3. Paul and evangelism
The apostle now makes three strong personal statements about his enthusiasm to preach the gospel in Rome:
verse 14 I am a debtor
verse 15 I am . . . eager
verse 16 I am not ashamed
The reason these affirmations are so striking is that they are the complete opposite of the attitude of many in the contemporary church. People nowadays tend to regard evangelism as an optional extra and consider (if they engage in it) that they are doing a favour for God; Paul spoke of it as a debt, an obligation. The modern mood is one of reluctance; Paul’s was one of eagerness. Many of us today would have to confess, if we are honest, that we are ashamed of the gospel; Paul declared that he was not.
Mind you, Paul had just as many reasons to feel reluctant or embarrassed as we do. Rome was the symbol of imperial pride and power. People spoke of it with awe. Everybody hoped to visit Rome at least once in their lifetime, in order to look and stare and wonder. But who was this fellow Paul who wanted to visit the capital city not as a tourist but as an evangelist, and who believed he had something to say which Rome needed to listen to? What foolishness and presumption was this? According to tradition, Paul was an ugly little man with beetle brows, bandy legs, a bald head, a hooked nose and bad eyesight, and not a particularly impressive speaker. So what could he hope to achieve against the proud might of imperial Rome? Would he not be wiser to stay away? Or, if he must visit Rome, would it not be wiser for him to keep his big mouth shut, in case he be laughed out of court and hustled out of town?
Evidently Paul did not think so. On the contrary, ‘I am a debtor,’ he wrote; ‘I am . . . eager . . . I am not ashamed.’ What, then, were the origins of his evangelistic enthusiasm? They were two.
1. The gospel is a debt to the world (1:14–15)
I am a debtor has often been translated ‘I am obligated’. It is perhaps puzzlement over how and why the gospel could be a debt which has led translators to write more generally of ‘obligation’. There are, in fact, two possible ways of getting into debt. The first is to borrow money from someone; the second is to be given money for someone by a third party. For example, if I were to borrow £1,000 from you, I would be in your debt until I paid it back. Equally, if a friend of yours were to hand me £1,000 to give to you, I would be in your debt until I handed it over. In the former case I would have got myself into debt by borrowing; in the latter it is your friend who has put me in your debt by entrusting me with £1,000 for you.
It is in this second sense that Paul is in debt. He has not borrowed anything from the Romans which he must repay. But Jesus Christ has entrusted him with the gospel for them. Several times in his letters he writes of having been ‘entrusted with the gospel’. It is true that this metaphor is one of stewardship (or trusteeship) rather than indebtedness, but the underlying thought is the same. It is Jesus Christ who has made Paul a debtor by committing the gospel to his trust. He was in debt to the Romans. As apostle to the Gentiles he was particularly in debt to the Gentile world, both to Greeks and non-Greeks [literally ‘barbarians’], both to the wise and the foolish (14). It is not certain how we are meant to understand this classification. The two couplets may denote the same contrasting groups, or the first may allude to differences of nationality, culture and language, the second to those of intelligence and education. Either way, these expressions together cover the whole of Gentile humanity. It was because of his sense of debt to them that he could write: That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome (15).
Similarly, we are debtors to the world, even though we are not apostles. If the gospel has come to us (which it has), we have no liberty to keep it to ourselves. Nobody may claim a monopoly of the gospel. Good news is for sharing. We are under obligation to make it known to others.
This was Paul’s first incentive. He was eager because he was in debt. It is universally regarded as a dishonourable thing to leave a debt unpaid. We should be as eager to discharge our debt as Paul was to discharge his.
2. The gospel is God’s power for salvation (1:16)
Paul now gives a second reason for being eager to preach the gospel, and not ashamed of it: I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile (16).
Some commentators are so offended by the thought that Paul could feel ashamed of the gospel that they view his statement as an understatement made for rhetorical effect, especially the use of a negative in place of a positive (as when someone says, ‘I am not amused’, meaning ‘I am upset and angry’). But surely this attempt to tone down Paul’s statement, though permissible grammatically, is psychologically misguided. Jesus himself warned his disciples against being ashamed of him, which shows that he anticipated they might be, and Paul gave Timothy a similar admonition. There can be no doubt that Paul knew this temptation. He told the Corinthians that he came to them ‘in weakness with great fear and trembling’. He knew that the message of the cross is ‘foolishness’ to some and ‘a stumbling-block’ to others, because it undermines self-righteousness and challenges self-indulgence. So whenever the gospel is faithfully preached, it arouses opposition, often contempt, and sometimes ridicule.
How then did Paul (and how shall we) overcome the temptation to be ashamed of the gospel? He tells us. It is by remembering that the very same message, which some people despise for its weakness, is in fact the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes. How do we know this? In the long run, only because we have experienced its saving power in our own lives. Has God reconciled us to himself through Christ, forgiven our sins, made us his children, put his Spirit within us, begun to transform us and introduced us into his new community? Then how can we possibly be ashamed of the gospel?
Moreover, the gospel is God’s saving power for everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. Saving faith, which is the necessary response to the gospel, is the great leveller. For everyone who is saved is saved in exactly the same way: by faith. That goes for Jews and Gentiles equally. There is no distinction between them in respect of salvation. The priority of the Jews (‘first to the Jew’) is both theological, because God chose them and made his covenant with them, and therefore historical (‘We had to speak the word of God to you first’).
Reflecting on the apostle’s three personal affirmations in verses 14–16, we have seen that his eagerness to evangelize in Rome arose from his recognition that the gospel is an unpaid debt to the world and the saving power of God. The first gave him a sense of obligation (he had been put in trust with the good news), and the second a sense of conviction (if it had saved him, it could save others). It is the same today: the gospel is both a debt to discharge and a power to experience. Only when we have grasped and felt these truths shall we be able to say with Paul, ‘I am not ashamed . . . I am a debtor . . . So I am eager to share the gospel with the world.’
3. The gospel reveals God’s righteousness (1:17)
We note the logic of Paul’s statement in verses 16–17: ‘I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation . . . For [gar, because] in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed.’ That is, the reason the gospel is God’s saving power is that God’s righteousness is revealed in it. Moreover, this righteousness is by faith from first to last, in fulfilment of Habakkuk 2:4: The righteous will live by faith. Many commentators have called verses 16–17 the ‘text’ of which the rest of Romans is the exposition. They are certainly crucial to our understanding. But two basic questions confront us. First, what is ‘the righteousness of God’? Second, how should we interpret the Habakkuk quotation and Paul’s use of it?
a. The righteousness of God
The meaning of the expression dikaiosynē theou (‘righteousness of [or from] God’) has been discussed throughout church history and has in consequence attracted an enormous, even unmanageable, literature. It is not easy to summarize, let alone to systematize, the debate.
First, some emphasize that ‘the righteousness of God’ is a divine attribute or quality. ‘Righteousness’ describes his character, together with his actions which are in keeping with his character. Since he is ‘the Judge of all the earth’, it stands to reason that he will himself always ‘do right’. For he loves righteousness and hates wickedness, and justice is the sceptre of his kingdom.
In Romans God’s personal righteousness is supremely seen in the cross of Christ. When God ‘presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement’, he did it ‘to demonstrate his righteousness’ (dikaiosynē, 3:25, repeated in 3:26), and in order that he might be both himself ‘just’ and ‘the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus’ (3:26b). Throughout Romans Paul is at pains to defend the righteous character and behaviour of God. For he is convinced that whatever God does – in salvation (3:25) or in judgment (2:5) – is absolutely consistent with his righteousness. This attribute of God cannot be, however, either the only or even the main truth which Paul declares to be revealed in the gospel (1:17), since it was already fully revealed in the law.
Others stress, second, that ‘the righteousness of God’ is a divine activity, namely what he did to save his people. Indeed, his ‘salvation’ and his ‘righteousness’ are frequently put together in the parallelism of Hebrew poetry, especially in the Psalms and in Isaiah 40 – 66. For example, ‘The Lord has made his salvation known and revealed his righteousness to the nations.’ Similarly, God declares: ‘I am bringing my righteousness near . . . and my salvation will not be delayed’, and describes himself as ‘a righteous God and a Saviour’. It would perhaps be an exaggeration to claim in the light of these texts that God’s righteousness and God’s salvation are synonyms. It is rather that his righteousness denotes his loyalty to his covenant promises, in the light of which he may be implored – and expected – to come to the salvation of his people. For example, ‘Vindicate me in your righteousness, Lord my God.’ As John Ziesler has put it, ‘salvation is the form that God’s righteousness . . . takes’. Ernst Käsemann writes of God’s righteousness in terms of power, God’s saving power, in loyalty to his covenant, overthrowing the forces of evil and vindicating his people. N. T. Wright’s understanding is similar. The righteousness of God, he writes, is ‘essentially the covenant faithfulness, the covenant justice, of the God who made promises to Abraham, promises of a worldwide family characterized by faith, in and through whom the evil of the world would be undone’.
Third, ‘the righteousness of God’ revealed in the gospel is a divine achievement. The genitive is now no longer subjective (as in reference to God’s character and activity), but objective (‘a righteousness from God’). It is a righteous status which God requires if we are ever to stand before him, which he achieves through the atoning sacrifice of the cross, which he reveals in the gospel and which he bestows freely on all who trust in Jesus Christ.
There can be little doubt that Paul uses the expression ‘the righteousness of God’ in this third way. He contrasts it with our own righteousness, which we are tempted to establish instead of submitting to God’s righteousness (10:3). God’s righteousness is a gift (5:17) which is offered to faith (3:22) and which we can have or enjoy. Charles Cranfield, who opts for this interpretation, paraphrases 1:17 in this way: ‘For in it (i.e. in the gospel as it is being preached) a righteous status which is God’s gift is being revealed (and so offered to men) – a righteous status which is altogether by faith.’ Further, in 2 Corinthians 5:21 Paul has written that in Christ we actually ‘become the righteousness of God’; in Romans 4 he will write about righteousness being ‘credited’ to us, as it was to Abraham (3, 24); and in 1 Corinthians 1:30 it is Christ himself ‘who has become for us . . . our righteousness’.
Thus ‘the righteousness of God’ can be thought of as a divine attribute (our God is a righteous God), or activity (he comes to our rescue) or achievement (he bestows on us a righteous status). All three are true and have been held by different scholars, sometimes in relation to each other. For myself, I have never been able to see why we have to choose, and why all three should not be combined. In other words, it is at one and the same time a quality, an activity and a gift.
It seems right to affirm, therefore, that ‘the righteousness of God’ is God’s righteous initiative in putting sinners right with himself, by bestowing on them a righteousness which is not their own but his. ‘The righteousness of God’ is God’s just justification of the unjust, his righteous way of pronouncing the unrighteous righteous, in which he both demonstrates his righteousness and gives righteousness to us. He has done it through Christ, the righteous one, who died for the unrighteous, as Paul will explain later. And he does it by faith when we put our trust in him, and cry to him for mercy.
b. The Habakkuk quotation
The apostle now confirms his emphasis on faith from Scripture and quotes Habakkuk 2:4: The righteous will live by faith. The prophet had complained that God intended to raise up the ruthless Babylonians to punish Israel. How could he use the wicked to judge the wicked? Habakkuk was told that whereas the proud Babylonians would fall, righteous Israelites would live by their faith, that is, in the context, by their humble, steadfast trust in God.
Many scholars, however, translate Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk differently: ‘he who through faith is righteous shall live’. There are strong arguments in favour of this interpretation. First, Paul has already used this text, in Galatians, written some years earlier, as biblical support for justification by faith, not law. So this seems to be how he understands it. Second, the context almost demands this rendering, being an endorsement from Scripture of by faith from first to last. Paul’s concern here is not how righteous people live, but how sinful people become righteous. Third, this translation fits the structure of the letter. Thus Anders Nygren points out that in Romans 1 – 4 ‘faith’ occurs at least twenty-five times and ‘life’ only twice, whereas in Romans 5 – 8 ‘life’ occurs twenty-five times and ‘faith’ only twice.
But is it right to translate the Habakkuk text in this way, and so to make faith the way to righteousness instead of the way to life? I think so. We note that it characterizes God’s people in terms of righteousness, faith and life. Whichever way the sentence is understood, both options affirm that ‘the righteous shall live’ and that faith is essential. The only question is whether the righteous by faith will live, or the righteous will live by faith. But are these not both true? Righteousness and life are both by faith. Those who are righteous by faith also live by faith. Having begun in faith, they continue in the same path. This also fits in with the expression ‘by faith from first to last’. So I think F. F. Bruce was correct to write: ‘The terms of Habakkuk’s oracle are sufficiently general to make room for Paul’s application of them – an application which, far from doing violence to the prophet’s intention, expresses the abiding validity of his message.’