said to be the initial judicial act of God, which takes place in the present, and which is then to be followed in the final judgment by a justification on the ground of works. For it is true of the latter as well that it is a justification of the ungodly, an imputation of faith for righteousness, so long as what is at issue is the ground for justification. This does not lie in works, likewise not in that of faith, but in the revelation of God's grace in Christ embraced by faith. To be sure, works are indispensable as the demonstration of the true nature of faith and as the evidence of having died and been raised together with Christ. In that sense one could also speak of the reckoning of works for righteousness, although the apostle does not so express himself. For works, too, only find their acceptableness before God in the fact that they are from Christ, wrought in the believer on account of his death and resurrection (cf., e. g., Eph. 2: 8-10: "for by grace are you saved through faith . . . not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them").
Surely the unity of grace, faith, and works cannot be elucidated more clearly than here. That is not to say that in every pronouncement, whether on justification by faith or on judgment according to works, this whole indissoluble unity is always transparent. But in the whole framework of Paul's unfolding of salvation as redemption in Christ, all this constitutes an integral unity. Accordingly, as soon as one loses sight of this, the one as well as the other is deprived of its real character; the receptive character of faith is denatured, as though it were not communion with the fullness of Christ, and on the other hand the divine judgment according to every man's works becomes a renewed legalistic motif. It is only in the inseparability of the two that the Pauline doctrine of the justification of the ungodly and the justification of the doers and not merely of the hearers of the law can attain its full span and development.63
The revelation of the righteousness of God thus understood can finally be considered, therefore, as the essence of the whole gospel, because this righteousness is the condition for obtaining the whole of the salvation that has been given in Christ. Paul speaks of this righteousness in Romans 5: 18 as "justification unto life,"64 and by this he means that the way to life and the receiving of a share in the new creation has been opened by the revelation of the righteousness of God in Christ. Because we have been justified by faith we have peace with God, the entrance to this grace has been opened to us, we are given the prospect of the glory of God, the certainty of eternal life (Rom. 5: 1-11). For those who have received "the gift of righteousness" will reign in eternal life through Jesus Christ (Rom. 5: 17). For as sin has reigned by death, so grace will reign unto eternal life (Rom. 5: 21; cf. 8: 10). For whom God justifies, them he also glorifies (Rom. 8: 30). Or, as it is said repeatedly in the words of Habakkuk 2: 4: "the just shall live by faith" (Rom. 1: 17; Gal. 3: 11).
This righteousness, just because it constitutes the access to the whole of the salvation revealed in Christ and all the gifts granted in it, can therefore be implicitly the denotation of the entire content of the gospel. The gospel is a power of God unto salvation, because therein the righteousness of God is revealed (Rom. 1: 16ft). "Righteousness" and "salvation" appear as synonymous concepts (Rom. 10: 10). While life under the law is a life under the administration of death and judgment, in the same way the gospel is an administration of righteousness and the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 3:7ff). It emerges time and again that it is just this revelation of the righteousness of God which constitutes the cornerstone of the whole building: on the one hand a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense for those who seek their own righteousness; on the other hand the firm foundation for everyone who trusts in it (Rom. 9: 30-33).
In a certain sense one can say, therefore, that Paul's proclamation of redemption consists in the exposition of this righteousness. Yet it would be too schematic a plan now to bring everything else under this one denominator. There are also other concepts, ideas, trains of thought, all of which have the same point of departure — the saving activity of God in the death and resurrection of Christ — and all of which have their essential foundation in this revelation of the righteousness of God, but which nevertheless give expression to the content of the gospel in other ways. In the chapters that are to follow we shall be obliged to give a further account of them.
1. See H. Hofer, Die Rechtfertigungsverkündigung des Paulus nach der neueren Forschung, 1940, pp. 17ff.
2. For this conception (of Bultmann, et al. ) see above, pp. 50, 89ff.
3. See also the comprehensive work of H. D. Wendland, Die Mitte der paulinischen Botschaft, 1935.
4. On this point see my Rom., pp. 32ff.
5. See below, pp. 182ff.
6. See above, Section 3.
7. For the redemptive-historical significance of nyni de in Rom. 3: 21 see Stählin, TDNT, IV, pp. 1109f„ n. 33, 1117, n. 70.
8. Cf. above, Section 7.
9. See, e. g., Oepke, TDNT, III, p. 583, s. v. apokalypto: "The disclosure of this righteousness is also an eschatological event. " The perfect pephanerotai, used absolutely in 3: 21, indicates this still more clearly; but "therein [i. e., in the gospel] is revealed" in 1: 17 is to be understood in the same sense. The gospel is thereby not only the means by which this eschatological event is noetically communicated, but it shares in this eschatological character of "revelation"; see also J. T. Bakker, Eschatologische Prediking bij Luther, 1964.
10. Cf. Wendland, Die Mitte der paulinischen Botschaft, p. 25: "The doctrine of justification is the explanation and application of this Pauline eschatology to the status of man before God. "
11. For this also see below, pp. 174, 198.
12. See especially A. Oepke, "[DIKAIOSYNE THEOU] bei Paulus in neuer Beleuchtung, " TLZ, May 1953, cols. 257ff.
13. The genitive Theou is then taken as a subjective or possessive genitive,
14. Genitive of relationship.
15. Genitive of source (gen. auctoris).
16. See the detailed discussion of this question in my Rom., pp. 35-38.
17. Para t Theo.
18. Enopion autou.
19. For the eschatological development of the interpretation that we have rejected, see especially C. H. Dodd, Romans, pp. 9ff., and his The Bible and the Greeks, 1936, pp. 57ff.; for the later discussion, E. Käsemann, "The Righteousness of God in Paul, " in New Testament Questions of Today, pp. 168ff.; C. Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk, 1964; P. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, 1965; against, Bultmann, "[DIKAIOSYNE THEOU], " Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXI1I, 1964, pp. 12-16.
20. For this "revelation of the wrath of God, " see above, Section 18.
21. See also above, Section 21.
22. Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, III, p. 163; Schrenk, TDNT, II, pp. 212ff.; Oepke, TLZ, cols. 257ff.
23. See, e. g., Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, p. 58.
24. See my The Coming of the Kingdom, ET 1962, pp. 73, 21 Iff.
25. Cf., e. g., Strack-Billerbeck, III, pp. 218ff.; IV, 1, pp. 3-12; W. Bousset,
Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter, 3rd ed., 1926, p. 392: also Rengstorf, TDNT, H, pp. 523ff., s.v. elpis; Schniewind/Friedrich, TDNT, II, p. 579, s. v. epangell.
26. See, e. g., E. Sjöberg, Gott und die Sünder im palästinischen Judentum, 1939, pp. 148ff.; and Schoeps, Paul, p. 206.
27. It has often been observed that in his epistles Paul makes very little use of the expression aphesis ton hamartion, which piays such a great part elsewhere in the primitive Christian preaching. He speaks of it only in Rom. 4: 7 (a quotation), and later in Eph. 1: 7; Col. 1:14. That this description, at least where it is a matter of the antithesis with Judaism, is entirely hidden behind that of justification, righteousness, etc., is certainly to be explained by the fact that in these last words the character of the gospel as fulfillment is given so much more pregnant expression.
28. For the use of the concept righteousness in the Qumran literature and the difference between the element of the mercy of God that plays a role in it and Paul's doctrine of justification, see the careful analysis by P. Benoit, "Qumrân et le Nouveau Testament, " NTS, 1961, pp. 292ff. He concludes, "For Paul the eschatological judgment has already occurred in Christ, and that changes everything He is already 'justified' by the past act of the cross and baptism (1 Cor. 6: 11; Rom. 3: 24; vv. 1. 9, etc. ). But it is remarkable that the sinner never appears 'justified' in Qumran" ( ibid., p. 294).
29. The question as to the extent to which the future tenses of Rom. 3: 20; 5: 19, et ai. are to be taken as real or as gnomic or logical future is variously judged. With regard to Rom. 5: 19, too, there is doubt whether what is intended is not already the presence of salvation that has commenced with Christ's advent. On the other side the timeless presents, as in Gal. 2: 16; 3: 11; 5: 4, can just as well he understood of the future as of the present. See the detailed exegesis of Bultmann, Theology, I, p. 274. Against that Wendland understands Rom. 3: 20, 30; 5: 19 in the future-eschatological sense (Die Mitte der paulinischen Botschaft, p. 25; cf. Schrenk, TDNT, II, p. 207). It is incontrovertible, however, that righteousness is spoken of both in a real present and in a real future sense.
30. Elpida dikaiosynes; objective genitive or genitive of apposition.
31. See below, Section 35.
32. See below. Section 31.
33. See also Benoit, NTS, 1961, p. 295: "Paul combines these two aspects admirably. "
34. Cf. above, Section 10.
35. Pro-etheto. The pro- indicates the public character of it (cf. Gal. 3: 1 and, for the thought, John 3:14).
36. On this see further below, Section 32.
37. Cf. Calvin on this relationship in A. J. Venter, Analilies of Sinteties?
'N Analise van die dilemma insake de werklikheid van die regverdiging, 1959, pp. 122, 123.
38. Ibid.
39. See also Bertram, TDNT, II, pp. 645ff., s. v. ergon; Strack-Billerbeck, III, pp. 160ff.
40. Thesaurhein (cf. Rom. 2: 5; Matt. 6:19ff. ).
41. For the references see Strack-Billerbeck, I, pp. 429ff.
42. See above, p. 132.
43. Thus a pronouncement of Rabbi Chananiah ben Akashiah (c. 150), quoted by Gutbrod, TDNT, IV, p. 1058, s. v. nomas; cf. Strack-Billerbeck, IV, 2, pp. 6ff.
44. In Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, p. 119.
45. See below, Sections 40, 41,
46. Dia pisteos (Rom. 3: 21, 22): ek pisteos (1: 17); pistei (Rom. 3: 28); epi te pistei (Phil. 3: 9).
47. Cf. my Rom., pp. 35, 38.
48. The functional significance of faith as human act in justification is of course not thereby denied. For this reason it is incorrect to characterize faith as an act of divine grace whereby justification is manifested, as Wendland wishes to do in Die Mitte der paulinischen Botschaft, p. 43; cf. also W. Michaelis, Rechtfertigung aus Glauben bei Paulus, Festgabe für A. Deissmann, 1927, pp. 121, 123, 136 ("in no way does human conduct need to be meant by pistis"). This conception is in the line of Deissmann, St. Paul, p. 147, who termed faith "the experience of justification. " Lohmeyer, too, conceives of faith in the construction dikaiosyne dia pisteos as "an act of God on the individual" ( Die Briefe der Philipper, Meyer's Commentary, IX, 8th ed., 1930, p. 137, n. 2). But the absolutely gracious character of justification does not abrogate faith as an act of man. Cf. G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, pp. 176ff.; see further below, pp. 237ff.
49. That one should be obliged to translate: "the righteous by faith shall live, " as argued, for example, in the commentaries of E. Kühl, H. Lietzmann, and A, Nygren, is to be decisively rejected; see my Rom., pp. 39ff.
50. See below, pp. 176f.
51. How much Paul's appeal to Hab. 2: 4; Gen. 15: 6, et al., proceeds from an entirely different concept of faith from that of the Jewish religion of law, in which "faith" is simply subsumed under "works, " has anew become clearly apparent from the interpretation of Hab. 2 in the pesher on Hab. (IQpH VII, 18ff. ) found at Qumran, where the words "but the just shall live by his faith" are applied to all the doers of the Torah in the house of Judah, whom God will save "out of the house of the judgment" on the ground of their work and of their faith in (or faithfulness to) the teacher of righteousness. There is no question here of a faith in this teacher in the sense of the gospel. The reverse is the case; cf. also A. S. van der Woude, Bijbeleommentaren en Bijbelse verbalen, 1958, p. 43.
52. C£. the section "Grace as Event" in Bultmann, Theology, I, pp. 288ft
53. This comes out too little in Schlatter's otherwise profound treatment of the significance in Paul of faith (Der Glaube im N. T., 4th ed., 1926), e. g., when he writes: "The renunciation with which Paul came to the faith was in consequence exclusively the simple act of repentance..." (p. 331), and "Because faith for Paul included repentance in it, he described the beneficial act of Jesus... as the offer of justification. Thus is the divine grace related to the consciousness of guilt, which is pacified by it" (p. 334). With that a particular conception in the ordo salutis takes the place of that which in Paul bears a fully redemptive-historical character. Bultmann writes correctly that already the fact that the concepts "forgiveness of sins" and "repentance" seldom occur shows that "the movement of will contained in 'faith' is not primarily remorse and repentance" (Theology, I, p. 317; cf. his article on pisteuo in TDNT, VI, p. 217).
54. Cf. above, Section 22, pp. 138ff. See there the discussion of the characteristic ideas "boast" and skandalon, which likewise occupy us here.
55. For these conceptions, such as those of K. Holl, et al., and of H. Küng, see, e. g., A. Venter, Analities of Sinteties?, pp. 1ff., 75ff.
56. See also Bultmann, Theology, I, p. 276: "Christ is "our righteousness and our consecration' (I Cor. 1: 30); and side by side with 'you were rightwised' stands 'you were consecrated" (I Cor. 6: 11). But that is not expressed by the term "righteousness' itself, and the relation between 'righteousness' and 'consecration'... is for the present unclear. " This holds as well against E. Tobac, Le problème de la justification dans Saint Paul, 1941, who wishes to distinguish between the objective justification in Christ and the subjective by faith. He writes: "We can conclude that if righteousness and justification, objectively considered as effects of the death of Christ, do not presuppose but demand interior sanctification and the Spirit, they are, viewed subjectively as the characteristic of the believer, on the contrary, a fruit of the Spirit. Righteousness then no longer appears as a simple non-imputation of sin, but as an interior renewal, and it is this righteousness, effected by the Spirit of God, which God recognizes in justifying man" (p. 208). This last definition of justification is in conflict with the specific nature of the Pauline concept.
57. On this cf. Venter, Analities of Sinteties?, pp. 13lff.
58. Tobac, Le problème de la justification, pp. 204, 205, writes that "rigorously speaking this ungodly one who is justified by God is already not an ungodly one any longer: he is a believer united with Christ, a righteous one... whom God no longer considers separately from Christ, but whom he envisages uniquely as a member of the body of Christ. " But in this way the corporate conception is employed in a manner that means a recasting of the Pauline concept of justification. In Paul himself this conception does not function in such a way, as may appear from the fact that in his suffering and death Christ does not represent the new, but the old man (Rom. 6:6).
59. See the discussion in the small type immediately below.
60. So Lietzmann, Rom., pp. 39ff. For this whole question in more recent exegesis, see also H. Braun, Gerichtsgedanke und Rechtfertigungslehre bei Paulus, 1930, pp. 23ff.
61. For this and other theories see the survey in Braun, ibid., pp. 14ff.
62. Ibid., p. 96.
63. On this subject cf. G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, pp. 103-112, and Schrenk, TDNT, II, p. 208.
64. Dikaiōsis zōes, gen. finalis (cf. Bl. -Debr., Par. 166, "genitive of direction and purpose [result]"); justification unto life, justification that brings along with it and contains within itself eternal life; cf. my Rom., pp. 121, 122.