The Righteousness of God Revealed

Here is my translation and exegesis and brief application of Rom. 3:21-26 (which I produced for a Greek exegesis class I took at Wheaton College under the tutelage of Professor Doug Moo):

Translation

²¹ But now, apart from the law, a righteousness from God has been manifested,

²² even a righteousness from God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who are believing;

²³ for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and are lacking the glory of God,

²⁴ being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

²⁵ whom God displayed publicly as a propitiatory sacrifice by his blood through faith, in order to demonstrate his righteousness, because of the passing over, in God’s forbearance, of the sins previously committed,

²⁶ for the demonstration of his righteousness at the present time, in order that he might be just even in justifying the one who has faith in Jesus.

Introduction

Leon Morris calls this “possibly the most important paragraph every written.”[1] Luther, less reticent than Morris, calls Rom. 3:21-26 "the chief point, and the very central place of the Epistle, and of the whole Bible."[2] Can one overstate the place and importance of Paul's gospel paragraph in Romans 3? Hardly. For here “Paul brings out something of the grandeur of Christ's saving work. He speaks of the righteousness of God, the sin of man, and the salvation of Christ. He views this salvation in three ways: as justification (imagery from the law court), as redemption (imagery from the slave market), and as propitiation (imagery from the averting of wrath).”[3] So this paragraph packs quite a load, stacked with thick theology whose depths one never reaches through to the bottom, laden with dense debates whose pages press on with no end in view. To undertake to unpack this passage in a puny paper leaves one feeling frustrated from the get-go.

As Stuhlmacher has said, "Anyone who wants to become acquainted with Paul's gospel must above all study Romans."[4] After all, Romans is fundamentally, chiefly, centrally (whatever else it addresses) about the Gospel of God (Rom. 1:1). And we might add that anyone who wants to study Paul’s Gospel must above all study Rom. 3:21-26, the heart of this magnificent epistle. But before getting to the heart of the letter, we must briefly find our way there on the path Paul takes us.

The thesis statement of the letter, as virtually all are agreed, comes in 1:16-17. Here Paul provides a summary of what will be argued with lumbering, brain-breaking literary logic. Paul wants to get to Rome to preach the Gospel, about which he has no shame, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who is believing. For therein “a righteousness from God” is revealed, which mountain-like expression Paul will climb starting in 3:21. But before he gets there to the good news, his audience needs to get the bad news. So in 1:18-3:20 the whole world is indicted, every mouth stopped. First, Paul’s indictment primarily goes after the godless and lawless Gentiles (1:18-32); then, he lays low the privileged Jews and levels the playing field (2:1-3:20). His aim is to make it clear that all—no exceptions!—are under the power and penalty of sin (3:9). The law itself makes crystal clear that Jews are included, effectively stopping the Jewish as well as the Gentile mouth, making plain that no flesh will be justified in God’s sight by the works of the law, since its aim was to make sin known, not deliver from its power and penalty (3:19-20). That deliverance had to wait for a fresh and foretold manifestation of “a righteousness from God” in the promised Messiah.

Preaching at Westminster Chapel in London in the 1950s, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said this of Rom. 3:21:“There are no more wonderful words in the whole of the Scripture than just these two words, ‘But now.’”[5] Describing the sharpest turning point in redemptive history, Νυνὶ δὲ are undoubtedly two of the most wonderful words in Scripture. For with these words, we turn with the turning of the ages from the fading old covenant era of the law marked by sin, bondage, judgment, and death; and we turn to the enduring new covenant era of the Spirit marked by righteousness, freedom, justification, and life.

Exegesis[6]

3:21     Νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν,

This δὲ speaks of a radical contrast, indicating that, the law having done its appointed work (3:19-20), it was “now” high time for the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ to be revealed in history—“apart from that law.” Taking νυνὶ temporally, not logically,[7] the time is eschatological, like the “fullness of the time” in Gal. 4:4.[8] The main verb πεφανέρωται and the contextual contrast with the period of the law support this. The phrase χωρὶς νόμου[9] probably modifies the main verb rather than the subject, underscoring that this righteousness came with the Gospel. The law’s bearing witness to this righteousness confirms this, taking μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν as modifying δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, not the main verb. It is not the manifestation to come witnessed so much as this righteousness-gift itself. The expression τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν refers to the whole OT (e.g., Mt. 5:17; Lk. 24:44; Acts 28:23). Moses bore witness to this righteousness (e.g., Gen. 15:6; Deut. 9:4; 30:12-14).[10] The Prophets bore witness as well (e.g., Ps. 31:1; 142:2; Isa. 51:1-6; 61:8-62:2, LXX; Rom. 3:10-18).

The verb πεφανέρωται recalls 1:17 where ἀποκαλύπτεται is present tense, probably stressing the ongoing nature of the revelation in the Gospel proclaimed. Here Paul deploys the perfect (πεφανέρωται), probably either an intensive or extensive perfect,[11] pointing up a whole state of affairs that came with the coming of the Gospel and the shifting of the ages in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, which state persists in the present age inaugurated by Jesus and his Spirit. The only other instance in the NT of πεφανέρωται comes in Heb. 9:26, which also highlights the shift in ages with νυνὶ δὲ and the manifestation of the Gospel.[12]

Now, the term bearing most on the passage’s meaning—δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ—has been hotly disputed. The δικ- word group and the צדק root and its cognates occur more than 800 times[13] in the OT and NT and have diverse translation values.[14] English Bibles translate the relevant terms variously as “just,” “right,” “justify,” “justice,” “righteousness,”” vindication,” “justification,” and so on.[15] By itself, δικαιοσύνη may be understood as just practice or equitable judgment, as juridical correctness, or as upright behavior in relation to some standard.[16]

This understanding of δικαιοσύνη as uprightness in relation to some standard[17] has been challenged by those who see it as a relational term dependent on the Hebrew root צדק that, it is said, denotes the correctness of actions in social relationships.[18] See, for example, Kasemann’s and Dunn’s commentaries.[19] But Seifrid states that a number of recent studies “have concluded on the basis of both etymology and usage that the concept of a standard or norm is generally associated with the צדק word-group.”[20] While Seifrid’s point holds, Bird probably speaks rightly in saying: “In so far as righteousness relates to God’s people [via the covenant and Torah], the norm of righteousness is then provided by the covenant relationship so that there cannot be any strict bifurcation between a norm and a relationship.”[21] In fact, much of the righteousness language comes in covenantal contexts (e.g., Ps. 89; Isa. 40-66). Therefore, it is not strictly relational, but juridical and moral, coming in a relational covenantal context. 

The term δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ does not occur in the LXX.[22] Nor does an equivalent expression occur in the MT (e.g., ץדק אלהים or צדק יהוה; Jer. 23:6 comes close with יְהוָ֥ה צִדְקֵֽנוּ). The closest expression is δικαιοσύνη κυρίου (only 1 Sam. 12:7; Mic. 6:5) and δικαιοσύνη modified by a personal pronoun (e.g., δικαιοσύνη σου in Ps. 35:7). There are more than a dozen such instances that apply to God. Some occur in parallel with or in contexts of salvation (e.g., Pss. 39:9-11; Isa. 46:12-13; 63:3); some in connection with steadfast love or faithfulness (e.g., Pss. 35:11; 97:1-3; 102:17-18); some in royal contexts highlighting God’s reign over the nations (e.g., Pss. 21:32; 96:6); some in contexts of pleas for vindication (e.g., Ps. 34:24, 28); some in a covenantal context harking back to God’s promises and commitment to his people (e.g., Isa. 41:8-10; 51:1-6); and some in judicial contexts with moral overtones (e.g., Mic. 6:5; 7:9). Oftentimes many of these ideas overlap (e.g., Ps. 39:9-11; 97:1-3; 102:17-18; Isa. 51:1-6; 61:8-62:2); sometimes the texts press toward Rom. 3:21-22 (e.g., Isa. 51:1-6; 61:8-62:2).

Contrary to a common assertion, the righteousness language in parallel with the salvation language does not equate the two; it only shows they are related. Supporting this, the LXX translators never use the σωτ- root for צדק- terms.[23] The OT leaves tension between God’s righteousness as against sin and as providing salvation and vindication. It only, finally, finds resolution in the wake of the work of Christ, when the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is manifested and demonstrated publicly in the Gospel.

The first instance of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in the NT occurs in Rom. 1:17. The term (or a very similar construction) occurs also in Rom. 3:5, 21-22, 25-26; 10:3 (twice); and 2 Cor. 5:21. Other similar constructions occur in Matt. 6:33; 1 Cor. 1:30; Phil. 3:9; and 2 Pet. 1:1. Apart from Matthew’s use, these other constructions and the 2 Cor. 5:21 use are forensic, an alien righteousness being bestowed in Christ.[24] In Rom. 3:5, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ really has to mean something like “God’s faithfulness to his own person and word.”[25]

According to Wright, Rom. 1:17, as an introductory statement, “is necessarily cryptic, and needs to be interpreted in the light of what comes later.”[26] Though this is probably stated too strongly, there is wisdom here. The full significance of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is only unpacked as Paul’s argument progresses. Yet, at least two textual features in the context point in the direction of a status of righteousness bestowed.

First, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ being revealed in the Gospel is the reason that “it is the power of God for salvation.” So δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ should not be equated with the power of the Gospel, nor with the Gospel itself, nor with the salvation it brings, which salvation is its effect. It is in (ἐν) this Gospel (Rom. 1:2-4) proclaimed that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ “is being revealed.” So δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is distinct, though not separate, from the Gospel andfrom salvation. 

Second, understanding 1:18 as the reason why the Gospel was needed, the context of God’s wrath being revealed against all ἀδικίαν tilts the interpretation toward a status bestowed based on an alien righteousness. If ἀδικίαν flared up God’s dander, the most natural way out would be through a righteousness before God that removes wrath and brings peace (5:1).

Twice “the righteousness of God” comes in Rom. 10:3. Paul witnesses to his fellow Jews’ unknowing zeal for God (10:2). He explains (γὰρ) in v. 3: “The righteousness of God” is contrasted with Israel’s “seeking to establish their own righteousness,” defined in 9:31-32 as a righteousness they sought to establish by “pursuing a law that leads to righteousness,”[27] “as though it were by works”(cf. Phil. 3:9). The law, if done, would result in life (Lev. 18:5).[28] But that was not the aim (τέλος)[29] of the law. Paul explains (γὰρ): “For the goal of the law is Christ for righteousness”[30] (Rom. 10:4).  Thus “they did not submit τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ” (10:3). They were ignorant of τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην that was the aim of the law, and the δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ to which they did not submit was “Christ for righteousness.” Interpreting δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ as righteousness given as a gift (taking τοῦ θεοῦ as a genitive of source) is confirmed by the contrast with “a righteousness of their own” (10:3) and the parallel with “Christ for righteousness.” This usage agrees with a forensic sense of a gift-righteousness in 3:21-22.

Paul’s use of δικαιόω also supports understanding δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ forensically as a status bestowed. The verb occurs 27 times in Paul, 15 in Romans. In the LXX δικαιόω corresponds with צדק and is used consistently as “to pronounce righteous,” “to justify,” or to “vindicate.”[31] While it has a range of meanings in Hellenistic Greek, in Paul, following a common usage in the LXX, it always[32] has a forensic flavor, meaning “to be in the right” or “to be declared righteous.” This usage, not least because of δικαιόω in 3:24, favors taking δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ forensically, not as God’s saving righteousness or covenant faithfulness. Romans 8:33 confirms this interpretation, where a court room setting is clear and where being justified is contrasted with having charges brought against the elect (v. 33) and being condemned (v. 34). However, Seifrid argues cogently that all 27 occurrences of δικαιόω in Paul’s corpus “may be read in terms of vindication rather than the mere pronouncing of a verdict.”[33] So it is important not to reduce the notion of δικαιόω to a merely declarative verdict, losing some of the OT background of the language.

There are four main options for construing the genitive θεοῦ. It could be subjective (God exercises righteousness or faithfulness);[34] possessive (God’s inherent righteousness); objective (a righteousness availing before God); or a genitive of source (a righteous status from God).[35] The possessive and objective do not fit best because this righteousness is a gift received through faith (vv. 22, 24).[36] The two main options, then, are righteousness as a status bestowed and righteousness as God’s action. Although there is ample OT background for righteousness as God’s activity, it does not seem to be the dominant idea here.[37] For, as noted in 1:17, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is distinct from the Gospel and salvation. Moreover, righteousness coming through faith as a gift (v. 22) pushes the interpretation toward something actually given rather than something done by God.

Support for this interpretation may also be found in the “reckoning” (λογίζομαι, 11 times in Rom. 4), accounting, and law-court language. In Romans 4, Paul undergirds his teaching that faith is the sole means of justification for Jew and Gentile in 3:27-31: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (4:3). How to understand this reckoning comes clear in 4:4-5 where Paul deploys accounting terms. A status is in view, where the ungodly are counted as righteous. The “before God” law-court imagery (3:20; 4:3) and righteousness as a gift (5:17) confirm this.

3:22     δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ[38] Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή,

The δὲ (“even”) focuses attention[39] and specifies the general statement in v. 21. The δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ comes διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which phrase only occurs elsewhere in the NT in Gal. 2:16. This is a greatly debated phrase, in Galatians as in Romans. Should πίστεως be taken as “faithfulness,”[40] or as “faith”?[41] And what kind of genitive is Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, objective or subjective, or otherwise?

In favor of taking πίστεως as “faithfulness,” the main point often made is that “faith” is redundant with πιστεύοντας in the following phrase. But this does not actually seem to be the case. Paul seems to want to highlight the means of being justified (“though faith”) apart from works (3:20, 28) before highlighting that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is universally available (“to all who are believing”). These are not saying exactly the same thing. Also against the objective genitive line, the conventional reading cannot explain how faith reveals δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ instrumentally.[42]

In favor of taking πίστεως as “faith,” the following context (especially 3:27-31, focusing on faith versus works; and 5:1, summarizing the previous major section) shows Paul’s burden to highlight how both Jew and Gentile experience δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ apart from works. The faith/works antithesis is so strong in this section, set up in 3:20, that strong contextual features must be present to depart from it. And as Dunn points out, everything Paul has said about “faith” in Romans 1 naturally moves his readers to assume the objective meaning.[43] Furthermore, whenever πίστις acts as an anarthrous head term with a preceeding prepositional modifier, it functions abstractly, favoring Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as the object of faith.[44]

As Silva notes, “because of the inherent ambiguity of genitival constructions, the phrase πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ must be understood in the light of unambiguous constructions appearing in the context.”[45] It was argued above that there is good reason for seeing δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as a gift from God. If this is accepted, διὰ πίστεως should be seen as modifying an implied verb “is given” or “coming.”[46] That the gift idea is right is supported by 4:24 (“being justified freely by his grace”) and by further elaboration in 5:17 where“the gift of righteousness” comes with “the abundance of grace.”

The εἰς πάντας in NA²⁷ is supported by p⁴⁰, א*, A, B, C, P, Ψ, 81, 104, 630, 1506, 1739, 1881 al, Cl Did. Other manuscripts have εις παντας και επι παντας (א², D, F, G, 33, M, it, vg^cl, sy; Ambst).[47] A few witnessess have επι παντας. The external evidence favors the NA²⁷ text with early, quality attestation. The Majority text appears to be a conflation of the manuscript evidence, “producing an essentially redundant and tautological expression.”[48]

So this δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is “for all who are believing” (εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας). Why? “For (γάρ) there is no distinction”(οὐ ἐστιν διαστολή; cf. 10:12). As Paul has argued up to this paragraph, “both Jews and Greeks are all under sin” (3:9), mouths stopped, unable to be justified by the works of the law (3:20). The present tense πιστεύοντας probably implies that Paul did not think of experiencing δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as something happening only at the beginning of believing but as continuing lifelong as one goes on believing.[49]

3:23     πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ

Paul continues the universal, all-inclusive scope with the subject “all” (πάντες). The γὰρ explains why there is no distinction. The aorist ἥμαρτον should probably be taken as a constative aorist,[50] although gnomic is possible.[51] Paul seems to want to stress humanity’s sinfulness (1:18-3:20), although a connection with sinning in Adam may be hinted at by the aorist (cf. Rom. 5:12).

The verb ὑστερέω occurs 8 other times in Paul (1 Cor. 1:7; 8:8; 12;24; 2 Cor. 11:5, 9; 12:11; Phil. 4:12). Although it can mean to fail to reach something (e.g., Heb. 4:1; 12:15),[52] in Pauline usage it arguably always means “lacking.” Seen in connection with the last use of “the glory of God” in Rom. 1:23, the best translation may be “lacking” τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ. [53] The sense is that the glory of God’s image was marred and lost through sin.[54] This image is precisely what is restored in consequence of justification (“conformed to the image of his Son” in parallel with “those whom he justified, he also glorified,” Rom. 8:29-30).

3:24     δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·

How δικαιούμενοι relates to what precedes is a syntactical conundrum noted by virtually all the commentators. Sanday and Headlam describe the main options.[55] It is most naturally taken with one or both verbs in v. 23, but this gives the main theme of the paragraph a subordinate role.[56] So some take vv. 22b-23 parenthetically.[57] The nominative masculine plural participle seems to refer to the immediately preceding πάντες. But of course this πάντες also refers to the πάντας of v. 22.

Perhaps δικαιούμενοι should not be linked too tightly with any one element. The connection seems looser and more inclusive. The participle agrees with the “all” of vv. 22-23, carries on the main theme of vv. 21-22 with the δικ- language, and flows from what v. 23 says about the state of all. So “being justified” fills out the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ that set the agenda for this paragraph. Moreover, the justified are the sinful-and-lacking-the-glory-of-God “all”of v. 23, marked out by faith (v. 22).[58]

God’s justifying is further qualified: it is given “freely” (δωρεὰν), “by his grace” (τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι), and “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). Since δικαιόω has been discussed, all that needs to be added here is that the participle is passive—God justifies the ungodly (cf. 4:5). The giving of an alien righteousness is God’s doing, compelled by nothing outside God, given δωρεὰν. It has nothing whatever to do with a one’s works but is entirely τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι (see esp. 11:6 where χάριτι and ἐξ ἔργων are antithetical; cf. 4:4, 16; Eph. 2:8; Tit. 3:7). Paul uses χάρις 24 times in Romans. But Rom. 5:15 and 17 are the only other places where χάρις and δωρεὰ come in the same verse. And God’s grace (“unmerited favor”) and gift given there (5:17) is τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης (objective genitive), the gift of an alien righteousness by the grace and through the obedience of the second Adam (5:15, 19).

The last phrase modifying “being justified” is διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Schreiner avers rightly that the note of fulfillment in 3:21 suggests interpreting ἀπολύτρωσις (and ἱλαστήριον) in light of the OT.[59] The term ἀπολύτρωσις occurs 10 times in the NT, 7 in Paul (twice in Romans; cf. 8:23). But does it merely mean deliverance, or deliverance through payment of a price? The word occurs in the LXX only in Dan. 4:34, but this does not help with NT usage. 

Morris has argued convincingly that the basic word λύτρον and its cognates in the LXX and its associated Hebrew equivalents “are properly applied to redemption by payment of price.”[60] Of the use of λύτρον and its cognates in the NT, he says that “the words associated with λύτρον consistently express the ransom idea.”[61] The broader thematic theological background for τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ is surely the exodus tradition (Exod. 12-15), not least as it comes through Isaiah 40-55 where deliverance from exile is described in terms of a second exodus.[62] That this is the likely broader background for Rom. 3:24 is supported by the righteousness language in Isaiah 40-55. So this redemption in Christ Jesus is a second exodus through his death (v. 25),  where deliverance from sin’s penalty (forgivesness, the “negative” side of “being justified”; cf. 4:7) is purchased by Jesus’ substitutionary blood (3:25; 5:9; cf. Eph. 1:7).

3:25     ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων

The relative clause beginning v. 25 looks back to “Christ Jesus” (v. 24). Syntactically, the clause enlarges upon how “being justified through the redemption in Christ Jesus” came about: God publicly displayed[63] (προέθετο) Jesus as a ἱλαστήριον. This word has been another battleground for fierce debate. It appears elsewhere in the NT only in Heb. 9:5, where it means “mercy seat”[64] or “atonement cover.”[65] In the LXX, ἱλαστήριον occurs 28 times, translating כפרת in all twenty instances in Exodus and Leviticus.  

Lexicographically, in both Hellenistic and Classical Greek, the word routinely refers to placating.[66] But there is little doubt the OT background is the mercy seat (Ex. 25; Lev. 16). Whether Paul’s audience would have recognized the reference to the mercy seat, Paul certainly made this connection (Heb. 9:5 supports this). Moreover, the mercy seat was the place on the Day of Atonement where sin was expiated and God’s wrath removed.[67] Beyond this, God’s wrath has hung over every head from Rom. 1:18 to 3:20, nothing explicitly addressing this perilous position before a righteous and wrathful God (until “now,” v. 21). The notion of removing wrath is therefore undeniably present, especially given the usage of ἱλαστήριον in Paul’s day.[68] Along with the reference to blood (ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι),[69] an appropriate rendering is “propitiatory sacrifice.”[70]  

This propitiatory sacrifice occurs by means of Jesus’ blood.[71] “Blood” in the OT and NT dominantly refers to violent death or sacrifice.[72] Both referents are doubtless included here in Jesus’ death (cf. 5:9-10), the Day of Atonement looming as OT background (see also Isa. 53:5, 7, 11 with Rom. 4:25). The NA²⁷ editors had difficulty coming to a conclusion about the phrase διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως.[73] The external support is perhaps slightly better for including τῆς, but it is difficult to see why it would have been removed and easier to understand why it would have been added (for clarity). In any case, the sense would not change much. The phrase probably modifies “propitiatory sacrifice,” rather than the verb, the propitiation becoming effective through faith.[74] The faith focuses on Jesus’ blood, his death standing as a part for the whole work of redemption.[75] This is supported by noting that faith is in Jesus in vv. 22 and 26, and by noting the parallel in 5:9 (“justified by his blood”) along with 5:1 (“justified by faith”). Faith in Christ is faith in the Christ of the cross.

Paul then states God’s general aim (εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ) and the situation calling for it (διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ) before specifying his aim in v. 26 (πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ ). God’s demonstrating his righteousness in the propitiatory sacrifice by Jesus’ blood was necessary (διὰ, “because of”[76]) because God’s patience did not give past sins their due as he passed over[77] a proper penalty.

3:26     ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ, πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ.

Trying to understand δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ here in vv. 25-26, noting that the grammar is not the same as in vv. 21-22 (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) may signal Paul is thinking slightly differently here. Moreover, the more specific aim[78] of God’s displaying his righteousness in v. 26—“that he might be just even in[79] justifying the one who has faith in Jesus”—points to a cosmic tension. How could the righteous and wrathful God be both just and count as just unjust sinners? The justification in verses 21-24 presents a cosmic crisis. God’s aim to be just even in justifying sinners shows that another nuance of righteousness is warranted here. Verse 25 answers this crisis—the propitiatory sacrifice in Jesus’ blood absorbed the just penalty of sinners’ sins (God is therefore seen as “just”) while providing the way for God to justify the ungodly who trust in Jesus’ blood (4:5; 5:9). The phrase ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ  indicates that this demonstration occurs in the eschatological new age that dawned in the Gospel  (as in 3:21; cf. 8:18; 11:5).

So “God’s righteousness” here must refer primarily to God’s inherent righteousness that, among other things, judges sin in accord with his character and word (cf. 3:5, where the meaning of δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ is similar).[80] Although some commentators take δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ as “covenant faithfulness” or “saving justice,”[81] the focus really must be on God’s distributive justice because of these clauses: διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ. Inasmuch as God is inherently righteous and will judge the world (Rom. 3:4-6), his apparent laxity with sins called his righteousness into question, as would his justification of the ungodly were it not for the cross. And inasmuch as God’s whole aim in all he does is to display and uphold his glory (references strewn everywhere in Scripture), Piper goes deepest (in heeding Scripture’s whole context and total witness) in explaining God’s righteousness as his unswerving allegiance to uphold the honor of his name.[82] And if God’s inherent righteousness moves him to always act according to his character and word, this would include his covenant faithfulness and saving justice, though these are not the foci here.

From the discussion above, there is sufficient reason to take πίστεως Ἰησοῦ  in v. 22 as “faith in Jesus.” So here τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ, without parallel in the NT, should be taken as “the one who has faith in Jesus.” The construction οἱ ἐκ νόμου in Rom. 4:14 may in a sense be its antithesis.

           

Summary and Application

We began by observing the punch Paul’s powerful Gospel packs. After considering the central text of Romans in some detail, we end here as well. For there always exists, until the last day, a need for the revealed “righteousness of God.” Since all have sinned and are lacking the glory of God, if God is going to fulfill his promises of old to his people and to this world, he must provide a way for the ungodly to be accepted into his presence and family, whether Jew or Greek. He has done this by providing an alien righteousness in Christ for all who believe. But since this gift is given freely by his grace, not dependent on works, a cosmic crisis ensues. God’s righteousness is in the dock—where he himself has placed it—and through the redemption and propitiation in Jesus’ blood, it stands vindicated as just even in justifying the ungodly. What glory and wisdom in the cross! What ineffable grace! Small wonder then that Paul was not ashamed of this Gospel: it is the power of God to save ungodly people to the uttermost! Oh the depths of the riches!

Massive implications follow from this great gospel paragraph for all sorts of human cares and concerns: for race relations, for marriage muddles, for childrearing difficulties, for Christian nurture, for counseling conundrums, for psychological challenges, for ecclesiastical infightings, for seating arrangements, for the demands of love, for the pretensions of pride (corporate and individual), and much, much more. But one always stands atop the rest—the vertical dimension. That is, the perennial problem of sinful men and women justly judged and estranged under God’s righteous wrath. We must never forget what this paragraph addresses first: the horrible condition of humanity in Rom. 1:18-3:20 before God.

The so-called New Perspective on Paul, for all it virtues, tends to start and stay too much in the horizontal plane, whereas Paul starts with the vertical dimension, lives and moves and has his being there, and then deduces horizontal implications. And there is all the difference in the world! A right understanding of the righteousness of God revealed in the context of righteous wrath saves the Church from ten thousand errors in doctrine and practice. And so, though Luther’s view is often derided and dismissed in the world of academics, this exegisis affirms that Luther was right: what is revealed in Rom. 3:21-26 about the righteousness of God is the article by which the Church stands or falls. May God give his blood-bought, colorful bride, made up of Jew and Gentile, the courage and conviction to be unashamed of this Gospel.

Bibliography and Footnotes

*All Greek Scripture quotations are from the Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 27^th ed. And unless otherwise noted, all English translation quotations are mine.

Abegg Jr., Martin G. “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘Works of the Law.’” Pages 203-216 in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Edited by Peter W. Flint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Abegg Jr., Martin G. “4QMMT C 27, 31 AND ‘WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.’” Pages 139-147 in Dead Sea Discoveries. Leiden, NV: Brill, 1999.

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Rivingtons, 1871.

Bauer, Walter, Danker, Fredrick William, Arndt, W. F., and Gingrich, F. W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Beale, G. K., and Carson, D. A. eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

Beale G. K. We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry. Downers Grove: IVP, 2008.

Bird, Michael. The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007.

Blass, F., and Debrunner, A. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Bockmuehl, Richard. “1QS and Salvation at Qumran.” Pages 381-414 in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Vol. 1 of Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Brenton, C. L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. London: Hendrickson, 2003.

Brooks, James A., and Winberry, Carlton L. Syntax of New Testament Greek. Maryland: University Press of America, 1979.

Brown, Colin, ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975-1985.

Burton, Ernest D. Syntax of the Mood and Tenses in New Testament Greek. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1976.

Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians. Torrance, David W., and Torrance, Thomas F, eds. Translated by Ross Mackenzie. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Calvin, John. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and The First and Second Epistles of St. Peter. Torrance, David W., and Torrance, Thomas F, eds. Translated by William B. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Campbell, Constantine R. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.

Campbell, Douglas A. “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans 3:22.” Pages 57-71 in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Edited by Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle. Peabody: Hendrickson and Paternoster, 2009.

Carson, Donald A., and Moo, Douglas J. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Carson, D. A. “The Vindication of Imputation: On Fields of Discourse and Semantic Fields.” Pages 46-78 in Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates. Edited by Mark Husbands and Daniel Trier. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.

Charlesworth, James H., ed. 2 vols. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. New York: Doubleday, 1985.

Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. New York: T & T Clark, 1975.

Donfried, Karl P. ed. The Romans Debate. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.

Dumbrell, William J. The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1-8. Vol. 38. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988.

Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul. Rev. Ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

                                                                                              

Gaffin, Richard B. Jr. “Paul the Theologian.” Westminster Theological Journal 62 (2000): 121-141.

Godet, Frederic Louis. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977.

Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Jewett, Robert. Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Friedrich, Gerhard, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromily. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976.

Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary of Romans. Grand Rapids: Eeerdmans, 1980.

Lloyd-Jones, D. M. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3.20-4.25. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2011.

Luther, Martin. Commentary on Peter and Jude. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1990.

Louw, Johannes P., and Nida, Eugene A. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.

Martini, Carlo M., and Metzer, Bruce M. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27^th revised edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellshaft, 1993.

Martínez, Florentino García, and Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C., eds. 2 vols. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997 (vol. 1), 1998 (vol. 2).

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: D-Stuttgart, 2006.

Metzger, Bruce M., and Ehrman, Bart D. “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.” New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Moo, Douglas. “Justification in Galatians.” Pages 160-195 in Understanding the Times: Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.

Moo, D.J. “Romans.” Pages 291-296 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Alexander, T. Desmond, Rosner, Brian S., Carson, D. A., Goldsworthy, Graeme, and

Carter, Steve. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Moo, Douglas. 2 Peter and Jude. Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1996.

Moo, Douglas J. “Law, Works of the Law, and Legalism in Paul.”  Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 73-100.

Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.

Moulton, J. H., and Milligan, G. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004.

Murry, John. Vol. 1. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Nestle, Eberhard and Erwin, Aland, Barbara, Aland, Kurt, Karavidopoulos, Johannes, Martini, Carlo M., and Metzer, Bruce M. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27^th revised edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellshaft, 1993.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Philedelphia: Fortress Press, 1949.

O’Brien, Peter T. The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Paternoster, 1991.

Owen, John. “The Doctrine of Justification by Faith.” Vol. 5. The Works of John Owen. Edited by William H. Goold. Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1965.

Peitersma, Albert, and Wright, Benjamin G., Eds.  A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. 

Perrin, Nicholas. “A Reformed Perspective on the New Perspective.” Westminster Theological Journal 67 (2005): 381-390.

Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Porter, Stanley E, and Pitts, Andrew W. “Πίσττις with a Preposition and Genitive Modifier: Lexical, Semantic, and Syntactic Considerations in the Πίσττις Χριστοῦ Discussion.” Pages 33-56 in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Edited by Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle. Peabody: Hendrickson and Paternoster, 2009.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.

Reumann, John. “Justification.” Pages 757-758 in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Meyers, and Astrid B. Beck. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Sanday, William, and Headlam, Arthur C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.

Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977.

Seifrid, Mark A. “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background.” Pages 39-74 in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Vol. 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Paradoxes of Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Seifrid, Mark A. “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism.” Pages 415-452 in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Vol. 1 of Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Seifrid, Mark A. “The Faith of Christ.” Pages 129-146 in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Edited by Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle. Peabody: Hendrickson and Paternoster, 2009.

Seifrid, Mark A. “Unrighteous by Faith: Apostolic Proclamation in Romans 1:18-3:20.” Pages 105-145 in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Vol. 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Paradoxes of Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Edited by Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. The New American Commentary. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2003.

Silva, Moisés. Pages 217-248 in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Vol. 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Paradoxes of Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Silva, Moisés. Philippians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Stuhlmacher, Peter. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Translated by Scott J. Hafemann. Louisville: Westminster, 1994.

Stuhlmacher, Peter. “The Purpose of Romans.” Pages 231-242 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.

Tasker, R. V. G. 1951. The Biblical Doctrine of the Wrath of God. The Tyndale Lecture in Biblical Theology for 1951. London: The Tyndale Press, 1971.

The New American Standard Bible. Ahaheim: Foundation Publications, 1995.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton: Crossway, 2002.

The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Paternoster, 2000.

Vermes, Geza. “The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls.” Rev. Ed. London: Penguin, 2004.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Westerholm, Stephen. “The Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith in Romans.” Interpretation July (2004): 253-264.

Wise, Michael, Abegg, Michael Jr., and Cook, Edward. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. Translated by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook. New York: Harper Collins, 2005.

Wright, N. T. Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2009.

Wright, N. T. Paul. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.

Wright, N. T. The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation. New York: HarperCollins, 2011.

Wright, N. T. “New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Substructure of Romans 3-8” in Romans & the People of God. Edited by Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

Wright, N. T. The Letter to the Romans. The New Interpreter’s Bible X. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

Wright, N. T. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Young, Richard A. Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994.

Zerwick, Maximilian S. J., and Grosvenor, Mary. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996.

Zerwick, Maximilian S. J. Biblical Greek. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963.

---

[1] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 173.

[2] From the margin of the Luther Bible of 1534, mined from Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 218.

[3] Morris, Romans, 173.

[4] Stuhlmacher, Peter. “The Purpose of Romans.” Pages 231-242 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 231.

[5] D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3.20-4.25 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2011), 25.

[6] The text is largely secure. Where the manuscripts show divergence will be discussed in the exegesis.

[7] As in e.g., Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 146.

[8] Note the temporal, redemptive-historical contrast with the law in Galatians 4. Cf. Rom. 7:6; Eph. 2:13; Col. 1:22; Heb. 8:6; 9:26.

[9] The context (3:19-20) shows Paul is speaking of the Mosaic Law.

[10] In a number of Jewish texts (e.g., 4QMMT C27; 4QMMT C31-32), justification is tied to faithfulness to the Mosaic Law. This atmosphere is likely part of what Paul is addressing with respect to “works of the law” (3:20, 28).

[11] Wallace, Greek Grammar, 574-577.

[12] See also the collocation of φανερόω and νυν(ὶ) δὲ in Rom. 16:26, 2 Tim. 1:10, and Col. 1:26.  

[13] Seifrid says one database counts the δικ-root in the LXX 1791 times. Mark A. Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism (eds. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; vol. 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Paradoxes of Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 39.

[14] John Reumann, “Justification,” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 757-758.

[15] Ibid., 757.

[16] “δικαιοσύνη,” BDAG, 247-248.

[17] As in the Hellenistic notion of righteousness as an ethical norm by which something is measured (e.g., Aristotle, Eth. nic. 5.1.1-3).

[18] Michael Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 10.

[19] James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (vol. 38, WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 40-43; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary of Romans (Grand Rapids: Eeerdmans, 1980), 24ff.

[20] Mark A. Seifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism (eds. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; vol. 1 of Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 420.

[21] Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God, 12.

[22] All searches were performed in Rahlfs, Alfred, and Hanhart, Robert, eds., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006).

[23] Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language,”51.

[24] For exegetical support, see the respective commentaries by Thiselton, Silva, Schreiner, and Harris.

[25] Moo, Romans, 190.

[26] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 105.

[27] Taking the genitive of νόμον δικαιοσύνης as a telic genitive. See Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (vol. 2; Cambridge: Rivingtons, 1871), 414.

[28] E.g., Moo, Romans, 147-148, 155.

[29] Alford, The Greek Testament, 417.

[30] See the parallel idea in Gal. 3:24.

[31] G. Schrenk, “δικαιόω,” TDNT 2:211-219.

[32] Except perhaps in Rom. 6:7.

[33] Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language,”52-53.

[34] E.g., N. T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 469-470.

[35] E.g., C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (Vol. 1; New York: T & T Clark, 1975), 202.

[36] Although inasmuch as it is God’s to bestow and avails before him, these senses cannot be entirely excluded.

[37] Although it is granted that this sense cannot be denied either, inasmuch as the righteousness given is given as an action of God.

[38] Vaticanus (B) alone omits this word.

[39] An ascensive use (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 670-671).

[40] E.g., Wright, Romans, 470.

[41] E.g., Dunn, Romans, 178.

[42] Campbell, Douglas A., “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans 3:22,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (eds. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle; Peabody: Hendrickson and Paternoster, 2009), 67.

[43] Dunn, Romans, 178.

[44] Porter, Stanley E, and Pitts, Andrew W, “Πίσττις with a Preposition and Genitive Modifier: Lexical, Semantic, and Syntactic Considerations in the Πίσττις Χριστοῦ Discussion,”in The Faith of Jesus Christ, 33-53.

[45] Silva, Moisés, “Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Paradoxes of Paul, 247.

[46] E.g., NIV.

[47] Vulgata Stuttgartiensis has only επι παντας.

[48] Metzger, Bruce M, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: D-Stuttgart, 2006), 449.

[49] Dunn, Romans, 178.

[50] Wallace, Greek Grammar, 503.

[51] Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 208.

[52] “ὑστερέω,” BDAG, 1043.

[53] G. K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove: IVP, 2008), 214.

[54] E..g., L.A.E. 21:6; Apoc. Mos. 21:5-6.

[55] Sanday, William, and Headlam, Arthur C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 85.

[56] Moo, Romans, 227.

[57] E.g., John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (vol. 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 114.

[58] This is similar to Cranfield, Romans, 205.

[59] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 180.

[60] Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 18-27.

[61] Ibid., 29-52.

[62] William J Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 36.

[63] Fits better with the “manifestation” and “demonstration” language in the passage than does “planned.” See also the papyri uses noted in Moulton, J. H., and Milligan, G., Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 554.

[64] E.g., ESV, NASB. Cf. 1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10 for the related noun.

[65] E.g., NIV.

[66] Morris, Apostolic Preaching, 165.

[67] “ἱλάσκομαι,”H. G. Link, C. Brown, NIDNTT 3:148-166.

[68] Though without the pagan notions here.

[69] Cf. 5:9, where justification by Jesus’ blood and salvation from wrath are connected.

[70] E.g., Murray, Romans, 117.

[71] Taking ἐν instrumentally.

[72] Morris, Apostolic Preaching, 112-128.

[73] Including τῆς has support from p^40vid, B, C³, D², Ψ, 33, M. Excluding τῆς has support from א, C*, D*, F, G, 029^vid, 365, 1505, 1506, 1739, 1881 al. Metzger judges that “the omission of the clause in A and 2127 must be accidental”(A Textual Commentary, 449).

[74] John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians (eds., Torrance, David W., and Torrance, Thomas F; trans. Ross Mackenzie; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 76.

[75] Ibid., 76.

[76] C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 54.

[77] The word is a NT hapax. Murray notes wisely: “The best commentary on the passage is St. Paul’s own language in Acts 17:30, where the term ὑπεριδὼν expresses the idea exactly (cf. 14:16)”(Romans, 119).

[78] Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 168.

[79] Adverbial use of “καὶ,” BDAG, 495.

[80] John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 142.

[81] E.g., Wright, Romans, 473.

[82] Piper, The Justification of God, 147.