THE USE OF HAB. 2:4 IN ROM. 1:17: SOME HERMENEUTICAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

David S. Dockery

Introduction

The theme of Paul's grand epistle is summarized in Rom. 1:17 as the revelation of a righteousness of God. In confirmation of this idea, Paul cites Hab. 2:4b. The worthy reputation of this Old Testament passage is well attested in both Jewish and Christian literature. That it was of special importance in Jewish circles can be seen in the famous remark of Rabbi Simlai (ca. A.D 250). The Talmud records this remark in Makkot 23b, "Moses gave Israel 613 commandments, David reduced them to 10, Isaiah to 2, but Habakkuk to 1: the righteous shall live by his faith." 1 The text is also quoted in Gal. 3:11 and Heb. 10:38, which shows its importance to the early church. S. L. Johnson comments: " 'The just shall live by faith' - is, without question near the soul of Pauline theology." 2 Historically, the text's testimony as a firm foundation for New Testament theology continued to grow. "The preeminent illustration of this phenomenon was the text's catalytic effect in leading to the Reformation: Habakkuk's great text, with his son Paul's comments and additions, became the banner of the Protestant Reformation in the hands of Habakkuk's grandson, Martin Luther." 3

Even though these remarks are true, the text continues to be not only a theological benchmark, but an exegetical problem. In this discussion, we will examine the meaning of Hab. 2:4b in its historical context as well as Paul's use and understanding of it. It is not possible to examine the history of the interpretation of this passage, nor all the possible interpretive alternatives in a paper of this kind. We will, rather, seek to analyze the text and summarize the theological and hermeneutical implications.

An Interpretation of Hab. 2:4b

Habakkuk's central oracle was a word of hope and salvation. Hab. 2:4a described the character of Babylon: "Behold he is a puffed-up person, his soul is not upright in him." A prophet of the same period (Zephaniah) spoke of the humble and poor-in-spirit believer, the very opposite of the inflated opinion represented in the first part of this verse. Habakkuk also contrasts this arrogance and conceit with the description of the believer in verse 4b: "But a righteous man shall live by faith." Thus the righteous "shall not die" (Hab. 1:12), but they shall live. 4 The sense is that the righteous shall be preserved alive because of his faith, or faithfulness, that is his steadfast loyalty. It is observed by Cranfield that, "The original reference was probably not to the individual righteous man but to the Jewish people. . .; but the tendency to understand the words with reference to the individual will have made itself felt quite early." 5

Textual Problems

The text in Hab. 2:4 reads: "the righteous shall live by his faith/faithfulness." The LXX translation is "He that is righteous shall live by my faith," that is God's faithfulness. Paul's citation can be translated: "he who through faith is righteous shall live" or "the righteous shall live by faith."

The major textual problem concerns the third masculine suffix attached to 'emunah. The MT has the third person pronoun, be'emunato, while the LXX has the first person pronoun, ek pisteos mou. Brownlee has summarized the problem:

Instead of be'emunato in Hab. 2:4, G, Ag., and Old Latin read be'emunati. It is no loss that the word in vii. 15 (i.e. lQpHab) is no longer extant, for in the script of the scroll waw and yod could not have been distinguished. The interpretation 'emunatam ("their faith") at viii. 2, however, fortunately confirms the 3rd per. suffix-the plural number being merely a part of the translator's free representation of the thought. The Palestinian recension reads en pistei autou with MT against G's ek pisteos mou .... In the NT neither suffix is attested (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38), but the interpretation is consonant with the 3rd person. 6

Lexical Exegesis

1. The basic idea of the noun sedek seems to have been that of conformity to a norm.7 Righteousness in the Old Testament is not primarily an ethical quality.8 The righteous person is the one who conforms to the given norm. "The verb 'to be righteous' means to conform to the given norm, and in certain forms, especially in the hiphil, it means 'to declare righteous' or 'to justify.' "9

The standard of righteousness is not provided simply by custom. Eichrodt sees the OT concept of righteousness against the wider background of the covenant relationship with Yahweh: "It may therefore be said that in the case of Yahweh his righteousness implies the same kind of right conduct which in Israel upholds the law by means of judicial procedure; the justice appropriate to Israel on her side is determined by her position as the covenant people, in virtue of which she can count on the intervention of the divine assistance in any danger which threatens that position.'' 10 Gowan believes that the term has a judicial nuance.

The just, the righteous one, is the one who has been vindicated, whom God has declared to be right. There is a legal background to this word; it denotes the winner in a case at law in some of its Old Testament uses. So it is not restricted in its reference to a purely internal quality of goodness which one may possess. It is used in situations of controversy to denote the side which is right. 11

2. The Hebrew understanding of life involves both an existential and eschatological perspective. The most significant aspect of this understanding is its theocentric foundation, "its dependence on God.''12 Only by faithfulness will the righteous man live. The verb hayah "connotes not only physical survival in a time of disaster, but also living in right relation to God."13 BDB appropriately classifies yiheyeh of Hab. 2:4b as "the pregnant sense of fullness of life in divine favor.'' 14

3. " 'Faithfulness' and 'faith' stand close together in the Hebrew term 'emunah." 15 The idea is that of unwavering hold of the word of God against all opponents to the contrary. The sense is somewhat different in the LXX translation of the promise, "the righteous shall live by my faithfulness.'' 16 It is this change in the LXX and in Paul that provides the source for the primary hermeneutical challenges in our text. We will investigate these later in the paper.

The primary usage of 'emunah has the meaning of firmness, fidelity or steadfastness. 17 The word has the passive meaning in the majority of OT occurrences, and is probably the sense in Hab. 2:4, although it can be construed to have a double sense. 18 This mediating position is the preferable understanding.

'Emunah understood actively is simply an unwavering trust in God's word. "In contrast to the overbearing disposition of the wicked, the believer, like Abraham in Genesis 15:6 and Isaiah 28:16; 30:15 put an immovable confidence in the God who had promised His salvation and the coming Man of promise." 19 It was a steadfast, undivided surrender to Yahweh, "a childlike, humble and sincere trust in the credibility of the divine message of salvation." 20

The passive sense emphasizes "one's own inner attitude and the conduct it produces.'' 21 Yet we advocate a both/and significance to the term. Thus we can read it as referring to fruit of faith, steadfastness or faithful fruit. Bryant proposes the following option:

It must be carefully maintained that neither the Old nor New Testament separate faith from its fruits or faithfulness. The distinction between faith and faithfulness is somewhat artificial, for . . . in the long run they are the same thing. The Bible knows nothing of a true faith which does not hold fast its confidence to the end. 22

Exegetical Summary

The context coupled with the difficulty of understanding the meaning of the words themselves within the passage provide the interpreter with less than easy answers. Since our main purpose is to see Paul's usage, we will only summarize the exegetical considerations. Habakkuk seems to have performed his ministry in the reign of Jehoiakim, since the Chaldeans (Babylonians) are mentioned as already well known and of formidable reputation (1:6-11). The rapacious nobles, allied with corrupt religious leaders, were shamelessly robbing and oppressing the common people in Judah. Therefore they were to be punished through the instrumentality of the Chaldeans.

However the prophet sees that the Chaldeans will pose a serious problem to reconcile with the doctrine of God's holiness, because they are a people without respect for moral law. Habakkuk does not fall into an impatient cynicism, but rather sets a worthy example of waiting on the Lord for the answer (2:1). The answer is found in the passage with which we are dealing. The answer is that the proud shall be condemned and the faithful believing ones shall live (2:4). 23

The pesher exegesis in the Qumran commentaries understood "the righteous will live by faith" to be an explanation which "concerns all those who observe the Law in the House of Judah. God will deliver them from the House of Judgment because of their affliction and their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness." 24

The prophet's intention was most likely a judgment upon the pride of the Chaldeans. It is evident from the context that the passage "treats of the relation between man and God, since the wordy themselves speak of a waiting for the fulfillment of a promising oracle, which is to be preceded by a period of severe suffering." 25 Life is promised to those who hold faithfully to the word or promise and wait for its fulfillment in time of tribulation. It is not the character or integrity that is the virtue of the righteous person, but one's faith/faithfulness. The great promise to these who are faithful believers is yiheyeh (they shall live). This covenant faithfulness is opposed to the pride of the Chaldeans. Thus the promise is given to those who in humble submission express firm reliance upon God. 26 The LXX and Paul rightly understood this by the use of pistis. Our task is now to see the meaning Paul brought out of these words.

An Interpretation of Romans 1:17

The theme of the epistle to the Romans is stated in 1:16, 17; in the gospel in which Paul glories and counts a high honor to proclaim, there is revealed a righteousness of God. The present tense is used by Paul to indicate that revelation "is being revealed" in the ongoing process of proclaiming the gospel.

Grammatical Exegesis

1. The meaning of dikaiosune theou has been the subject of much discussion.27 The debate concerns whether or not Paul's use of the expression is intended to refer to a quality in God. The genitive theou may be taken in at least three different ways: (1) as an objective genitive, in which case the righteousness is that which God grants (Luther); (2) as a subjective genitive in which case it refers to that which belongs to God (Käsemann); (3) as a genitive of origin, in which case it is God's righteousness, but proceeds from God to men (Cranfield). While grammar is important, we must listen attentively to Käsemann:

What is even more comical is that when dikaiosune theou is discussed there is virtual consensus today in speaking of a genitive of author, yet everyone conceals his own opinion behind the grammatical cipher. In a technical age, rules of language often wrap materials in a thick fog and make it possible for opposing views to achieve an easy peace.28

Coupled with Käsemann's statement, comes a caution from Cranfield: "The last word in this debate has clearly not yet been spoken." 29 The theological objections raised by Käsemann against understanding theou as a genitive of origin cannot be brushed over lightly. He maintains that regarding it as a genitive of origin involves an isolating of the gift from the Giver and an anthropocentric rather than theocentric of the gospel, and that it is individualistic. This objection is raised primarily against Bultmann, 30 but we still must opt for the third option listed above. Along with Cranfield, we believe, "Paul's focusing attention on the man who is righteous by faith is bound up with the use which he makes in Hab. 2:4; but everything he says about the justified man is said within the context of the gospel, which for Paul is certainly not a gospel of man's self understanding, but the gospel of God." 31

2. The words ek pisteos eis pistin have also been understood in many different ways. A nice survey of the problem is given by Murray J. Harris.

A myriad of proposals have been made in regard to the meaning of the phrase ek pisteos eis pistin, such as: from the faith of the preacher to the faith of the hearer; from God's faithfulness to man's faith; from smaller to a greater degree of faith (cf. apodoxes eis doxan, 2 Cor. 3:18); from faith as a starting-point to faith as a permanent condition. But it seems more natural to construe ek as indicating not the source or starting point ("from faith") but the basis or means ("by faith"; as in Hab. 2:4), with the eis pistin either intensifying the effect of ek pisteos (thus, "by faith from first to last," New International Version), or denoting the goal of God's impartation to men of a righteous status ("leading to faith"). On either of these latter views, faith is portrayed as the vital and perpetual characteristic of Christian experience. 32

According to John Murray, Paul's purpose in the repetition here and in 3:22 is "to accent the fact that not only does the righteousness of God bear savingly upon us through faith but also that it bears savingly upon everyone who believes."33 Confirmation of this view is provided, we believe, by the Habakkuk quotation, Kathos gegraptai ho de dikaios ek pisteos zesetai. It is to this quotation which we now give our attention.

Lexical Exegesis

1. The history of Pauline research over the last hundred years has raised several questions about ho dikaios. Is it to be understood primarily as declaratory (to declare righteous) or behavioral (to make righteous)? Regardless of which view is taken, does this mean that the believer is no longer in status or in actuality a sinner? 34 More importantly, is justification central to Pauline thought and if so, is justification a present experience, or does it belong, more strictly, to the future, as an anticipated verdict of the last judgment? 35

Although recent interpreters of Paul have found other "centers," such as: reconciliation (Martin), (2) liberty (Longenecker) and (3) resurrection (Gaffin), we tend to affirm that justification is central to Paul (Johnson, Ridderbos). More or less assuming this to be the case, is justification declarative or behavioral? 36 Thiselton, using Wittgenstein's concept of language games, has presented a brilliant argument about the phenomenon of "seeing . . . as. . .," of seeing x as y. 37 Applying this to Pauline thought, the believer is "seen as" righteous, specifically within the context of eschatology or at least in the context of the new age. Yet in the context of history, he remains a sinner. 38

One of the key questions raised by this subject is whether justification in Paul is to be regarded as present or future. Some passages (e.g. Rom. 5:1, 9) suggest a present sense, while others (Gal. 5:5) have an eschatological reference. Both Bultmann and Barrett speak of the paradoxical nature of the situation when an eschatological verdict is pronounced in the present. 39 Kasemann has attempted to ground justification in the context of apocalyptic. 40 The problem is best answered in this lengthy quotation of Thiselton:

The fact that we have to do with the logic of evaluation or verdict, especially in an eschatological context, explains an important point. If we are confronted with two statements, one of which asserts p and the other of which denies p, we are faced with a contradiction. If one man claims "x is black" and another claims "x is white," one of them must be wrong. But the situation is different when we are faced with the logic of evaluation or verdict. If one man claims "x is satisfactory," or "x is fast," and the other claims "x is unsatisfactory," or "x is slow," each may be a valid assessment in relation to a different frame of reference. In the same way, if justification is a verdict, for God to declare the believer righteous in the context of eschatology does not contradict His declaring him a sinner in the context of history, or in terms of what he is in the natural world. In the context of the new age, the eschatological verdict of "righteous" which belongs to the last judgment is brought forward and appropriated by faith. In this sense, justification, although strictly future, is operative in the present "apart from law" (Rom. 3:21; cf. Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9). In as far as the believer is accorded his eschatological status, viewed in that context, he is justified. In as far as he still lives in the everyday world, he remains a sinner who awaits future justification. History and eschatology each provide a frame of reference in which a different verdict on the believer is valid and appropriate. This is neither contradiction nor even "paradox." In Wittgenstein's sense of the "home" setting of language-game, eschatology is the home setting in which the logic of justification by faith properly functions. 41

The notion that justification by faith is a legal fiction (as in Sanday and Headlam) rests on viewing the problem only from an historical frame of reference. However, from the eschatological perspective the situation is seen differently. From the historical standpoint, justification is future, but by appropriation of the eschatological verdict, it is possible for "the righteous" to live by faith in the present experience of being justified. 42

As we noted earlier, the most common Old Testament usage of righteous or righteousness is forensic. In Paul we believe it has this declarative nature, seen eschatologically. 43 In other words it has to do with acquittal from the just condemnation on sin. As in a court of law a man may be declared acquitted, which means he cannot be touched by law, so Paul conceives that a man may be declared as righteous and his sins no longer held against him. 44 Paul's concept of justification is a work of God and man can do nothing to earn this righteous position.

2. Zesetai refers to life with God, which alone is true life. It is primarily eschatological, where its fullness can be enjoyed, although it can be enjoyed in some sense in the present. Other references in Romans can be found in 2:7; 4:17; 5:17, 18, 21; 6:4, 10, 11, 13, 22, 23; 7:10; 8:2, 6, 10, 13; 10:5; 12:1.45

For Paul, as for other Jews, "life" and salvation were practically synonymous. The Aramaic hayye is the same word for life and salvation. For Paul, life does not stop then with initial salvation, but includes sanctification and is consummated in final glory. 46

3. What are we to do with Paul's utilization of pistis? "The fact that Paul drops both pronouns may lend some force to the view that he wishes to bring out his characteristic phrase, 'righteous by faith.' "47 Probably, he is again emphasizing the idea of continual faith or " 'faith all the time:' man (if righteous at all) is righteous by faith; he also lives by faith." 48

Translation Challenges

In Paul's quotation of Hab. 2:4, we have yet to examine the problem of translation. The question is, are we to take ek pisteos with dikaios or with zesetai? In the classic work by Charles Hodge, he argues that "the connection of ek pisteos with dikaios is certainly best suited to the apostle's object which is to show that righteousness is by faith, but in either construction, the sense is substantially the same; salvation is by faith." 49 It is not possible in this paper to deal with the grammatical features involved in the problem. 50 Are we to render the proposition, "The righteous shall live by faith"? Murray has argued, following Lightfoot, for the latter alternative. 51 But Cranfield has convincingly argued for the connection of "the righteous" with "by faith." Even though the LXX translation seems to favor the other option; (1) the immediate context, (2) the structure of the epistle along with (3) the connection of righteousness with faith in Rom. 5:1 indicate that ek pisteos is almost certainly to be connected with ho dikaios rather than zesetai. 52

Exegetical Summary

The emphasis in Habakkuk as we noted is on covenant faithfulness or what is traditionally called sanctification. At first glance Paul's use of Hab. 2:4 in Rom. 1:17 seems to depart from the context of the Old Testament passage. But this is not necessarily so. Paul does have a forensic meaning for "righteous," but his concept of faith or trust is one which continues. Habakkuk's emphasis upon trust is not forsaken. It must be remembered that:

Paul does not teach justification by faith in a vacuum. Faith does make one righteous both forensically and, increasingly, in actuality, because faith issues in the en Christo (I) relationship. 53 It is best to follow Westcott that, " 'faith' (in the Pauline sense) and 'faithfulness to God' (which is what the Prophet had in mind), in the long run are the same thing." 54 With these thoughts in mind, let us conclude with some final comments regarding the hermeneutical and theological significance of our passage.

Hermeneutical Considerations

Paul's appeal to Hab. 2:4 is for the purpose of confirmation from the Old Testament. 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. 55

The utilization of Hab. 2:4 is probably an example of what Roger Nicole calls "details of prophecies revealed m New Testament light.'' 56 In many cases the New Testament writers, being illumined by the Holy Spirit, perceived with greater clarity than the Old Testament writers themselves, God's intended meaning behind the prophecies. What the prophets had seen only dimly and in terms of general principle, the New Testament writers saw in the glowing light of fulfillment in a perspective in which a wealth of details fall into place.

In the New Testament quotations of Hab. 2:4 (Gal. 3:11 and Heb. 10:38) in addition to Rom. 1:17 57, the Old Testament passage is variously understood as relating to justification by faith or sanctification by faithfulness and perseverance. It has been suggested that these topics go beyond Habakkuk's intention in his prophecy. Yet we have seen that Habakkuk does deal in the context with judgment and that 2:4b emphasizes that by faith or covenant faithfulness, people of God gain assurance of life in the midst of such calamities. The attitude of continual trust in Yahweh is that which characterizes the righteous. It is this feature of trust that the New Testament writers emphasize, though in a variety of ways. "One may not feel obliged to assert that Habakkuk envisioned the full range of implications present in his statement, but it is apparent that his formulation was divinely designed to embody a principle present in his day in the midst of the calamities of the Jewish people, but even more explicitly manifest in relation to the gospel of Jesus Christ, as Paul and the author of Hebrews have made clear." 58 The terms of Habakkuk's oracle are sufficiently general to make room for Paul's application of them. Paul's application does not violate the prophet's intention, but broadens it to express the theology of his abiding message. 59

Theological Reflections

The theme of justification by faith is especially evident in Pauline literature. Paul drew a sharp distinction between the righteousness of works and the righteousness of faith (e.g. Rom. 3, Gal. 2). For those who accept a canonical approach to theology, as we do, 60 the Epistle of James presents a problem, since he states, "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). Luther's relegation of James to a lower level than Paul is less than satisfactory. Wesley's solution seems better in this case. Wesley believed James in speaking of "works" to be referring not to the works of the law, but to fruits of faith; and in speaking of "faith" not to commitment of the whole person to the living Christ, but to an intellectual assent.

Yet, Luther did not emphasize faith to the detriment of loving works. The only faith that justifies is a faith which bears fruit in love. By faith, one "is caught up beyond himself into God. By love he descends beneath himself into his neighbor." 61 It was Melancthon and not Luther who separated the two, and thus radically separated justification from sanctification.

This misunderstanding of "justification by faith alone" which belied the need for sanctification and spiritual growth was opposed by Jonathan Edwards and those in the puritan / pietist tradition, including Wesley and Whitefield. 62 In contemporary Catholicism, efforts are being made by Karl Rahner 63 and Hans Küng 64 to reassess the conflict with Protestantism, especially Reformed theology, to reformulate the relationship between objective and subjective aspects of justification.

The great Protestant theologian of the twentieth century, Karl Barth, has raised questions regarding justification by faith. In volume IV of the Dogmatics, he insists that God not only turns to man in free grace but converts man to himself. For Barth, declaring righteous is also making righteous. While justification must be distinguished from sanctification, it is inseparable from it. Justification has logical priority over sanctification but not chronological priority. 65

In recent Evangelical theory, G. C. Berkouwer and Donald Bloesch, following in the Calvinist tradition, have essentially agreed with Barth. The difference is that justification is monergistic where by faith we simply submit and receive God's declaration of righteousness while we are called to cooperate in the process of our sanctification. 66

In conclusion, the church's proclamation must not separate faith from faithfulness. Habakkuk's concept of trust as covenant faithfulness must be seen as a very real aspect of a Pauline theology of justification. Paul would be disturbed to find that in much preaching faith is improperly emphasized almost to the exclusion of faithful works. If we join faith and faithfulness in our preaching, we shall not fail to see God's blessing. Of all preaching, what is usually called revival or decisional preaching can be the most dangerous, if not the most mischievous, because it tends to neglect the aspects of holiness and perseverance as necessary for a proper understanding of Paul's teaching on justification by faith and its related emphasis on covenant faithfulness.

Conclusion

We have attempted to search out the meaning of Paul's concept of justification by faith. We have seen that Paul uses the quote from the prophet Habakkuk to express his concept of faith. For Paul, the meaning of faith and faithfulness are synonymous. The meaning of faith must include the idea of ongoing or continuous faith. Protestant theology has largely shaded Paul's meaning by reading the text through the eyes of Melancthon. Melancthon separated faith from faithfulness. Even though this approach was challenged by Puritans and Pietists, including Edwards, Wesley and Whitefield, it nevertheless has continued to dominate Protestant approaches to Pauline theology. The author himself was one who was guilty of such a reading of Paul. This essay marks a paradigm shift in our thinking and we trust that it will be helpful for others who have tended to separate the Biblical concepts of faith and faithfulness and the theological themes of justification and sanctification. Justification must be distinguished from sanctification, but it is nevertheless inseparable from it.

Endnotes

1S. M. Lehrman, "Habakkuk," in The Twelve Prophets, Soncino Books of the Bible, ed. by A. Cohen (London: Soncino, 1948), 219.

2S. L. Johnson, Jr., "The Gospel That Paul Preached." BSac 128 (1971). 327.

3G. J. Zemek, "Interpretive Challenges Relating to Habakkuk 2:4b," GTJ 1:1 (1980), 43.

4Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1978). 226.

5C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 1:100.

6W. H. Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuh in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran (JBLMS 11; Philadelphia: SBL, 1959), 44-45. The problem is discussed more extensively in Brownlee, "The Placard Revelation of Habakkuk," JBL 82 (1963),322ff; J. A. Emerton, "The Textual and Linguistic Problems of Habakkuk II. 4-5," JTS 28 (1977), 10ff.; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 272-73 outlines the various ways that the LXX witnesses position the possessive mou with dikaios; concerning the mou of the LXX, it "could mean either 'because of my (sc. God's) faithfulness' or 'because of his faith in me' " says Cranfield, Romans, I. 100.

7Cf. N. Snaith, Distinctive Ideas of the OT (London: Epworth, 1944),73.

8Yet D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings; Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (SNTSMS 5; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1967),94 discusses the ethical uses which should not be disputed. Cf. BDB, 843.

9George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1974). 439.

10W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1961), I, 241.

11D. E. Gowan, The Triumph of Faith in Habakkuk, (Atlanta: John Knox, 1976), 41.

12Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, 168.

13Ibid., 165.

14BDB, 311.

15O. Michel, "Faith," NIDNTT, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1975); I,597.

16Ibid.

17BDB, 53. Also see J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford Univ.,1961), 161ff, the discussion of " 'Faith' and 'Truth'-An Examination of Some Linguistic Arguments."

18Cf. J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (reprint; Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1957). 155.

19Kaiser, OT Theology, 227.

20C. von Orelli, The Old Testament Prophecy of the Consummation of God's Kingdom (Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1885). 326.

21A. Jepsen, " 'aman," TDOT, 1, 317.

22H. S. Bryant, "The Meaning of Habakkuk 2:4," (unpublished thesis; Winona Lake: Grace Seminary, 1966), cited by Zemek, 53.

23Cf. G. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1964), 357.

24Cited by J. D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster. 1977). 85.

25C. F. Keil, "The Minor Prophets," in Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1973). X. 73.

26Ibid., 74.

27One of the best studies on this subject is that by J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). Cf. Cranfield, Romans, I, 92-93 for a nice bibliography.

28E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 28.

29Cranfield, Romans, I, 98.

30R. Bultmann, "DIKAIOSYNE THEOU," JBL 83 (1964), 12ff.

31Cranfield, Romans, 1, 99.

32Murray J. Harris, "Appendix: Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament," NIDNTT, 3. 1189.

33J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1959), I, 32. Cf. Ibid., "From Faith to Faith," in Appendix II, pp. 363ff. and the discussion of a view similar to Barth in: T. F. Torrance, "One Aspect of the Biblical Conception of Faith," Expository Times, 68 (1957). 111-114.

34This question has been dealt with in my recent discussion, David Dockery, "Romans 7:14-25: Pauline Tension in the Christian Life," GTJ 2 (1981), 239-257.

35Cf. Anthony Thiselton, The Two Horizons (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980), 415-22.

36Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, 128ff. has attempted to show that the declarative sense rests on the verbal dikaioo, while the ethical or behavioral interpretation rests on the noun or adjectival form. Also 5ee Cranfield, Romans, 94-95.

37Thiselton, Two Horizons, 417.

38Ibid., 419.

39R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribners, 1951), I, 276; C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper and Row, 1957), 75.

40Kasemann, Romans, 30-31.

41Thiselton, Two Horizons, 419-2a

42Ibid., 421.

43J. Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1955), 119ff. notes that Paul's use in Romans conclusively means to declare righteous.

44D. Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: IVP,1981),499. Also see Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1965) and The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grands Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955).

45Cranfield, Romans, 101.

46F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 81.

47Barrett, Romans, 31.

48Ibid.

49C. Hodge, Epistle to the Romans (reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950). 32.

50This problem has been dealt with adequately by W. B. Wallis, "The Translation of Romans 1:17-A Basic Motif in Paulinism," JETS 16 (1973), 22ff

51Murray, Romans, I, 33. See J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan. 1895), 250.

52Cranffeld, Romans, 102.

53E. E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 119.

54B. F. Westcott, St. Paul and Justification (London: Macmillan, 1913), 52.

55For an excellent discussion of the contemporary proposed solutions to the relation between the testaments, see D. L. Baker, Two Testaments: One Bible (Downers Grove: IVP, 1976).

56Roger Nicole, "The Old Testament in the New Testament, " in Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), I, 623.

57For the divergent approaches of Paul and the author of Hebrews, see Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 167-68.

58Nicole, "The Old Testament in the New Testament," 623.

59Bruce, Romans, 80.

60For a recent study in support of this approach see Charles M. Wood, The Formation of Christian Understanding (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981).

61Martin Luther, A Treatise on Christian Liberty (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970), 34.

62Cf. Richard F. Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life (Downers Grove, IVP, 1979) and Richard Lovelace, The American Pietism of Cotton Mather (Washington: Christian University Press. 1979).

63Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations (Baltimore: Helican Press, 1966), IV, 207.

64Hans Küng, Justification (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 256. Interesting assessments of these views can be seen in G. C. Berkouwer, The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) and David Wells, Revolution in Rome (Downers Grove, IVP. 1972).

65Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1961), IV, 2, 507.

66Donald Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979), I, 234.

Edited by Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.