Romans 1:17

Vv. 17. “ For therein is the righteousness of God revealed by faith for faith: as it is written, But the just shall live by faith. ”

The first part of this verse is a repetition of Romans 1:16, in more precise language. Paul explains how this power unto salvation, which should save the believer, acts: it justifies him. Such is the fundamental idea of the Epistle.

The term righteousness of God cannot here mean, as it sometimes does, for example, Romans 3:5; Romans 3:25, an attribute of God, whether His perfect moral purity, or His retributive justice. Before the gospel this perfection was already distinctly revealed by the law; and the prophetic words which Paul immediately quotes: “ The just shall live by faith,” prove that in his view this justice of God is a condition of man, not a divine attribute.

In what does this state consist? The term δικαιοσύνη, justice, strictly designates the moral position of a man who has fully met all his obligations (comp. Romans 6:13; Romans 6:16; Ephesians 5:9; Matthew 5:17, etc.). Only here the complement: of God, and the expression: is revealed by the gospel, lead us to give the term a more particular sense: the relation to God in which a man would naturally be placed by his righteousness, if he were righteous, and which God bestows on him of grace on account of his faith. Two explanations of this notion meet us. They are well stated by Calvin: “Some think that righteousness consists not merely in the free pardon of sins, but partly also in the grace of regeneration. ” “For my part,” he adds, “I take the meaning to be that we are restored to life, because God freely reconciles us to Himself.” On the one hand, therefore, an inward regeneration on the ground of which God pardons; on the other, a free reconciliation on the ground of which God regenerates. In the former case: God acting first as Spirit to deposit in the soul the germ of the new life (to render man effectually just, at least virtually), and afterwards as judge to pardon; in the latter, God acting first as judge to pardon (to declare man just), and afterwards as Spirit to quicken and sanctify.

The first of these views is that of the Catholic Church, formulated by the Council of Trent, and professed by a number of Protestant theologians (among the earlier, Osiander; Beck, in our day). It is the point of view defended by Reuss and Sabatier. The latter defines justification: “the creation of spiritual life.” The second notion is that round which the Protestant churches in general have rallied. It was the soul of Luther's religious life; and it is still the centre of doctrinal teaching in the church which claims the name of this Reformer. We have not here to treat the subject from a dogmatical or moral point of view. We ask ourselves this one thing: Which of the two views was the apostle's, and best explains his words?

In our verse the verb reveals itself, or is revealed, applies more naturally to a righteousness which is offered, and which God attributes to man in consequence of a declaration, than to a righteousness which is communicated internally by the gift of the Spirit. The instrument of appropriation constantly insisted on by the apostle, faith, also corresponds better to the acceptance of a promise than to the acceptance of a real communication. The contrast between the two evidently parallel phrases: “ The righteousness of God is revealed,” Romans 1:17, and: “ The wrath of God is revealed,” Romans 1:18, leads us equally to regard the righteousness of God as a state of things which He founds in His capacity of judge, rather than a new life conveyed by His Spirit. The opposite of the new life is not the wrath of the judge, but the sin of man.

In Romans 4:3, Paul justifies his doctrine of the righteousness of God by the words of Moses: “Now Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness ” (counted as the equivalent of a righteous and irreproachable life). The idea of counting or imputing applies better to a sentence which ascribes than to an act of real communication.

In the same chapter, Romans 1:7-8, the notion of the righteousness of God is explained by the terms pardon and non-imputation of sin. There is evidently no question there of positive communication, of a gift of spiritual life.

In chap. Romans 5:9-10, Paul contrasts with justification by the blood of Christ and with reconciliation by His death, as the foundation of salvation, deliverance from wrath (in the day of judgment), by the communication of His life, as the consummation of salvation. Unless we are to convert the copestone into the basis, we must put justification by the blood first, and the communication of life by the Spirit second; the one, as the condition of entrance into the state of salvation here below; the other, as the condition of entrance into the state of glory above.

The very structure of the Epistle to the Romans forbids us to entertain a doubt as to the apostle's view. If the communication of spiritual life were, in his judgment, the condition of pardon, he must have begun his Epistle with chaps. 6-8, which treat of the destruction of sin and of the gift of the new life, and not with the long passage, Romans 1:18 to Romans 5:21, which refers wholly to the removal of condemnation, and to the conditions, objective and subjective, of reconciliation.

Finally, it is contrary to the fundamental principle of Paul's gospel, entire freeness of salvation, to put regeneration in any degree whatever as the basis of reconciliation and pardon. It is to make the effect the cause, and the cause the effect. According to St. Paul, God does not declare man righteous after having made him righteous; He does not make him righteous till He has first declared him righteous. The whole Epistle to the Romans excludes the first of these two principles (which is no other than the Judaizing principle ever throwing man back on himself), and goes to establish the second (the evangelical principle which detaches man radically from himself and throws him on God). See on the transition from chap. 5 to chap. 6

We add here, as a necessary supplement, a study on the meaning of the word δικαιοῦν, to justify.

Excursus on the use of the word δικαιοῦν, to justify.

Excursus on the use of the word δικαιοῦν, to justify.

The question is this: Are we to understand the word δικαιοῦν, to justify, in the sense of making just or declaring just?

Verbs in οω have sometimes the meaning of making: δηλόω, to make clear; δουλόω, to make a slave; τυφλόω, to make blind. But this use of the termination οω does not form the rule; this is seen in the verbs ζημιόω, to punish; μισθόω, to hire; λουτρόω, to bathe; μαστιγόω, to scourge.

As to δικαιόω, there is not an example in the whole of classic literature where it signifies: to make just. With accusative of things it signifies: to think right. The following are examples: Thucyd. 2:6 : “ Thinking it right (δικαιοῦντες) to return to the Lacedemonians what these had done them.” 4:26: “He will not form a just idea of the thing (οὐκ ὀρθῶς δικαιώσει).” Herod. 1.133: “ They think it good (δικαιεῦσι) to load the table.” Justin, Cohort. ad Gentil. (2:46, ed. Otto): “When he thought good (ἐδικαἱωσε) to bring the Jews out of Egypt.” Finally, in ecclesiastical language: “It has been found good (δεδικαίωται) by the holy Council.”

With accusative of persons this verb signifies: to treat justly, and most frequently sensu malo, to condemn, punish. Aristotle, in Nicom. Romans 5:9, contrasts ἀδικεῖσθαι, to be treated unjustly, with δικαιοῦσθαι, to be treated according to justice. Eschylus, Agam. 391-393, says of Paris, that he has no right to complain if he is judged unfavorably (δικαίωθείς); let him reap what is his due. Thucyd. 3:40: “You will condemn your own selves (δικαιώσεσθε).” Herod. 1.100: “When any one had committed a crime, Dejoces sent for him and punished him (ἐδικαίευ).” On occasion of the vengeance which Cambyses wreaked on the Egyptian priests, Herodotus says (Romans 3:29): “And the priests were punished (ἐδικαιεῦντο).” So we find in Dion Cassius: δικαιοῦν; and in Elian: δικαιοῦν τῷ θανάτῳ, in the sense of punishing with death.

Thus profane usage is obvious: to think just, or treat justly (most frequently by condemning or punishing); in both cases establishing the right by a sentence, never by communicating justice. Hence it follows that, of the two meanings of the word we are examining, that which comes nearest classical usage is undoubtedly to declare, and not to make just.

But the meaning of the verb δικαιοῦν, to justify, in the New Testament, depends less on profane Greek than on the use of the Old Testament, both in the original Hebrew and in the version of the LXX. This, therefore, is what we have, above all, to examine. To the term justify there correspond in Hebrew the Piel and Hiphil of tsadak, to be just. The Piel tsiddek, in the five cases where it is used, signifies not to make just inwardly, but to show or declare just. The Hiphil hits'dik appears twelve times; in eleven cases the meaning to justify judicially is indisputable; for example, Exodus 23:7: “For I will not justify the wicked,” certainly means: I will not declare the wicked just; and not: I will not make him just inwardly; Proverbs 17:15: “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, are abomination to the Lord.” Any other meaning than that of declaring just is absurd. So with the others. In the twelfth passage only, Daniel 12:3, the word may be understood either in the sense of making just, or of presenting as just. (The LXX. translate differently altogether, and without using the word δικαιοῦν.)

It is on this almost uniform meaning of the verb tsadak in the Piel and Hiphil that Paul and the other writers of the New Testament founded their use of the word δικαιοῦν, to justify. For this word δικαιοῦν is that by which the Hebrew word was constantly rendered by the LXX.

The use of the word δικαιοῦν, to justify, in the New Testament, appears chiefly from the following passages:

Romans 2:13: the subject is the last judgment; then, one is not made, but recognized and declared just; 3.4: God is the subject; God is not made, but recognized or declared just by man; Romans 3:20: to be justified before God cannot signify: to be made just by God; the phrase before God implies the judicial sense; Romans 4:2: to be justified by works; this phrase has no meaning except in the judicial sense of the word justify; 1 Corinthians 4:4: Paul is not conscious of any unfaithfulness; but for all that he is not yet justified; a case where it is impossible to apply any other meaning than the judicial. The reader will do well to consult also Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35 (“wisdom [God's] is justified of her children”); Luke 7:29 (the publicans justified God); Matthew 12:37 (“by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned ”); Luke 10:29 (“he, wishing to justify himself ”), Luke 16:15 (“ye are they who justify yourselves ”), Luke 18:14 (“the justified publican”); Acts 13:39 (“to be justified from the things from which they could not have been justified by the law”); James 2:21; James 2:24-25 (“to be justified by works ”).

There is not a single one of these passages where the idea of an inward communication of righteousness would be suitable. In favor of this meaning the words, 1 Corinthians 6:11, have sometimes been quoted. If the passage be carefully examined in its context, Romans 6:1-10, it will clearly appear that it forms no exception to the constant usage of the New Testament, as it has been established by the collective showing of the passages just quoted.

That from a dogmatic point of view this notion of justification should be rejected as too external and forensic, we can understand, though we are convinced that thereby the very sinews of the gospel are destroyed. But that, exegetically speaking, there can possibly be two ways of explaining the apostle's view, is what surprises us.

The notion of the righteousness of God, according to Paul, embraces two bestowals of grace: man treated (1) as if he had never committed any evil; (2) as if he had always accomplished all the good God could expect from him. The sentence of justification which puts man in this privileged state in relation to God is the δικαίωσις, the act of justification. In virtue of this act “man has henceforth,” as Hofmann says, “the righteousness of God for him, and not against him.”

What is the meaning of the genitive Θεοῦ, of God, in the phrase: righteousness of God? Luther's interpretation, maintained by Philippi, is well known: a righteousness valid before God (Romans 3:20; Galatians 3:11). But this meaning of the complement is very forced. Baur makes it a genitive of quality: a righteousness agreeable to the nature of God. Is it not simpler to take it as a genitive of origin: a justice which has God Himself for its author? We are led to this sense also by the parallel expressions: “The righteousness that cometh from God ” (ἡ ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη), Philippians 3:9; “ the righteousness of God ” (ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη) opposed to our own righteousness, Romans 10:3. Of course a righteousness of which God is the author must correspond to His essence (Baur), and be accepted by Him (Luther).

The word ἀποκαλύπτεται, is revealed or reveals itself, denotes the act whereby a thing hitherto veiled now bursts into the light; compare the parallel but different expression, πεφανέρωται, has been manifested, Romans 3:21. The present, is being revealed, is explained here by the regimen in it, ἐν αὐτῷ that is to say, in the gospel. This substantive should still be taken in the active sense which we have given it: the act of evangelical preaching. It is by this proclamation that the righteousness of God is daily revealed to the world.

The expression ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, from faith to faith, has been interpreted very variously. Most frequently it has been thought to signify the idea of the progress which takes place in faith itself, and in this sense it has been translated: from faith on to faith. This progress has been applied by some Fathers (Tert., Origen, Chrysost.) to the transition from faith in the Old Testament to faith as it exists in the New. But there is nothing here to indicate a comparison between the old and new dispensations. The Reformers have taken the progress of faith to be in the heart of the individual believer. His faith, weak at first, grows stronger and stronger. Calvin: Quotidianum in singulis fidelibus progressum notat. So also thought Luther and Melanchthon; Schaff: “Assimilation by faith should be continually renewed.” But the phrase thus understood does not in the least correspond with the verb is revealed; and, what is graver still, this idea is utterly out of place in the context. A notion so special and secondary as that of the progress which takes place in faith is inappropriate in a summary which admits only of the fundamental ideas being indicated. It would even be opposed to the apostle's aim to connect the attainment of righteousness with this objective progress of the believer in faith. It is merely as a curiosity of exposition that we mention the view of those who understand the words thus: by faith in faith that is to say, in the faithfulness of God (Romans 3:3). Paul's real view is certainly this: the righteousness of God is revealed by means of the preaching of the gospel as arising from faith (ἐκ πίστεως), in this sense, that it is nothing else than faith itself reckoned to man as righteousness. The ἐκ, strictly speaking, out of, which we can only render by means of the preposition by, expresses origin. This clause is joined to the verb is revealed by the phrase understood: as being. This righteousness of faith is revealed at the same time as being for faith, εἰς πίστιν. This second clause signifies that the instrument by which each individual must personally appropriate such a righteousness is likewise faith. To make this form of expression clear, we have only to state the opposite one: Our own righteousness is a righteousness of works and for works that is to say, a righteousness arising from works done and revealed with a view to works to be done. Our formula is the direct opposite of that which described legal righteousness. To be exact, we need not say that to faith here is equivalent to: to the believer. Paul is not concerned with the person appropriating, but solely with the instrument of appropriation, and his view in conjoining these two qualifying clauses was simply to say: that in this righteousness faith is everything, absolutely everything; in essence it is faith itself; and each one appropriates it by faith. These two qualifying clauses meet us in a somewhat different form in other passages; Romans 3:22: “The righteousness of God through faith in Christ unto (and upon) all them that believe;” Galatians 3:22: “That the promise by faith of Jesus may be given to them that believe;” Philippians 3:9: “Having the righteousness which is by faith in Christ, the righteousness of God for faith.” We need not, however, paraphrase the words for faith, with some commentators, in the sense: to produce faith. The εἰς for, seems to us to indicate merely the destination. It is a righteousness of faith offered to faith. All it has to do is to take possession of it. Of course we must not make a merit of faith. What gives it its justifying value is its object, without which it would remain a barren aspiration. But the object laid hold of could have no effect on man without the act of apprehension, which is faith.

The apostle is so convinced of the unity which prevails between the old and new covenants, that he cannot assert one of the great truths of the gospel without quoting a passage from the Old Testament in its support. He has just stated the theme of his Epistle; now comes what we may call the text: it is a passage from Habakkuk (Romans 2:4), which had evidently played an important part in his inner life, as it did decisively in the life of Luther. He quotes it also Galatians 3:11 (comp. 10:37). With all that prides itself on its own strength, whether in the case of foreign conquerors or in Israel itself, the prophet contrasts the humble Israelite who puts his confidence in God alone. The former will perish; the latter, who alone is righteous in the eyes of God, shall live. The Hebrew word which we translate by faith, emounah, comes from the verb aman, to be firm; whence in the Hiphil: to rest on, to be confident in. In the Hebrew it is: his faith (emounatho); but the LXX. have translated as if they had found emounathi, my faith (that of God), which might signify either my faithfulness, or faith in me. What the translators thought is of small importance. Paul evidently goes back to the original text, and quotes exactly when he says: “ his faith,” the faith of the believer in his God. In the Hebrew text it is agreed by all that the words by his faith are dependent on the verb shall live, and not on the word the just. But from Theodore Beza onwards, very many commentators think that Paul makes this subordinate clause dependent on the word the just; “ The just by faith shall live.” This meaning really seems to suit the context more exactly, the general idea being that righteousness (not life) comes by faith. This correspondence is, however, only apparent; for Paul's saying, thus understood, would, as Oltramare acutely observes, put in contrast the just by faith, who shall live, and the just by works, who shall not live. But such a thought would be inadmissible in Paul's view. For he holds that, if one should succeed in being righteous by his works, he would certainly live by them (Romans 10:5). We must therefore translate as in the Hebrew: The just shall live by faith; and the meaning is this: “the just shall live by faith” (by which he has been made just). Paul might have said: the sinner shall be saved by faith. But the sinner, in this case, he calls just by anticipation, viewing him in the state of righteousness into which his faith shall bring him. If he lives by his faith, it is obviously because he has been made just by it, since no one is saved except as being just. The word ζήσεται, shall live, embraced in the prophet's view: 1. Deliverance from present evils (those of the Chaldean invasion), and, in the case of posterity, deliverance from evils to come; 2. The possession of divine grace in the enjoyment of the blessings of the Promised Land. These two notions are, of course, spiritualized by Paul. They become: deliverance from perdition and the possession of eternal life. It is the idea of σωτηρία, salvation, Romans 1:16, reproduced. The word shall live will also have its part to play in the didactic exposition which now begins, and which will develop the contents of this text. In fact, to the end of chap. 5 the apostle analyzes the idea of the righteousness of faith; the word shall live serves as a theme to the whole part from chaps. 6-8, and afterwards, for the practical development, chaps. 12-14.

The exposition of the righteousness of faith, which begins in the following verse, comprises three great developments: the description of universal condemnation, Romans 1:18 to Romans 3:20; that of universal justification, Romans 3:21 to Romans 5:11; and, following up this great contrast as its consummation, parallel between Adam and Christ (Romans 1:12-21). The idea of this entire part, i.-v., taken as a whole, is therefore: the demonstration of justification by faith.