This new post is not too removed from the topic of my last two, but I have skipped over a discussion of many different issues that would have ultimately lead me to addressing the implications of the meaning of justification as it relates to certain issues of salvation. Most of what I will say comes from comments concerning one of Alex Marshall’s blog posts a while back, so if you would like to read more on this visit this link ; however, I have included some new thoughts, critique and corrections to what I said earlier on Alex’s blog. Also, I have been motivated by some to exegete a particular text, so here you’ll find it.
Quickly, I would like to apologize for the length of such a post; however, if you’ll stick it out with me, then I know certain claims or statements I make will give us more than enough things to talk about. Now…off we go!
My need to even write such a post and thus clarify my position comes as a result of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). One of the quarrels I have with the NPP (namely N.T. Wright here) is their strict emphasis on the justification language only referring to God’s declaration that one is in the covenant. As a result, Wright has made justification primarily ecclesiological and not soteriological. So my most basic question is: Is that primarily the force of justification?
Next, I will offer a brief critique of such a limitation of the justification language so that we can discuss it in greater detail. However, I first find it crucial to state that the meaning of the ‘righteousness of God’ and the justification language are closely related issues, but they are not the same thing. The importance or centrality of both are debated of course, but the vigorous discussion surrounding these terms have widely been affirmed to be key for Paul’s understanding of salvation. However, I hope to establish my affirmation of the later sentence as I do believe these two terms are primarily related to soteriology; however, this will take some number of words and pages to do, so again bear with me if you can. I hope and pray that my thoughts result in a furthering of discussion…if you have time or would like to of course.
I will some Greek grammatical analysis later on, but I feel that my main argument for understanding ‘righteousness of God’ is grounded solely upon the grammatical genitive construction. Therefore, for those of you reading this who don’t know Greek I am going to attempt to slowing and gently bring you into such a heavily language based and highly debated discussion.
First of all, in hopes of keeping everyone on the same track or page, I must make a note concerning Greek nouns. The Greek noun system uses case endings in order to express the function of words in a sentence; thus making Greek an inflected language, because words will often change in form. We have these cases in English, but again they are expressed in the Greek through case endings. Among the Greek noun cases, the genitive case functions as showing possession. The Greek phrase dikaiosynē theou, is constructed in the genitive case, thus meaning that it shows, in some way, possession. Then, when you translate the phrase into English you get the ‘righteousness of God’ or ‘God’s righteousness’ and thus hopefully see the possession being expressed.
However, the debate concerning the phrase is about how the genitive is understood or shows possession, and this is where the discussion becomes quite difficult. Is the genitive construction a subjective genitive, a genitive of source or a possessive genitive? The subjective sense of the genitive refers to God’s act or declaration that makes righteous or justifies those who believe; the genitive of source option refers to the righteous status being given to believers as a result of God’s justifying activity; and the possessive genitive understanding refers to the attribute of God himself, namely his own righteousness, or his being (he is righteous), and/or his action (he is just). I wish to quickly point out that Wright prefers to speak in absolute terms and understand the genitive construction as only possessive genitive. However, I see no good reason to only see in that way.
In hopes of shedding light of the grammatical debate I would like to provide some etymological support for establishing the meaning of justification as primarily soteriological and see how such a standing is brought about as a result of who God is. I find it helpful to see the connection between the verbs to save (sw÷zw) and to justify or vindicate (dikaiovw), while still claiming that they are not the same thing. The verb to save refers to one being delivered or rescued whereas the verb to justify refers to one being declared in the right before God (whether one is acquitted or condemned, pardoned or found guilty). Therefore, I take these verbs refer to how God restores humanity to himself (soteriology), thus connecting them to the rescuing of humanity by God from their current state and eschatological condition or doom. Therefore, these verbs are primarily soteriological terms, with ecclesiological implications following. We are part of God’s people, because he has done something. Also, I find that the texts allow this most effective understanding in order to move on to matters of ecclesiology (which sufficiently follow I might add). Moreover, we are God’s people as a result of him saving us, and therefore we are called to do something and to be something. This is the ecclesiology implication of being saved, redeemed, reconciled, etc. by God. You cannot have the former without the later…or can you? Such a methodology is highlighted in other arenas of systematic/biblical theology; namely everything one believes theologically stems from their beliefs concerning theology proper.
My understanding the term justification as it is primarily associated with issues of soteriology, seems to shed some light on understanding ‘the righteousness of God’ as being associated or related to God’s act or declaration to save, deliver, or rescue his people (those who believe in him) from eschatological destruction. Therefore, I would primarily adapt the subjective sense of the genitive; however, I am not rejecting that there is neither a nature of God being rendered or expressed in the phrase (the genitive of source option), nor am I saying that no righteous status is given to believers, who “live by faith” as a result of God’s justifying activity (the genitive of source option). Therefore, I would agree with Wright that the ‘righteousness of God’ refers to God’s faithfulness to his covenantal promises; however, is that all it refers to? Yes the righteousness of God is his character and covenantal faithfulness, but I also understand it as reference to how God saves and justifies the ungodly. In his book, Justification, Wright tended to speak in absolute terms and I don’t believe that texts allow that at all.
I would like to direct us now to Wright’s interpretation of Romans 1:16-17, as I best think it highlights the issue I am taking concerning Wright’s understanding of ‘the righteousness of God’. Also, I have chosen this passage because Wright has spent a great deal of time on this verse (See mainly his commentary on Romans in The New Interpreter’s Bible and his book titled Justification).
Based on my thinking pertaining to the meaning of both justification and ‘the righteousness of God’, it seems that Romans 1:16-17 has to do with soteriological matters. The point Paul makes throughout the book of Romans is not that one is saved by their works of the Law (or via the Law), but by faith. Therefore, the righteous ones live or are identified by faith not works (v.17). It is from my understanding that one’s salvation is a soteriological issue, and thus connected to a reference of the eschatological condition of the individual, that the meaning of the word salvation in v.16 refers to one being saved or delivered from ultimate destruction. Moreover, following one’s understanding that God has acted and saved his people from this ultimate destruction, one sees the importance of a systematic theological methodology, which is first and foremost concerned with who God is, and then focused on and influenced by how, or the way this God has renewed, reconciled and redeemed creation back to him. Again, this is soteriology, with ecceliological, Christological, anthropological, and eschatological implications.
Now we have come to Wright’s argumentation in support of his understanding of ‘God’s righteousness’ being his faithfulness to the covenant. Wright provides support with three statements: 1) Rom 1:16-17 does not define the gospel, but speaks about the effects of the gospel; 2) Both Jews and Gentiles are ones who are saved; and 3) The use of Hab 2:4 in v. 17 refers to divine judgment which is grounded in divine faithfulness (Justification, 181-82).
I am not for sure how his first two statements contribute to his view, but he third is most clear. As a result, I will spend most of my time here looking into the meaning and reference of Hab 2:4 in it original context, the Septuagint (LXX), or the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, and that of Rom 1:17.
I feel that Wright’s exegesis of Hab 2:4 plays a bit fast and loose with the text. As you know, he argues that Hab contends for faith among God’s people, and that 2:4 is referring to God’s faithfulness. However, where is this faithfulness mentioned in Hab 2? It might seem best for Wright to base his argument on the LXX; however, does the LXX mean what Wright thinks it means? Furthermore, is Wright basing his understanding of the Pauline reference in light of the LXX text? Moreover, what text is Paul basing his argument on?
As you might know the issue involved here is the difference between the Hebrew text (MT), the LXX and Paul’s treatment in Romans. The MT states “The righteous [man] shall live by his faith.” As you can see the MT speaks to the faithfulness by which the righteous live, but does not necessarily refer to the divine faithfulness that Wright speaks of (if you will again allow me to end with a preposition). The MT should be in effect restating Lev. 18:5 (“the one who does them shall live by them”). In other words, it indicates what the righteousness of the covenant member was: It was by his faith or faithfulness that he observed the Law and lived by it. Now how does man faithfully observe the Law and live by it? Well it comes from the fact that God has declared someone to be righteous (subjective genitive again).
Also the LXX differs from the MT and thus reads “The just shall live by my faith.” As I stated earlier, this text might provide Wright with the best support for his argument, but does it clearly refer to God’s faithfulness? It could mean “faith in me” (that is God), and get more complicated wicked fast when you try to decide how to take the genitive construction. Is it subjective genitive, genitive of possession, or genitive of source (see above for a fuller treatment of this common grammatical construction)? Therefore, I do not believe that the issue is as clear cut as Wright wishes it were, or states that it is.
As for Paul’s citation in Rom he has left out both the third person indicator found in the MT and the first person pronoun my (mou) found in the LXX and simply states “The righteous shall live by faith” (ek pistewV). Therefore, it seems best that Paul’s basis for his argument brings out an aspect of the gospel and something in Hab that was overlooked: Faithfulness to YHWH can only come about by faith in YHWH. One is not faithful to God unless they believe, trust, have faith in him (see the meaning of the verb pisteuw). As a result, I do not find any evidence concerning the MT, the LXX, and the Pauline text in that there is a reference to the faithfulness of God toward his covenant people. It is important to state that there is a difference in the nuance between Hab and Paul (namely Hab is referring to the faithfulness of man, while Paul is referring to the faith of man), but I do not see either one primarily speaking of God’s faithfulness.
Remember that the point in all of this was to show how the ‘righteousness of God’ is not always limited to God’s faithfulness to his covenant (which highlights an attribute that God has and thus he cannot be anything other than faithful, righteous, or just). Also remember that I am not saying that this aspect of God’s righteousness cannot be found in Paul, but it’s simply not as limited as Wright claims it to be.
It is important to note that this is in no way an exhaustive treatment, and there is much one can object to. Also, in this post I have purposely left out crucial points of discussion; namely the impartation or imputation of Christ’s righteousness, or talk of his faithfulness, which is how the gift of a juridical standing or status, or even new nature is distributed. I have also left out a discussion of ‘Christ’s faithfulness’ or ‘faithfulness in Christ’ (a debate concerning the objective vs. the subjective genitive), therefore you have much to look forward to as I seek to tackle these and many other questions which surround such a debate.
So…what are your thoughts? Do you have any suggestions which would be helpful in understanding Paul’s usage of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17? Is there a better way to understand ‘the righteousness of God’?
If you’ve made it to this point, then I am more than thankful that you have spent your time reading this post.
Be Blessed,
Nick
I'll offer a few quick thoughts. My comments will be oriented toward your discussion of Hab 2:4 in its own context and Paul's citation of it in Romans. You've presented a good discussion of the text and its issues, but my comments will be critical in nature, for the sake of getting to the point.
ReplyDeleteExegetical discussions are by nature an interplay of grammar, literary context, and textual criticism (among other things), so I will try to touch on the most relevant points from various areas below.
First, it is important to interpret Hab 2:4 in light of chapter 2 as well as the context of the book as a whole. How does it function in those contexts? This will help to set the verse within its own conceptual framework, which can serve as a starting point for understanding Paul's citation.
Briefly, Habakkuk can be broken into three major sections: the prophet's complaint to God (chapter 1), God's response to the prophet (chapter 2) and the prophet's reply (chapter 3). The complaint which Habakkuk makes concerns the prospering of the wicked. He recounts some of the injustice he observes and asks God how long He will let these evil people (specifically, the Babylonians) mistreat the innocent.
It is within God's response in chapter 2 that the current verse is found, and it is important to see what form this response takes. In v. 1, the prophet waits for a response. In vv. 2-3, God assures the prophet that what He is about to reveal is reliable testimony. Within chapter 2, v. 4 functions as a paradigmatic statement, of which the remainder of the book is the explication (2:5-20 expounding 2:4a, and chapter 3 expounding 2:4b). In other words, "the one whose desires/soul/heart is not upright will fall" (the evil people, described in 2:5-20), "but the righteous will live by my faithfulness" (the innocent from chapter 1, described in chapter 3). I can't rehash all of chapter 3 here, but read through it. God is the one faithfully coming to the rescue.
Now, secondly, my translation just above probably raised your eyebrows because I translated the pronominal suffix on "faithfulness" as "my" (following LXX) and not "his" (following MT). Let me make two comments on your discussion of the LXX text. First, although Greek can have the grammatical nuances you discuss (i.e., "faith in me", source, etc.), the Hebrew cannot. In Hebrew, the construction we are discussing is possessive and can only be such. The decision to be made is between "his faithfulness" or "my faithfulness," and I think that my previous paragraphs make the exegetical case for God's saying "my faithfulness." Second, from a text-critical perspective, it is important to not think, "Which reading would make the most sense," thinking in terms of canonical or systematic theology, but rather, "Which reading can best describe the others." In Hebrew the difference between "my" and "his" is the difference between either the letter waw or yod (my Hebrew texts wouldn't work) at the end of the word. These letters are similar enough that one could conceive of either an accidental shortening or lengthening, respectively, of these letters so that it would become the other. Either option is plausible, so this doesn't help in determining the original. However, the obvious fact is that the LXX (which is the older text by over 1000 years) has "my." Therefore, it is obvious that either: 1.) the LXX translators misread the Hebrew text (less likely); or 2.) that the Hebrew text they were working from actually had "my." I think this is more likely the case text-critically, and it also makes good sense of the logic of the book as a whole (better sense, I think, than "his" because the faithfulness of the human in keeping the Law is nowhere to be found in the book, but the faithfulness of God in vindicating the innocent is the whole point).
ReplyDeleteThird, you posit a link between Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 which would emphasize the righteous individual's keeping of the covenant (hence, "by his faithfulness," that is, to the Law). However, I think this link is premature. What evidence can you offer to support that intertextual link? It certainly seems helpful for your argument, but I am not convinced that it is a legitimate connection to make.
ReplyDeleteFinally, I think your understanding of Paul's usage of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:16-17 stands on the inadequate construal of Hab 2:4 outlined above. Just to wrap this up quickly, I think Paul's emphasis is that of Habakkuk: the gospel is the power of GOD (caps for emphasis, I can't do italics on here) for salvation. In it GOD has revealed His righteousness. Therefore, the righteous will live because of GOD'S faithfulness. He has done what He promised. He is judging the evil and vindicating the innocent. I think the rest of Romans 1 is Paul's presentation of Habakkuk 2:5-20. See he is relying on the context of Habakkuk itself and using 2:4 as a jumping off point.
Just some thoughts, bud. Hope they help. I look forward to your reply.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteYou have done a splendid job in your response, as you have caused me to think and consider some things that I neglected to do in my original post (classic Ryan!). As a result, you have identified certain weaknesses pertaining to my pervious presentation and thus I will now make an attempt to give a more detailed treatment of Hab 2:4 within its original context.
To start things off I will first state my thesis, a small bit of prove, and end it with a literary treat. Yes, you right on many accounts, but God’s actions are just because of both who he is, and the righteousness of Hab that made him different from everyone else. My point in Hab is that the text, while emphasizing God as being the one who will vindicate and deliver him and punish the quilt, also pictures Hab’s faithfulness to God as it distinguishes him from everyone else and thus identifies him as being righteous because he lives my his faith.
On a side literarily related note, another reason or motivation for Hab coming to God in the first place (Chapter 1) was his claim that he did not deserve the injustice or the oppression upon him. According to many literary examples of an individual lament, the one complaining is motivated in doing so base who God is and often time what they are doing to prove to God that they are sincere in their requests and deserve God’s response. David does this all the time in Ps. For example, see Ps. 51 which demonstrates David’s appeal to God on account of who he is and what he is able to do, and also what he (David) is doing to prove his request is valid on the basis of his changed and sincere heart (this was the literary treat I was referring to early, and I just wanted to point it out in case you missed it). On another side note (but now it’s completely unrelated) you would appreciate that my understanding of Ps. 51 comes from none other than Dave Malick. Again, I thought you would like that little fact.
Now on to the body and main force of my response, which a walk through everyone through Hab in order to express more fully my point of his (Hab) faithfulness as it vindicates and motivates his petitioning of God.
For how long must Hab must I cry for help (1:1)? How long must he put up with injustice (1:3)? Because the wicked are intimidating the innocent, and justice is being prevented (1:4). But God will do an amazing work (vv5-11). Hab then proclaims that God is the transcendent righteous judge of the whole world as he is too just to neither tolerate evil nor condone wrongdoing (v12-13a). However, Hab’s question still remains: What does God put up with treacherous people? Why does God say nothing, basically allow such injustice to be rampant among and even upon people more righteous than they are (v13b-c)? Furthermore, Hab is concerned that the destruction coming his way will result in even the righteous ones being destroyed (vv14-17). I feel that Hab’s concern here implies another question: Will God allow them to be destroyed along with the wicked of the city?
Now onto chapter 2! There we will begin with God’s response (v2) to Hab’s latest concerns for the coming disaster (1:14-17), which God promised he would cause (1:6). God commands Hab to write his response down (v2) as this vision or message is a witness to what is decreed, a reliable testimony about how matters will turn out. Also, God declares that the message will not be fulfilled right away, so Hab must be patient (v3). Now all you have been waiting for: My fuller understanding of Hab 2:4 within its original context.
ReplyDeleteThis is the message of vision God wanted Hab to write down: I (God) promise you that the wicked will perish and the person of integrity or righteousness will live because the just will live by his faith (v4). God is speaking to Hab concerning who will be identified as a person of integrity or righteousness not how God’s faithfulness will be identified. The ones identified by integrity are the ones who live by their (a plural rendering for my correct English grammar, but you could quite easily substitute its singular possession counterpart (his) if you make the subject of the sentence singular) faithfulness.
It seems that for his verse to come close to saying what you are claiming it to say, then one would need or at least expect to see a first person suffix. Therefore, your text critical work and conclusion is noteworthy concerning the LXX, but you then need to provide further grammatical proof for your understanding the Greek rendering there. Like I stated earlier, the issue is quite complicated at that point since the genitive could communicate many things. In light of the overall and immediate context of Hab 2:4 it seems more reasonable to adopt the subjective genitive sense.
Lastly, the message or vision is not for God but for man. In other words, the antecedent of the message is not God but the person of integrity. It emphasizes man’s faithfulness in light of God’s righteousness character. Lastly, Hab 2:4 “is assuring Hab that those who are truly innocent will be preserved through the coming oppression and judgment by their godly lifestyle, for God ultimately rewards this type of conduct. In contrast to these innocent people, those with impure desires (epitomized by the greedy Babylonians; see v. 5) will not be able to withstand God’s judgment (v. 4a).” (See the notes from the NET bible on this verse)
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI would like to make one more comment on this matter for the sake of clarification, as we hopefully can continue our discussion here (and also anyone else who would like to chime in).
First, I would like to apologize for my horrible grammar and spelling in my last comment to you. It was late and I hope you were able to follow it, and I also hope that my grammar and spelling is better in this one.
I would like to quickly emphasize I point that I tried to make, but I don’t think I clearly statement a concern which I took issue with. First, I would like to quickly rehash some of what I previously said to your comments. It seems best to understand Hab 2:4 within the context of God responding to Hab’s latest concern: Won’t the Babylonians kill the righteous along with the unrighteous (1:14-17)? God’s response is NO! The ungodly will die and the godly ones will live. How are the godly identified? Well, it by how they live, which is by their faithfulness. Therefore, “his righteous” is individualist here, referring to man’s faithfulness and not God’s faithfulness (expressed primarily in his character as a God who will not stand for injustice being done on his people). However, remember that I clearly said that my main understanding of Hab 2:4 does not exclude the later understanding of “his faithfulness” as holding no theological weight or importance in this particular passage. Moreover, I would contend that you cannot have man’s faithfulness without talk of something God possesses. Therefore, my point is simply that the later truth is not the main force of the verse, but again that doesn’t mean that such a truth is neither implied nor unimportant.
Next, I find your text critical remarks helpful, but not conclusive. It seems quite valid and sound to say that the LXX could express something within a grammatical construction that they felt was missed or overlooked in the Hebrew text they used for their translation. Remember this is the point I raised when I originally discussed Paul’s usage: “it seems best that Paul’s basis for his argument brings out an aspect of the gospel and something in Hab that was overlooked: Faithfulness to YHWH can only come about by faith in YHWH. One is not faithful to God unless they believe, trust, or have faith in him.” Therefore, I find your text criticism to be guilty of question begging.
At this point you might criticize me of reading a NT or Pauline understanding into a OT understanding, but I would fail to see such a criticism if this theme or understanding was already there in the OT and simply and commonly overlooked or missed by generations of Jewish interpreters. Therefore, my link to Lev 18:5 is of great importance as it indicates that the theme of the Pauline usage can be found within the Law, as the righteousness covenant member(s) was identified by his (their) faithfulness to the Law and thus lived and was identified by it.
Lastly, some recent speculations I’ve had on Hab 2:4 being wrongly exegeted by generations of Jewish exegesis could perhaps be the cause or explanation of Paul’s unique way to correct and avoid further misunderstanding, potentially among Paul’s Gentile audience. For even modern exegetes struggle to understand the later more ambiguitist wording of the MT and the LXX in light of its more clearer meaning in Rom. Again, this later portion is purely my speculations, but it seems to be quite reasonable given the fact that Paul most likely quoted an OT passage in order to correct previously wrong Jewish interpretations (such as horrible allegories, and other commonly misused methods of Jewish exegesis). Do you have any thoughts on this later point as an attempt to explain Paul’s unique restatement of Hab 2:4?