Comment

16 οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, “for I am not ashamed of the gospel.” For “shame” as the consequence of being shown to have acted on a false assumption or misplaced confidence, see particularly the Psalms (35:26; 40:14–15; 69:19; 71:13; 119:6; etc.); see also καταισχύνω in 5:5 and 9:33. This usage also fits Jewett’s “Ambassadorial Letter” thesis (15), since it may include the thought of the representative (of “the gospel of God”) not being put to shame in the face of a superior power.

As Barrett has shown, it is likely that some connection between this assertion and the Jesus tradition preserved in Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26 should be recognized (“Not Ashamed”). Paul herein shows awareness of the tradition of Jesus’ teaching and includes it within his own understanding of “the gospel”—the post-Easter interpretation of the “Christ-event” being consciously formulated in continuity with the proclamation of Jesus (see further on 1:1 and 12:14). This also means that Paul quite deliberately makes his own what must have been a shared affirmation among other early Christian communities who expressed their solidarity precisely in terms of their confidence in and loyalty to Jesus (Barrett, “Not Ashamed,” 128). As Michel had already pointed out, this likelihood of a firm connection between 1:16 and the tradition of Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26 confirms that the οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι should be taken in the sense of “confess,” “bear witness” against the older “psychological” interpretation (“Sprachgebrauch”; cf. particularly 2 Tim 1:8, 12). Herold, however, presses hard the overtones of legal procedure in ἐπαισχύνομαι (“it describes a forensic not a psychological process”) to argue that Paul speaks with a view to opponents in Rome (Zorn, chap. 1, esp. 140).

δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν, “for it is the power of God,” is a regular concept in Paul (particularly 1:20; 9:17; 1 Cor 1:18, 24; 2:5; 6:14; 2 Cor 4:7; 6:7; 13:4). By it he clearly has in mind a force that operates with marked effect on people, transforming them—as evident particularly in conversion (1 Cor 2:4–5; 1 Thess 1:5) and resurrection (1:4; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:43; 2 Cor 13:4; Phil 3:10)—and providing a source of energy to sustain that qualitatively different life (1 Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 4:7; 6:7; 12:9; 13:4; Col 1:11, 29; 2 Thess 1:11; see also on 15:13). It was not a matter of blind trust that such a power must be operative whatever the appearances, but rather a matter of actual experience as indicated also by the plural = “miracles,” a visible and marked alteration in a current condition that could not be attributed to human causation (1 Cor 12:10, 28–29; 2 Cor 12:12; Gal 3:5; see also on 15:19). That Paul could be confident that the source of this power was God presumably follows from its context (a consequence of preaching the gospel) and continuing effects (cf. 1 Cor 4:20; 2 Cor 1:8; 6:7; 12:9; 2 Thess 1:11). In contrast to the strongly magic, al overtones which often gathered round the word in nonJewish circles (TDNT 2:288–90, 309; MM), Paul’s emphasis on the power of God as embodied in and mediated through the gospel would have had a marked significance for his readers (cf. 1 Cor 1:18–25). Of the OT passages which speak of the effectiveness of God’s word and which Paul might have had in mind, Ps 107:20 is the most suggestive, particularly in view of its use in the ancient form of the kerygma preserved in Acts 10:36–38. On the power of the word of preaching cf. again 1 Cor 2:4–5 and 1 Thess 1:5; also John 6:63; 15:3; 1 Cor 4:15; James 1:18; 1 Pet 1:23. See also on 1:20; 4:21; and 8:38.

εἰς σωτηρίαν, “with the effect of bringing about salvation.” σωτηρία would be familiar to Paul’s readers in the everyday sense of “bodily health, preservation, safety” (LSJ, MM); cf. e.g., Mark 5:23, 28, 34; 6:56; 10:52; Acts 27:34. In the religious meaning, which was of course known in Greek thought, but which dominates the LXX (34 times in the Psalms, 18 in Isaiah) and NT usage (BGD), the physical imagery is retained in its sense of deliverance from peril and restoration to wholeness; see further Lagrange. As such in Paul it is primarily eschatological, a hope for the future, deliverance from final destruction (ἀπώλεια), the end product of God’s good purpose for humankind (see particularly 5:9–10; 13:11; 1 Cor 3:15; 5:5; Phil 2:12; 1 Thess 5:8–9; see further on 5:9 and 11:11). But through the power of the gospel (conversion—see above), the believer has already been launched toward salvation; hence the use of the verb in the present tense in 1 Cor 1:18, 15:2, and 2 Cor 2:15—God’s preservation through to final safety; and here the preposition εἰς has the force not simply of movement toward but of movement right up to and into, so “with the effect of bringing about” (cf. 10:10; 2 Cor 7:10; Phil 1:19; 2 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 3:15; and see also on 6:16).

παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, “to all who believe.” Here as in other similar references to believers Paul uses the present rather than the aorist tense (3:22; 4:5, 11, 24; 9:33; 10:4, 10–11; 15:13; 1 Cor 1:21; 14:22; 2 Cor 4:13; Gal 3:22; Phil 1:29; 1 Thess 1:7; 2:10, 13; also Eph 1:19; aorist in 2 Thess 1:10). The significance presumably is that in such passages he wishes to focus not solely on the initial act of faith but on faith as a continuing orientation and motivation for life. For πίστις see on 1:17. The emphasis on “all who believe” has the ring of a “war cry” (Michel) and is fundamental for the rest of the letter (cf. particularly 3:22; 4:11; 10:4, 11): “all” is a key word for the letter (Gaston, Paul, 116; see further on 11:32). Faith is both the initial and the continuing access point for the saving power of God into human life, the common denominator which God looks for in every case. See further Form and Structure and on 3:22.

Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι, “to Jew first, but also to Greek.” “Jew and Greek” is the Jewish equivalent to the Gentile categorization of the world given in v 14, only here with “Greek” replacing “Gentile,” reflecting the allpervasiveness of Greek culture (cf. 2 Macc 4:36; 11:2; 3 Macc 3.8; 4 Macc 18.20; Sib. Or. 5.264). The two terms form a regular combination in Paul (2:9–10; 3:9, 29; 9:24; 10:12; 1 Cor 1:22–24; 10:32; 12:13; Gal 2:14–15; 3:28; Col 3:11); and note also 3:1–4 and 11:18, 28–29. The stepping back into a Jewish perspective (following on from v 14) will be deliberate. The phrase here reflects Paul’s consciousness that he was a Jew who believed in a Jewish Messiah yet whose life’s work was to take the gospel beyond the national and religious boundaries of Judaism. The πρῶτον here balances the παντί of the preceding phrase: he does not for a moment forget, nor does he want his Gentile readers to forget (“a certain polemical overtone”—Zeller, Juden, 145) Jewish priority in God’s saving purpose (cf. 3:3–4; chaps. 9–11); but equally fundamental is his conviction that Jewish priority does not shift the “terms of salvation” one whit beyond faith The need to explain and defend this double emphasis is the driving force behind the whole epistle. For Ἰουδαῖος see further on 2:17.

The sequence “Jew first but also Gentile” should not be taken as directly indicative of Paul’s missionary strategy, since he saw himself as first and foremost “apostle to the Gentiles” (11:13; 15:16); but since his natural constituency was the body of Gentiles who had already been attracted to or influenced by Judaism (proselytes and “God-worshipers”—see Introduction §2.2.2), it has some bearing on his evangelistic practice since the synagogue provided the most obvious platform for his message—“to the synagogue first and so to the God-fearing Gentile.”

17 δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ, “for the righteousness of God.” δικαιοσύνη is a good example of the need to penetrate through Paul’s Greek language in order to understand it in the light of his Jewish background and training. The concept which emerged from the Greco-Roman tradition to dominate Western thought was of righteousness/justice as an ideal or absolute ethical norm against which particular claims and duties could be measured (cf. von Rad, 370–71; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit, 103). But since the fundamental study of H. Cremer it has been recognized that in Hebrew thought // is essentially a concept of relation. Righteousness is not something which an individual has on his or her own, independently of anyone else; it is something which one has precisely in one’s relationships as a social being. People righteous when they meet the claims which others have on them by virtue of their relationship (see particularly Cremer, 34–38; hence the possibility of using δικαιοσύνη to translate “loving-kindness,” in Gen 19:19; 20:13; 21:23; 24:27; 32:10 [LXX 11]; etc.; see further Hill, Greek Words, 106; Ziesler, 60–61). So too when it is predicated of God—in this case the relationship being the covenant which God entered into with his people (discussion of the background should not be confined to occurrences of the actual phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ—cf. Hultgren, Gospel, 18–21). God is “righteous” when he fulfills the obligations he took upon himself to be Israel’s God, that is, to rescue Israel and punish Israel’s enemies (e.g., Exod 9:27; 1 Sam 12:7; Dan 9:16; Mic 6:5)—“righteousness” as “covenant faithfulness” (3:3–5, 25; 10:3; also 9:6 and 15:8). Particularly in the Psalms and Second Isaiah the logic of covenant grace is followed through with the result that righteousness and salvation become virtually synonymous: the righteousness of God as God’s act to restore his own and to sustain them within the covenant (Ps 31:1; 35:24; 51:14; 65:5; 71:2, 15; 98:2; 143:11; Isa 45:8, 21; 46:13; 51:5, 6, 8; 62:1–2; 63:1, 7; in the DSS see particularly 1QS 11.2–5, 12–15; 1QH 4.37; 11.17–18, 30–31; elsewhere see, e.g., Bar 5:2, 4, 9; 1 Enoch 71.14; Apoc. Mos. 20.1; 4 Ezra 8.36; see further, e.g., Cremer, 11–17; Eichrodt; von Rad; E. R. Achtemeier; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit, 115, 141, 166, 175; Kertelge, Rechtfertigung, 15–24; Ziesler, 38–43, 82, 93–94, 186; on the Qumran texts see particularly Kertelge, 28–33, and Sanders, Paul, 305–10). It is clearly this concept of God’s righteousness which Paul takes over here; the “righteousness of God” being his way of explicating “the power of God for salvation” (v 16; cf. Gyllenberg, 41; Hill, 156; NEB catches only one side of it with the translation “God’s way of righting wrong”). It is with this sense that the phrase provides a key to his exposition in Romans 3:5, 21–22, 25–26; 10:3), as elsewhere in his theology (2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9) See further on 5:21 and 6:13.

This understanding of Paul’s language largely removes two issues which have troubled Christian theology for centuries. (1) Is “the righteousness of God” subjective genitive or objective genitive; is it an attitude of God or something he does? Seen as God’s meeting of the claims of his covenant relationship, the answer is not a strict either-or, but both-and, with the emphasis on the latter. Williams’s attempt to argue that “God’s righteousness” denotes an aspect of the divine nature (261–62) strains against the clear thrust of the evidence. So too Cranfield’s insistence on the either-or of “a gift bestowed by God” (objective genitive), as against “an activity of God” (subjective genitive) (so also Bultmann and Ridderbos, Paul, 163), allows nothing for the dynamism of relationship which can embrace both senses—God’s activity in drawing into and sustaining within covenant relationship (cf., e.g., Apoc. Mos. 20.1, where loss of righteousness = estrangement from the glory of God). See further on 5:17, 6:16, 6:18, and 6:22. (2) δικαιοῦν, “to justify”: does it mean “to make righteous” or “to count righteous?” This is the classic dispute between Catholic and Protestant exegesis (see particularly Ziesler whose whole analysis revolves round this question; and the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue in Reumann). Since the basic idea is of a relationship in which God acts even for the defective partner, an action whereby God sustains the weaker partner of his covenant relationship within the relationship, the answer again is really both (cf. Barrett, 75–76). This is the basis of Käsemann’s quite proper and influential understanding of divine righteousness as a gift which has the character of power, because God is savingly active in it. Note the close parallelism here, “power of God”//“righteousness of God” (“Righteousness,” esp. 170, 172–76; cf., e.g., Althaus; Murray; Bornkamm, Paul, 147; Ziesler, 186–89; Kümmel, Theology, 197–98; Strecker, “Rechtfertigung,” esp. 508; Hübner, Law, 130; Reumann—“righteousness/justice/justification terminology in the Hebrew scriptures is ‘action-oriented,’ not just ‘status’ or ‘being’ language” [15–16]; despite Bultmann, “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ,” and Klein, “Gerechtigkeit”). It is God’s righteousness which enables and in fact achieves man’s righteousness. See also Robinson, Wrestling, 38–44.

What marks Paul’s use of the concept off from that given to him in his Jewish heritage, however, is precisely his conviction that the covenantal framework of God’s righteousness has to be understood afresh in terms of faith—“to all who believe, Jew first but also Gentile.” It is the fact that man’s righteousness is always to be understood as faith which explains why man’s righteousness is nothing other than God’s righteousness (see below on πίστις). And it is his fellow Jews’ forgetfulness of this fact which, in Paul’s view, has resulted in a distorted understanding of their part within the covenant (“their own righteousness”) and so in a missing of “God’s righteousness” (see on 10:3 and Introduction §5.3).In stressing this point Paul develops an emphasis which was already present in principle in the Jesus tradition (particularly Luke 18:10–14) but which had not been brought to the same sharpness of focus in the pre-Pauline tradition (as represented in 3:24–26 and 4:24–25, q.v.). Hultgren, Gospel, 86–98, suggests that in Paul the conviction of God’s saving righteousness to all is prior to his more specific talk of justification by faith. This, however, is not quite to the point: for Paul justification is always by faith in the sense that the correlative of God’s creative and sustaining power is always the human creature’s dependent trust (faith), of which justification (of Jew and Gentile equally) by faith is a specific expression, and which indeed provides the existential context in and through which Paul’s understanding of God’s righteousness comes to clarity and focus.

Does “the righteousness of God” also include the thought of judgment (“the wrath of God” [1:18 ff.])? That is less likely in 1:17 itself since it is righteousness as “gospel/good news” which dominates the thematic statement (1:16–17); vv 18 ff. go on then to ground the exclusivity of the claim made in vv 16b, 17 (Zeller, Juden, 147). Yet it should not be forgotten that the very idea of righteousness (i.e., fulfillment of covenant obligation) would preclude any thought of this saving outreach being arbitrary or impulsive in character (cf. 3:26); and “righteousness” is used occasionally for God’s punitive action against offending Israel (particularly Isa 5:16; 10:22; Lam 1:18; see Piper, Justification, 86–89; cf. also Berger, “Neues Material”). More important, when the concept of relationship between God and man broadens out from that of covenant with Israel to that of Creator and creature (as in 1:18 ff.) the broader perspective includes also the sovereignty of God (9:14–24) and the inevitability of final judgment (3:4–6; but see on 3:5). Cf. Schmid, Reumann, 68; but note also the critical comments of Fitzmyer in Reumann, 199–200.

ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται, “in it is being revealed.” Notice that this is present tense, not aorist (cf., e.g., 16:25–26; 1 Cor 2:9–10; Eph 3:3–5). ἀποκαλύπτω is predominantly Pauline within the NT. The sense of a disclosure divinely given (divine passive) is fundamental to the word, with all its connotations of heavenly authority (as in Matt 11:25, 27//Luke 10:21–22; Matt 16:17; 1 Cor 2:10; 14:30; Gal 1:12, 16; 2:2; Eph 1:17; Phil 3:15). But it is difficult to escape the twin notes typical of Jewish apocalyptic: revelation as the disclosure of a heavenly mystery (as in 2 Cor 12:1, 7; see particularly Rowland, Open Heaven); and the eschatological character of the revelation in speaking both of the revelation already given (16:25; 1 Cor 1:7; Gal 3:23; Eph 3:3, 5; 1 Pet 1:12) and of the final acts themselves (Luke 17:30; Rom 2:5; 8:18–19; 1 Cor 3:13; 2 Thess 1:7; 2:3, 6, 8; 1 Pet 1:5, 7, 13; 4:13; 5:1; Rev 1:1). So here the implication is of an eschatologically new and decisive disclosure of God’s purpose (cf. 3:21), with reference to the Christ event as introducing the new age in which God’s offer of salvation, previously restricted to and by Israel, will now be open to all who believe. See also Schlier and Wilckens.

ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, “from faith to faith.” As the verb πιστεύειν (“believe”) shows, πίστις for Paul has the twofold sense: both of belief that—acceptance of the truth/reliability of what has been said (cf. 4:3; 6:8; 10:9, 16; 1 Cor 11:18; Gal 3:6; 1 Thess 4:14; 2 Thess 2:11–12); but also of consequent trust in, reliance upon (4:5, 24; 9:33; 10:11; Gal 2:16; Phil 1:29), as expressed particularly in the initial act of being baptized, that is, identifying with Jesus in his death-(6:3–4) and placing oneself under his lordship (10:9). The old debate polarizing “objective” faith and “subjective” faith is passé (cf. further Kuss, 131–54; Lührmann, Glaube, 55–59). Paul will go on to analyze the plight of man as his failure to accept this status of complete dependence on God (1:21, 25, 28), including his fellow Jews whose narrower definition of covenant righteousness in terms of ethnic identity and “works” (9:6–13) in Paul’s view involved a departure from the fundamental recognition that faith on man’s side is the only possible and sufficient basis to sustain a relation with God, as exemplified above all in Abraham’s unconditional trust and total dependence on God and his promise (see further on 4:4–5, 18–21). Nygren’s warning of the danger of understanding Paul’s sola fide legalistically (67–72) runs ahead of Paul’s exposition but is nevertheless important and valid. That πίστις can also mean “faithfulness” (quite likely in Gal 5:22 and 2 Thess 1:4; in the latter it stands alongside ὑπομονή, “patience, steadfastness”) and is used by Paul of God’s faithfulness (3:3, which is the next passage in which it appears) is certainly significant, as his use of the Habakkuk quotation shows.

ἐκ . . . εἰς . . . , “from . . . to “The idiom is clearly one denoting some sort of progression, where ἐκ refers to the starting point and εἰς the end (cf. Ps 83:8; Jer 9:2; 2 Cor 2:16; 3:18; Fridrichsen cites also Plutarch, Mor. 1129A and Galba 14). As such it could mean starting with (man’s) faith and ending with (man’s) faith; “faith from first to last” (Denney, NIV). That the ἐκ πίστεως can mean “by faith” is clear from Paul’s use of the Habakkuk quotation and subsequently (1:17; 3:26, 30; 4:16; 5:1; 9:30, 32; 10:6; 14:23). And so the full phrase is usually understood (Paul thus expresses the Reformation’s sola fide, “by faith alone”; cf. Schlatter; for this and the full range of interpretations which have been canvassed see particularly Kuss). It should however be considered more fully than do most commentators whether Paul intended the ἐκ πίστεως to refer to God’s faithfulness and only the εἰς πίστιν to man’s faith—from (God’s) faithfulness to (man’s) faith (so K. Barth; T. W. Manson; Hebert, 375; Gaston, Paul)—a matter of πίστις throughout. (1) In both written and spoken media, where there is a word with a double meaning, it is universally recognized to be characteristic of good style to play on that double meaning; non-Greek commentators are unduly put off by the awkwardness of having to translate with different words; Barrett’s objection to Barth—“to ascribe different meanings to the same word in one phrase is very harsh” (similarly Black)—is thus misconceived. (2) Following a verb like “reveal” the ἐκ is more naturally to be understood as denoting the source of the revelation (cf. 1:18; 2 Thess 1:7) and the εἰς as denoting that to which the revelation is directed. (3) To take both ἐκ and εἰς as referring to man’s appropriation of God’s righteousness is somewhat odd. If in this instance εἰς is the more appropriate preposition for that purpose (as in 3:21–22), the ἐκ is again better taken to refer to the starting point = source. (4) Not least important is the fact that the ἐκ πίστεως of the Hab 2:4 quotation is probably intended by Paul to be understood with an ambiguity which embraces both God’s faithfulness and man’s faith (see below). (5) The very next reference to πίστις subsequent to the thematic statement of 1:16–17 is certainly to God’s faithfulness (3:3). (6) Indeed, the extent to which the faithfulness of God is also a theme of RomAns (as part of the theme of God’s righteousness) is obscured by the-fact that “faithfulness” (, ) can be translated equally by ἀλήθεια (“truth”) as by πίστις (“3:3, 4, 7 and 15:8, 11). (7) Not least, of course, is the fact that the righteousness of God can be defined quite accurately as “God’s covenant-faithfulness” (Käsemann, “Righteousness,” 177), as we have seen above.

καθὼς γέγραπται, “as it is written.” γέγραπται is a well known legal expression (BGD, γράφω 2c), but in our writings the phrase is used as a formula to introduce quotations from the OT—not least in Romans, and consistently as an appeal to Scripture to document or prove an assertion just made (2:24; 3:4, 10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13, 33; 10:15; 11:8, 26; 15:3, 21). See further Ellis, Paul’s Use, 22–25; Fitzmyer, “Old Testament Quotations,” 7–16.

The quotation from Hab 2:4 is known to us in basically four different versions, including Heb 10:38:

MT		the righteous (man) by his faith(fulness) shall live
LXX	ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται	the righteous out of my faith(fulness) shall live
Paul	ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται	the righteous out of faith/faithfulness(?) shall live
Heb	ὁ δὲ δίκαιός μου ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται	my righteous one out of faith/faithfulness(?) shall live

The MT form is read also by the Habakkuk commentary in the DSS, where, although the quotation itself has been obliterated at the foot of column 7, the interpretation of it at the beginning of the next column makes the reading clear: “The interpretation of it concerns the observers of the law in the house of Judah, whom God shall deliver from the house of judgment because of their struggle and their fidelity to the Teacher of Righteousness” (1QpHab 8.1–3, Fitzmyer). Other Greek versions of Habakkuk also follow the MT (Fitzmyer, 240–41). Paul’s version appears also in Gal 3:11.

The MT clearly has in view the ṣadîq, the righteous man. At the time of Paul this would be understood to be the man who is a faithful member of the covenant, who fulfills the obligations laid upon him by the law of the covenant as a loyal Jew; namely, faithful observance of and devotion to the law as the ideal of Jewish piety. This self-understanding of “the righteous” is particularly prominent in the Psalms (1:5–6; 5:12; 7:9–10; 14:5; etc.), in the wisdom literature (e.g., Prov 3:32–33; 4:18; 9:9; 10:3, 6–7; etc.; Wisd Sol 2:10, 12, 16, 18; 3:1, 10; etc.), in 1 Enoch (e.g., 1.8; 5.4–6; 82.4; 95.3; 100.5), and in the Psalms of Solomon (2.38–39 [LXX 34–35]; 3.3–8, 14 [LXX 11]; 4.9 [LXX 8]; etc.). The same understanding of the Hebrew of Hab 2:4 is evident both in the Qumran pesher (“it concerns the observers of the law . . .”; cf. 1QpHab 7.11; 12.4–5; 4QpPs37 2.14, 22), in the range of Greek versions which held more closely to the MT form of the text despite the LXX, and in the rendering of the Targum. “One believes in that one obeys the law” (Michel). See further on 2:13; 4:2–3; 10:2–3; also 5:19. The LXX in some contrast embodies an assertion with which Paul would certainly have had no quarrel—that individual righteousness is a product of God’s fidelity to his obligations to humankind, to Israel in particular by virtue of Israel’s being his chosen people.

Paul (like Hebrews) seems to be more dependent on the LXX tradition, as in most of his other OT quotations, not least in Romans (Ellis, Paul’s Use, 12–15; Koch argues that the LXX reading as above is the oldest and original text). But since the different MT form was obviously well established and well known, he was probably aware of it also (cf. Kertelge, Rechtfertigung, 93), whether from the Hebrew text or from another Greek rendering of it. In this case his dropping of the personal adjective (“my”/“his”—but in no case changing the word order) was probably, in part at least, prompted by a desire both to avoid choosing between the two different renderings and to embrace both forms (against Gaston, Paul, 111, 170, who argues that Paul means God’s faithfulness here; but why then did he depart from the LXX?). In view of longstanding misunderstandings this point needs to be stressed: that the omission of the personal adjective does not necessarily amount to an exclusion of these other renderings. In the tradition of Jewish exegesis Paul would not necessarily want to narrow the meaning to exclude other meanings self-evident in the text forms used elsewhere, so much as to extend and broaden the meaning to include the sense he was most concerned to bring out. The various rules of interpretation already current in Pharisaic circles at the time of Paul (the “seven middoth of Hillel”—see, e.g., H. L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash [1931; reprint, New York: Harper Torchbook, 1965], 93–94) were designed to draw out as much meaning as possible from the text. In this case the fuller meaning would include the possibility of taking the ἐκ πίστεως with both ὁ δίκαιος and ζήσεται (cf. T. W. Manson and Moody). Here too the continuing sharp division between translators and commentators who insist on “either-or exegesis” underlines its unreality (those who insist on taking ἐκ πίστεως only with ὁ δίκαιος include NEB, Nygren, Barrett, Käsemann, Cranfield, and Wilckens; those who prefer to take ὁ δίκαιος with ζήσεται include NIV; Althaus; Michel; Murray; Smith, 18–20; Schlier; Cavallin; Hendriksen; and Wright, Messiah, 126): how could Paul have expected his readers to opt one way or other without clearer guidance?

The real significance of his dropping the personal adjective only becomes clear as his argument progresses, though the Christian readership would probably recognize the point right away: viz., to give πίστις his own, or its particularly Christian force (“trust in”), in a way which ran counter to the generally understood meaning of the MT form; that is, to free πίστις from the interpretation usually put upon it by virtue of the MT’s; “his.” When πίστις is understood as “trust,” better sense can be made of both the chief alternative text forms: that is to say, for Paul the counterpart of God’s faithfulness is not man’s faithfulness (at any rate as understood within Judaism), but faith, his trust in and total reliance upon God. If man’s faithfulness is a consistent expression of that faith, good and well. But Paul’s charge against Israel will be that the definition of faithfulness as observance of the law amounts to a serious misunderstanding of faith—and so of righteousness (both God’s and man’s), and so also of the life which follows from it (see further on 3:3, 20, 27; 4:2–3; 9:31–32; 10:2–3). To expound his theme with Hab 2:4 understood thus is the task he sets himself in this letter. For ζήσεται see on 6:11, 8:13, and 10:5; as denoting eschatological salvation and equivalent to life with Christ see 1 Thess 5:9–10.

Explanation

These two verses serve as the launching-pad and provide the primary thrust and direction for the rest of the letter, with the double explanation concerning the gospel (“for . . . for . . .”) giving both the raison d’être for Paul’s missionary endeavor and the outline of the main argument to be developed through chaps. 1–15. That this is the purpose of vv 16–17 has always been recognized; but too often the point has been focused on the quotation from Hab 2:4, as though Paul was putting it forward as his text, with what followed as the sermon on the text. However, in the light of what we know of first-century midrashic technique and forms, it is difficult to classify Romans (even Rom 1–11) as a midrash on Hab 2:4 (contrast Rom 4 as a midrash on Gen 15:6). We are probably closer to Paul’s intention if we take the whole of vv 16–17 as the text for or thematic statement of what follows, with the Habakkuk citation giving the first or primary proof text, as the introductory formula (“as it is written”) indicates. The role of the proof text is to provide the initial underpinning and prima facie justification for the thematic assertion to which it is attached.

Paul’s buildup to this point enables him to introduce it with great force in a bold and confident affirmation. He is not ashamed or afraid to confess the gospel even in face of the distinctions made in v 14, even though the gospel as to its origin or content, or he himself, might be classified as barbarian and lacking in wisdom (cf. 1 Cor 1–2). The reason for his confidence is not because he can dispute such an inference, nor because of the gospel’s sophistication or appeal to the rational mind, but because it is the power of God to salvation. It not merely contains somewhere in it the secret of or bears witness to the power of God through other channels, but is itself the power of God to salvation. That is to say, his confidence in the gospel rests in what is for him a clear and simple fact: the gospel is the effective means by which God brings about the wholeness and preservation of the whole person. He does not say when this goal will be achieved, and there is certainly no implication that it will be instantaneous; his confidence is simply that the goal will be achieved. This is a point worth grasping even at this early stage: Paul does not see the gospel as something which merely begins someone on the way to salvation, but as something which embraces the totality of the process toward and into salvation. The gospel is not merely the initial proclamation of Christ which wins converts, but is the whole Christian message and claim—in terms of the rest of the letter, not just chaps. 1–5, or 1–8, or even 1–11, but the whole letter.

This observation bears also on the next phrase—“to all who believe”—for it follows from what has just been said that Paul here is talking not just about the initial acceptance of the proclamation of the crucified and risen Christ, but about that together with the life which follows from it as the whole process which leads into final wholeness. This is the point of the present tense—“to all who believe and go on believing”; namely, to all who not only come to a decision of faith, but whose whole life is characterized as a trustful acceptance of and commitment to the gospel which is God’s power to salvation.

“To Jew first and to Greek.” The phrase might well jolt the addressees out of any complacency or pride encouraged by Paul’s repeated reminder that his life’s work was directed toward the Gentiles (vv 5, 13–14). But the emphasis is clearly deliberate, and, given its place in these key sentences, almost certainly programmatic for the whole letter. Once again the correlation between Jewish prerogative and Gentile outreach is thrust to the fore as something the Gentile readership needs reminding of, and something fundamental to Paul’s understanding of the gospel.

V 17 provides a further explanation of the central assertion of v 16 (“the power of God to salvation to all who believe”), but without ignoring the final phrase of v 16 (“to Jew first and Greek”). “The righteousness of God” would not necessarily be understood at once by all those listening to his letter. The purpose of the first few chapters, particularly chaps. 3 and 4, is precisely to explain what the phrase does mean for Paul. But those familiar with the Jewish scriptures, including many of the Gentile converts who had first been proselytes or God-worshipers, would probably understand it as the power of God put forth to effect his part in his covenant relation with Israel, that is, particularly his saving actions, his power put forth to restore Israel to and sustain Israel within its covenant relationship with God.

The choice of verb is also significant—“is being revealed.” Paul evidently has in mind not merely the content of the gospel; the aorist tense would have been more suitable in that case (“has been revealed”). Nor is he thinking of preaching as a transfer of such information about God, a merely rational exercise; a word like “announce” or “proclaim” would have served better in that case. Paul, however, probably chose the verb and tense because it best describes the ongoing impact of the gospel, as an unveiling of God’s final purpose with all the authority of heaven. That is to say, Paul’s experienceof evangelizing the Gentiles gives him firm confidence that in the gospel as the power of God to salvation such early converts are being given to see the righteousness of God actually happening, taking effect in their own conversion. Gentiles can see that they are being brought into that relationship with God hitherto regarded as a distinctively Jewish prerogative as an ongoing process having the force of eschatological disclosure and the stamp of heavenly authority (cf 1:18).

The nub of what is being revealed is contained in the next four words—“from faith to faith.” The phrase can and probably should be taken as a play on the ambiguity of the word faith/faithfulness, in the sense “from God’s faithfulness (to his covenant promises) to man’s response of faith.” This fits well with the concept of God’s righteousness and with the quotation from Habakkuk about to follow. Moreover, as we shall see, it provides a better integrating theme for the major part of the letter than the alternative (“from man’s faith to man’s faith”), since chaps. 1–11 can be well characterized as Paul’s exploration of the interface between God’s faithfulness and man’s faith, with faith understood as unconditional trust rather than covenant loyalty and so possible for Gentile as well as Jew.

Paul now indicates that his understanding of the gospel just outlined is based on Scripture and that the revelation he claims to be taking place in the saving power of the gospel is in full continuity with the revelation in the (Jewish) Scriptures. What should not escape notice is the fact that Hab 2:4 can serve as a proof text for his thematic statement precisely because its central phrase (“from faith”) can be understood to embrace both the preceding “faith” phrases. This point is so important for the exegesis of Romans that it is worth emphasizing.

It is unlikely that Paul in dictating these words was unaware of the two alternative renderings of the text—“by his faith(fulness)” and “by my (= God’s) faith(fulness).” Nor is it likely that he removed or ignored the possessive pronouns (“his,” “my”) with a view to persuading his addressees to take the verse in a wholly new and unexpected way. Had he entertained such an intention we would have expected a clearer formulation of the Habakkuk quotation, whereas in fact his quotation is so ambiguous that commentators have never been able to agree on how it should be read. The point which has usually been missed is that Paul’s citation is deliberately ambiguous. That is to say, Paul does not want to give Hab 2:4 a new sense and to do so by excluding the alternative understandings; if so he made a bad job of it. Rather he wants to read as much meaning into the verse as possible—just what we would expect a Jewish exegete, especially a Pharisee, to do with a text of Scripture. In other words, the “from faith” is probably intended by Paul to be read as including the sense of the LXX (“from God’s faith”), and so as providing the proof text for the “from faith” (from God’s faithfulness) in the preceding line (cf. 3:3). But most probably he also intended it to be read as including the sense of the phrase “to faith” as well; that is, the righteousness of God revealed to faith (cf. 3:21–22). And “faith” here will include both the initial act of receiving the gospel and the continuing process toward salvation = all who go on believing (v 16) = the righteous from (his) faith shall live (v 17).

In short, Paul probably intends the Habakkuk quotation to be understood with a richness of meaning which can embrace within it the fuller understanding of the gospel for which Paul stands, in its continuity with the revelation to Israel. He who is maintained within or has been brought into the relationship with God which brings about salvation, by the outreach of God’s faithfulness to his own faith, shall experience the fullness of life which God intended for humankind as he lives in the dependence of faith on the continuing faithfulness of God. Such an elaboration may seem to modern ears unduly complex, since we today are more familiar with the convention that if a statement has one meaning it cannot simultaneously have a different meaning. But it would be quite otherwise for Paul. At any rate it is this richer meaning which seems to provide most substantiation of the thematic statement to which it is attached, and as such it is this richer meaning which Paul goes on to expound, together with the issues and questions it raises, in the rest of the letter.