OVERVIEW
Paul now offers his definition of the gospel and a statement concerning the basis of the gospel in the saving activity of God. These initial thesis sentences are foundational and provide themes that will occupy Paul for the remainder of the letter.
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
COMMENTARY
16 Having confessed his fervent desire to preach the gospel at Rome, Paul goes on to give the reason for his zeal to preach the gospel. He has no sense of reserve about his mission. “I am not ashamed” is rhetorical understatement (litotes) pointing to Paul’s confidence in the gospel. He does not in any way consider his task unworthy or one that will prove to be illusory. He is ready to challenge the philosophies and religions in Rome that vie for attention, because he knows, on the basis of his experience in the East, that God’s power is at work in the proclamation of the good news and that it is able to transform lives. The gospel is nothing less that “the power of God” (cf. 1:1), foretold in the prophets (v.2), concerning the Son of God, Jesus Christ (v.3). “Power” here refers to the intrinsic efficacy of the gospel. It offers something desperately needed by humanity and not to be found anywhere else—a “righteousness from God” (v.17).
The linkage between power and salvation is striking. Judaism was prone to think of the law as power, but this is not affirmed in Scripture. As for salvation, the OT is clear in its teaching that, whether it is conceived of physically as deliverance (Ex 14:13) or spiritually (Ps 51:12), it comes from the Lord. This is maintained in the NT as well and is affirmed in Paul’s statement that the gospel is “the power of God” for salvation. So when the apostle permits himself to say that he himself saves some (1Co 9:22), it is only in the sense that he is Christ’s representative who is able to proclaim the way of salvation to others.
“Salvation” (sōtēria, GK 5401) is a broad concept. It includes the forgiveness of sins but involves much more, because its basic meaning is “soundness” or “wholeness.” It promises the restoration of all that sin has marred or destroyed. It is the general term that unites in itself the particular aspects of truth suggested by “justification,” “reconciliation,” “sanctification,” and “redemption.” But its efficacy depends on a person’s willingness to receive the message. Salvation is available to “everyone who believes.” That is, salvation is by “faith.” (In Greek, “believe” [pisteuō, GK 4409] and “faith” [pistis, GK 4411] are from the same root.) This sweeping declaration concerning “everyone who believes” ties in with the previous statement (concerning Greeks and non-Greeks) and now includes both the Jew and the Gentile. The Jew receives “first” mention. This does not mean that every Jew must be evangelized before the gospel can be presented to Gentiles; it does mean that the gospel is in the first instance the fulfillment of the hope of Israel (cf. Ac 28: 20) and must therefore be proclaimed first to the Jews. In this era of fulfillment, just as Jesus came first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 15:24; 10:6), so now the gospel concerning Jesus must first go to the Jews. Thus to them was given the first opportunity to receive him, both during his ministry (Jn 1:11) and in the Christian era (Ac 1:8; 3:26). Paul himself followed this pattern (13:45–46). The theological priority of Israel rests on the reality of God’s covenantal faithfulness. The Gentiles are latecomers (Eph 2:11–13) and, as Paul will declare later on, foreign branches grafted into the olive tree (Ro 11:17).
17 Next the apostle passes to an explanation of his statement that the gospel means salvation for those who receive it by faith. The reason given is that this salvation discloses (lit.) “the righteousness of God” (dikaiosynē [GK 1466] theou). Paul depends on the OT for this language (Isa 46:12–13; cf. 61:10). Note how in the verses just mentioned “righteousness” and “salvation” are nearly equivalent terms. “In the Hebrew tradition, early and late, God’s righteousness is the way he acts, and notably the way he acts in maintaining the covenant” (Ziesler, 186). Such an idea was quite foreign to Greek thought. Clearly, the character of God is involved in the sense that what he does and provides must be in keeping with his nature (cf. Ro 3:26). But just as clearly, the expression must go beyond this to include the activity of God whereby he extends salvation to his people. The gospel would not be the good news if it simply disclosed the righteousness of God understood as an abstract description of God’s character. Such a message would scarcely demand faith. In view of humanity’s sinful state, it could only create fear. But salvation as God provides it and offers it is fully in keeping with his righteous character. God saves because he is faithful to his covenantal promises.
“The righteousness of God” thus refers to God’s saving activity. The significance of this may be seen by looking at Paul’s statement in Philippians 3:9, where he contrasts his pre-Christian state, in which he had a righteousness based on his activity of observing the law, with his present situation, in which he rests on a righteousness which is of (from) God, based on faith. God’s righteousness in the present context, while it has an implied reference to his character, stresses divine provision. What this entails will be unfolded in due course. In earlier letters Paul had already taught that Christ was the medium for the bringing of righteousness from God to sinful humanity (1Co 1:30; 2Co 5:21).
Somewhat baffling is the twofold reference to faith: “from faith to faith” (ek pisteōs eis pistin; cf. NIV, “by faith from first to last”). Are these two prepositional phrases to be joined to the verb “revealed,” or should they be taken with God’s righteousness as indicating how that righteousness is to be received? The position in the sentence may be said to favor the former alternative, but the resultant sense is obscure. Furthermore, when Paul restates the theme of his letter (3:21–22) in such a way as to take account of the intervening material, he mentions God’s righteousness as manifested (corresponding to “revealed” in 1:17), then repeats the word “righteousness” and characterizes it as a righteousness “through faith” (dia pisteōs) and for all who believe. These phrases are probably to be understood as a recapitulation of what has been said in 1:17.
Assuming, then, that we are to connect the statement about faith with God’s righteousness, we must still inquire into the distinctives of the two phrases involving faith. Among the numerous suggestions are these: “from the faith of the preacher to the faith of the hearer”; “from OT faith to NT faith” (based on the quotation immediately following); “entirely from faith”; and “from faithfulness [God’s] to faith [human],” as Barth, 41, interprets it. These various renderings understand “from” as a point of departure. This would be entirely legitimate if the preposition was apo, but it is ek, which Paul uses repeatedly with faith when indicating the basis on which God grants justification (3:26; 5:1; Gal 2:16) or righteousness (Ro 9:30; 10:6)—a fact that incidentally shows how readily the term “righteousness” can take on the force of “justification.” The really troublesome element here is the second phrase, “to [eis] faith.” Perhaps what it conveys is the necessity of issuing a reminder to the believer that justifying faith is only the beginning of Christian life. The same attitude of faith must govern believers in their continuing experience as children of God.
Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 is of very great importance. Bruce, 78, rightly says that it “may be called the ‘text’ of this Epistle; what follows is in large measure an exposition of the prophet’s words.” The order of the Greek words presents some ambiguity. Are we to understand this text as saying, “The righteous will live by faith,” or, “The one who is just by means of faith shall live”? That is, do the words “by faith” (ek pisteōs), which occur in the Greek in the middle of the sentence, modify the preceding words (“the righteous,” ho dikaios, GK 1465) or do they modify the verb that follows (“will live,” zēsetai, GK 2409)? If it is the former, the meaning amounts to, “a person who is righteous by faith—that person will live.” If the latter, the meaning amounts to, “a righteous person—that person will live in accordance with his or her faith [= will live faithfully].” Since the apostle quotes the same passage in Galatians 3:11 to show that one is not justified by law but rather by faith, it is probable that he intends the reference in the same way here. It would also be consonant with the argument that Paul is about to pursue. Since the quotation is used in Romans at the beginning of his argument, where he confronts the problem of the sinner’s getting right with God, the wording that fits most closely the movement of thought should be chosen. At this point Paul is not concerned with how the justified person lives but how the sinner can be considered just (“righteous”) in the sight of God, i.e., how the sinner can “live” in the sense of having “salvation.” Righteousness as a matter of ethical conduct is reserved for later treatment (chs. 6–8). Ethical righteousness depends on right relation to God, so the latter merits priority of treatment.
Paul presents a unique form of Habakkuk 2:4, omitting the personal pronouns found both in the Hebrew (= “his” faith[-fulness]) and LXX (= “my” [i.e., kyrios faith[-fulness]). Since the word pistis (GK 4411) can mean either “faith” or “faithfulness,” the ambiguity of the text is increased. Paul’s understanding of the text is closer to the form represented in the LXX. (For a different understanding of the text, see Heb 10:37.) Does Paul’s form of the text indicate his knowledge of the Hebrew and LXX forms and a desire to steer between the two? We know that he would endorse the truth that the Christian is not only justified by faith but is also expected to live by faith in order to please God. Without question, such an emphasis has its place. But only when the initial problem of the sinner’s plight has been met does Paul turn to ethical paranaesis. The liberty involved in using a quotation in a way somewhat different from its original setting is made possible by a Jewish hermeneutic governed by a prior conviction of fulfillment (pesher, “this is that”). This practice was also common in Judaism before Paul’s time, as we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran community, for example, applied Habakkuk 2:4 to their own situation by an interpretative elaboration. “Its interpretation concerns all observing the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will free from punishment on account of their deeds and of their loyalty to the Teacher of Righteousness” (1QpHab 8.1). Here the passage is made to do service on behalf of the special type of piety, grounded in the study of the Torah, which distinguished the Qumran community.
NOTES
17 On the righteousness of God, see Ernst Käsemann, “The Righteousness of God in Romans,” in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 168–82; S. K. Williams, “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” JBL 99 (1980): 241–90.
Of the various efforts to handle “from faith to faith,” Barth’s is the most intriguing, being based on the double meaning of πίστις, pistis, as “faithfulness” and “faith.” It is a very plausible progression to move from God’s prior faithfulness to human faith as the appropriate response. The LXX can be translated, “The just shall live by my faithfulness,” or, “The just shall live by faith in me” (cf. the construction in Ro 3:26). Both statements are true and relate to each other as two sides of the same coin. It is likely that Paul is reaching beyond faithfulness to what underlies it, namely, faith. He uses πίστις, pistis, in Romans 3:3 when writing of God’s faithfulness, but when he states his theme, the argument requires him to insist on the more fundamental concept of faith. The very fact that in the previous verse (v.16) he has posited faith (in its verbal form) as the necessary condition for receiving salvation creates a presumption that faith in v.17 (second and third occurrences) will have the same connotation.
On the use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17, see D. M. Smith, “Ho de dikaios ek pisteōs zēsetai,” in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, ed. B. L. Daniels and M. J. Suggs (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967), 13–25; D. S. Dockery, “The Use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17: Some Hermeneutical and Theological Considerations,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22 (1987): 24–36.