Romans 3:21-26: The Righteousness of God and the Faith of Jesus

Introduction The nature of the gospel is probably the most important concern for the Christian church. The central pillar of all Christian communities is that Gods saving purposes are summed up the person of Jesus. What this means however, is not widely agreed upon. The book of Romans has been a central item of sacred literature that is heavily relied upon for an explanation of what the Gospel means for Christianity. Of course, the meaning of Romans is not widely agreed upon either. Recently, the debate over the nature of Romans has intensified and many traditional interpretations are being challenged. It is the purpose of this paper to address one of these disputed texts with exegesis and attempt to relate the argument to the nature of the Gospel and the preaching of the New Testament church. This paper will argue that the Gods righteousness reveled in the person of Jesus is at the center of the Gospel, and refers to Gods faithfulness expressed through the faithfulness of Jesus for the world, rather than to justification, which is the result of believing in that revelation.

Bridging the Gap between righteousness of God in Romans 3:5 and 3:21 The first step in the argument is to establish the relationship between Romans 3:1-5, 20 and Romans 3:21-26. There are two at least two significant ways in which the two passages are related that have a bearing on the exegesis of Rom. 3:21. First, the relationship between the two passages is clearly established by the use of the phrase righteousness of God

( ) which appears in both Romans 3:5 and Romans 3:21 ( ). Furthermore, both occurrences are concerned with how God addresses the universal sinfulness of man but from different perspectives, hence the that marks the transition between the two passages in 3:21. The contextual relationship is the second point which needs to be addressed. This is relevant to the exegesis of 3:21-22 because the latter usage derives its meaning from the former. Both passages are written against the background of human sin and Gods judgment. However, the first passage in which we find the phrase righteousness of God is concerned with Gods judgment against the world while the second passage discusses how God justifies guilty humanity and still remains righteous. The judgment theme itself is a part of the larger passage, Romans 1:18-3:20, which articulates the fundamental sinfulness of the pagan world and

Israels failure to live up to their end of the covenant.1 Having clearly indicted Israel (Rom. 2:17-24), in Romans 3:1-3 Paul questions whether or not Israels failure (Rom. 2:17-24) will nullify the faithfulness of God ( (3:3) to which he answers (Not a chance!) by pointing to Gods judgment against sin as a demonstration of His unfailing righteousness (3:5). Thus Gods righteousness in 3:5 is referring to Gods own character of faithfulness. The passages of 3:21-26 builds on this by reconciling how God can still be righteous and at the same time bring both Jews and Gentiles into covenant with Himself and begins with Gods righteousness being revealed in another way. Thus, the literary context suggests that the righteousness of God in 3:21 is used in the same way that it is used in 3:5, that is, as a possessive genitive rather than a genitive of source. This argument will be explored in more detail below. A Closer look at the Righteousness of God in Romans 3:21-26 Gods righteousness is clearly the theme of Romans 3:21-26, being referenced five times in five verses.2Having made an introductory case above for reading Gods righteousness in both 3:5 and 3:21 in a possessive sense, the argument will now focus on how the phrase and its equivalents are used within the
1 2

Various Authors 3:21, 22, 25, 26(twice here).

main passage itself. This will strengthen the argument by showing the consistency the reading provides for using the root in reference to God. Pauls dense statement in 3:21-22 that the righteousness of God has been manifestedthrough the faith of Jesus for all the believers is expanded in 3:24b-26: Whom (Jesus) God put forward as a mercy seat with his blood through faithfulness for a manifestation of His righteousness, because God, in his forbearance, looked pass the sins previously committed, in order to manifest His righteousness at the present time, so that he might be righteous and the one who justifies the one by the faith of Jesus. The occurrence of the same three items of thought in both 3:2122 and 3:25-26 justify reading the latter as a re-explanation. The three items are a) the righteousness of God b) the faith of Jesus and c) the justification of believers. We will cover the faith of Jesus in a later section, but noticing the parallel line of thought enforces the position that 3:21-22 should take a possessive reading of Gods righteousness. The key idea that links the two sections usage of Gods righteousness is the words "manifest" and "demonstrate". When placed side by side the same line of thought is clearly apparent:

3:21-22

a) But now the righteousness of God has been

manifestedb) through the faith of Jesus 3:25 b)Whom (Jesus) God put forward as a mercy seat

with his blood a) for a manifestation of His righteousness

The issue in question here is primarily concerned with the character of God in relationship to the covenant, and specifically to the law. This is true for the whole of 3:21-26, not simply the latter portion (25-26)3. Thus, the main thrust of the argument is not simply to explain how God justifies believers, but how He can be righteous and at the same time justify believers (26), which builds on and makes sense of the phrase because God, in his forbearance, looked pass the sins previously committed This point becomes clearer when one recognizes that this argument is rooted in the larger context of Romans 1:18-3:20, where Paul argues for a central place of the law in Gods eschatological judgment (2:13; 3:19-20) and for the universal sinfulness of humanity (3:9-18), who because of sin, are liable to condemnation in the judgment (2:8-9, although written from post-Messiah perspective). So, when Paul speaks of God passing over sins rather than inflicting wrath he argues an

explanation of how He can do that and still be righteous( ). His answer is, of course, Jesus as the mercy seat with his blood on it ( ),
4

a designation for the cross

and, as will be argued later, the parallel thought for the faith of Jesus5 in Romans 3:22. Thus, Romans 3:21 contrast the demonstration of Gods righteousness in judgment with the demonstration of His righteousness in the atonement (i.e. , 3:21). In the former he is righteous in inflicting wrath because he judges on the basis of law. In the latter his righteousness is manifested in Jesus substitutionary death, thus allowing God to be faithful to the demands of the law and at the same time bring both Jews and Gentiles into covenant with himself. For these reasons, Gods righteousness in 3:21-22 should be read as a reference to his own faithful character, in reference to his saving purposes for the world, revealed, as we will now see, through the faithfulness of Jesus. Despite these connections many interpreters do not read the righteousness of God in Romans 3:21 as a possessive but as

This translation has been suggested by Choi who argues that it 1) allows for the word to be translated as mercy seat, which many scholars already believe it is referring to and 2) maintains the Jewish theme evident throughout the larger argument of the epistle. 5 I will argue later for the faithfulness of Jesus as the appropriate reading.

a genitive of source.6 Thus, for them the idea communicated in 21-22 is that God provides righteousness, that is, a righteous status before on the basis of faith alone. The argument however, is based on the general notion argued throughout the letter, that man cannot attain to righteousness, rather than the strong unity of usage explicitly established by Paul himself.7 The issue however, can be simply solved by recognition of how Paul uses the phrase in 3:5, which is clearly possessive.

The faithfulness of Jesus: The Agent of Gods saving Purposes The debate about the meaning of the righteousness of God inevitably leads to the question of , the two being related both theologically and grammatically. The two basic options for translation are 1) faith in Jesus and 2) faith of Jesus. The second option can be interpreted to refer to either Jesus own faith, that is, his believe in God8, or to his faithfulness, that is, his commitment to the saving purposes of God for the sake of humanity. The first comes from reading

Martin, Luther. Romans (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976), 76. Hereafter, Luther C.E.B. Cranfield. Romans: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), 69. Hereafter, Cranfield. Barclay clearly implies it, William, Barclay. The Letter to the Romans (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1997), 56-59. Hereafter, Barclay. George Arthur, Buttrick et. Al. The Interpreters Bible: Acts, Romans (New York: Albingden Press, 1954), 430. Hereafter, Interpreters. 7 Barclay, 57. For an argument on the basis of Romans 1:16-17 see Cranfield, 20-22. 8 Wright, 470

the phrase as an objective genitive, the second as a subjective genitive9. The phrase itself modifies the verb with the word connoting means. Thus, , whatever it refers to, is the means by which Gods righteousness has been revealed. The position being argued in this paper is that the genitive fits best in the over-all context and the immediate passage when translated as a subjective genitive. The first argument for this position is the perfect tense of . Because the tense refers to an event accomplished in the past that has consequently ushered in a new state of things10, taking the genitive as a reference to our participation in the disclosure is problematic. However, when one considers the larger perspective offered in the epistle, that God has fulfilled his promises through His prophets through Jesus, the descendent of David(Rom.1:1-5), reading as a reference to Jesus own faith/faithfulness makes much better sense of .11 Furthermore, the very

meaning of the word communicates more than just display, but

Or possessive. J.D.G, Dunn. Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 165. Hereafter, Dunn. 11 Both 1:1-7 and 3:21-26 end with a reference to those who will come into covenant with God through the Christ event, thus uniting the two in context and theology. Jesus atoning death was central to His becoming King.
10

revelation or disclosure12 as in 1:16 and therefor is connoting the unveiling of God through a historical event.13 Secondly, like , is not a unique construction. It is used twice within 3:21-26 and a close parallel is used in 4:16. The grammatical construction of the third usage sheds light on the first two. The last two phrases are much closer in construction than the first but all three use the word , and have the proper name acting as the modifier in the genitive. The last two function substantively, and use the participle : Rom 3:22: Rom 3:26 Rom 4:16

The most literal translation of

[] is

faith of Jesus Christ as opposed to faith in ( ) such as in Gal. 2:16. However, the alternative position reads the genitive here as an objective, claiming that it does not make sense for Paul to speak of the faith of Jesus because, as
12

Fredrick William, Danker. The Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1048. Hereafter, Danker. 13 N.T., Wright. The New Interpreters Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 470. Hereafter, Wright.

Fitzmyer argues for example, it runs counter to the main thrust of Pauls theology14. Exactly what this theology is is not stated however.15 Despite this claim and others16, the actual language in the over-all argument of Romans does seem to suggest a subjective/possessive reading. The genitive in 4:16 clearly denotes subjective/possessive and is used in a very similar context as 3:26. The latter speaks of Gods covenant promise being granted, not only to those of the law, i.e. Jews, but also to the one who is of Abrahams faith, i.e. Gentiles. The former (3:26) speaks of the one who is justified on the basis of Jesus faithful act, a reference to both Jews and Gentiles. Thus, reading 3:26 alongside of 3:21 (which the context and argument permits us to do) we can make a case that the genitive in 3:2122 is also subjective/possessive. Also, in Romans 3:3, Paul

speaks of , which refers neither to faith in God, nor to Gods faith as such, but to His faithfulness. Translating "" as faithfulness is 3:21 as well is to be preferred in my opinion. This would make clearer the connection that already exists in the text between and Jesus atoning death in 3:25. The objective reading is
14 15

Fitzmyer, 343-344 Ibid. 16 Dunn, 166-167. Dunn argues that Paul does not draw attention to the faithfulness of Jesus in some of his most crucial arguments in Romans, citing romans 4 as an example. However, Paul does reference the atoning action of Christ (4:23-25, 5:15-19, 8:3-4). It is true he does not use the same expression, but when one considers what Paul considered the faithfulness of Christ to be, it is not difficult to see that it stands at the center of all his major arguments.

possible, but when one considers the actual grammar in light of similar usage in the rest of the epistle it seems to suggest a subjective/possessive reading. Although this alone doesnt settle the issue taken together with the previously established points it does provide a challenge to those who Thirdly, the fact that 3:25-26 is a re-explanation of 3:2123 strongly suggest that the phrase [] and are conveying the same concept. This means that the faith of Jesus conveys His atoning work for the sake of humanity, the basis of justification and the covenant blessing for the people of God. Propose the traditional reading. Fourthly and finally, the faith in Jesus translation is based on the assumption that righteousness of God is a genitive of source. This is related to the first argument in that it builds on the grammatical function of . Because righteousness of God is typically seen as a righteousness which comes from God, then next logical step is to translate the as faith in because the focus is on the action of Justification. However, the subjective reading does not do away with or minimize justification, but allows it to stand as the basis for Justification rather than the event itself. In other words, justification is the result of believing in

, hence the next phrase (for all the believers). Gospel and Power: Implication for the Preaching of the Church Central to this debate is what lies at the heart of the Gospel. Is the message of the gospel primarily concerned with justification by faith? My suggestion is this although justification is hugely important; it is not one and the same as the gospel, but the result of believing in the gospel. Furthermore, sanctification should not be equated with the gospel either. The gospel is the good news of God fulfilling his promises to the fathers17, the embodiment of his covenant faithfulness in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, to preach the gospel, is to preach the story about Jesus, his life, death and resurrection, not as events detached from the rest of salvation history, but as the fulcrum of Gods saving purposes for the world, the mystery of God unveiled in the Messiah. The power of the gospel is found in the revelation of Gods righteousness. This means that the power of the gospel is found in focusing upon God and His faithfulness. Rather than preaching soteriological systems as a means of drawing souls into the fold of God, we should preach the Story, the message of the new creation breaking into the present through the person of Jesus.
17

Acts 13

This will provide the spiritual sap to our messages that is so needed to reach-out effectively to society in the present state of the world.