Romans - Lesson 6

Class Discussion on Romans 1:16-17

Looking back over the verses now, any questions? Comments? 

These have been some dense verses with a lot of theology and significant words that Paul is deliberately throwing out to the Romans to signal a lot of the things that he is going to be talking about in more detail as the letter moves along.

A. The word Righteousness as an attribute, status, and act

Comment:
I noticed when you looked at the righteousness of God, you like all three of those in varying contexts (referring to slide titled The “Righteousness of God”

There is some element of all three; and certainly Paul uses all of three of them in places. For instance, we will see in Romans 3:25-26, the status is involved, in other words, God’s act of “putting people in the right,” means that we have the status of righteousness as a result. For instance, in Romans 4, Paul will talk about Abraham achieving righteousness by faith and there this is pretty clearly the status idea.

B. The Righteousness of God

Comment:
In 2 Corinthians 5:21, that “righteousness” mentioned there, what do you do with that?

That is a tough one, a very tough verse.  In 2 Corinthians 5:21, the phrase “righteousness of God” has been very much debated recently. It is the one place that Paul uses this same phrase, outside of Romans. This is a very distinct phrase here. Obviously, Paul uses the language of “righteousness” a lot of times, he uses the language “righteousness from God” at times. We’re talking about this one distinct phrase, “the righteousness of God.”  

In 2nd Corinthians 5:21,” … that we might become the righteousness of God in Him,” there I tend to think that the idea of status is probably to the fore.  It might still have the act of putting us in the right, but the emphasis is more on status; that we might become people who have a righteous status from God in Christ.

I think there is text that talks about what some call interchange in Christ. In our union with Christ, our sin is taken by Christ, and His righteousness is given to us. There is this exchange that goes both ways when we come to faith and are joined to Christ. Our sin is attributed to Him, and His righteousness is attributed to us. I think that is probably what 2 Corinthians 5:21 is talking about.

C. Imputation

Comment:
What do you think of N.T. Wright when he says that the passage refers to the apostles, that “we the apostles” … I don’t know anyone that agrees with Wright on that one.

That passage in 2 Corinthians 5:21 has become involved in recent debates about justification, particularly in terms of the traditional idea of imputation. Wright is one of those, as you’ve probably read in his book, that doesn’t like that idea. He thinks there is something else going on in 2 Corinthians 5.  Whether imputation is there or not, let’s put that to the side for the moment, Wright’s interpretation pretty clearly isn’t right, and he has been followed by almost nobody in his peculiar way of trying to read that text. 

D. Righteousness, Just, and Justified 

Comment:
To use words that I understand, is the second bullet point saying imputedrighteousness and the third saying imparted righteousness?

No, those would not be the right categories to use here.  Both the second and the third are talking strictly about a forensic idea, in other words, it is the realm of the law court, the realm of God as judge that we are in when we use language of righteousness, just, and justified.

The third puts the emphasis more on the act by which God puts us right, in the forensic sense. The second, the status we have in having been put right by God.  Think about the act as the activity resulting in a status. My argument is that this phrase of Paul here in 1:17 and 3:21-22, focuses on that act of putting us right. There are implications for the status, but the focus in on the activity of God, which I think is more in keeping with the way the Old Testament is using the phrase.

E. “Our faith” versus “Christ’s Faith or Faithfulness”

Comment:
In Romans 1:16-17, looking at it from your PowerPoint, in verse 16 it says, “first to the Jew and then to the Gentile.” Then, in verse 17 it says, “it is by faith from first to last.”   Do you think this is a parallel there?  “The first” being the Jew, “the last” being the Gentile?  Or could that be an eschatological meaning of endurance, from the start of your faith to the end?

I think it is more the latter, myself. This has been a phrase that has received a lot of attention recently.  Some of you will know that one of the important currents of interpretation that I talked about in the commentary has gained a lot of steam since then.  N.T. Wright may have talked about this in his book on justification so you may have encountered it there. 

The current in certain academic circles is to think that the word “faith” in Paul often refers to Christ’s faith or faithfulness, not our faith as humans. The NET Bible translates the phrase that way - “the faithfulness of Christ” - and this is largely due to the influence of Dan Wallace, who has written an important Greek syntax and is an important Greek Scholar. He argues pretty strongly that is what the phrase must mean. The NET Bible has that rendering, “the faithfulness of Christ” in a number of places. The Common English Bible published about a year ago, is receiving a lot publicity these days and it does the same thing; it is reflecting that current of interpretation.

Here, interestingly, the Greek has a phrase that you can translate “from faith to faith,” and there is a fairly strong current opinion that says this means “from Christ’s faithfulness to our faith in response.” We will see that this might be echoed in Romans 3:21-22 as some argue. I don’t think that is the right way to go, but that is the more popular current interpretation that I might refer to in the commentary, just a couple of people were arguing back then, but it has become more popular since then.

Comment:
I guess I saw “first to last” more simplistically, where Paul was saying “Look, even the Jews back in Abraham’s day were being saved by faith, just like we are today.”

Dr. Moo:
Yes, and that could well be what it intends here also.  What has to be said is that “from first to last” is the NIV’s attempt to get the idea of the phrase. If you just do a more standard, straight forward rendering of the Greek, it would be “from faith to faith.”

F. The Saved will Live Their Lives by Faith

Comment:
The reason I ask this is because in Habakkuk it says, “the righteous shall live by faith,” and if you start living by faith, then you get your justification (couldn’t understand the rest of the comment – sorry)

Yes. It gets complicated here; clearly Habakkuk is not talking about how a person gets saved. Habakkuk is saying people who are righteous, people in a right relationship with God will live out their lives by faith. When they see God doing these strange things, using the Chaldeans to judge his people, the Jews, they will continue to have faith that God is doing the right thing, that He is indeed the God who is the Lord of history, and so on.

G. Faith Maintains Our Relationship With God:

Comment:
That could be interpreted in the strength of relationships, that it begins with faith, it continues in faith, and concludes in faith. And with it, there is the thread of obedience that works through (fades out)

I agree. I tend to think that the NIV has basically got the right interpretation of this phrase here; it is a righteousness that is by faith from first to last. We never progress from faith to something else. It is always faith that maintains this relationship with God that gives us access to His righteousness.