THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH:
Habakkuk 2:4 and the Necessity and Means of Justification by Faith in Romans 1-4
Nathanael Howard
Romans LUO BIBL 425
12 December 2010
INTRODUCTION
As Paul opens up his letter to the Romans, a Hellenistic form, being three-fold, is found: the person sending the letter as well as the recipients (1:1-7), and a greeting or thanksgiving (1:8-15).[1] Paul then presents the theme of the letter in verses 16-17, ending with a quote from Habakkuk 2:4, “The just shall live by faith.” How should one read Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4? How is the necessity and means of justification expounded in the book of Romans? I will argue the following: Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 is central to his argument for justification by faith and not based on the works of the law; and that the necessity and means of justification by faith is not only important, but also integral to understanding Romans 1-4.
Habakkuk 2:4 and Paul
To understand Paul’s use of Habakkuk, two hermeneutical questions must be addressed. The first hermeneutical question revolves around the passage of Habakkuk itself. Does Paul use it in its original meaning; is Paul using the quotation in a similar context, yet applied to a broader set of circumstances; or, does Paul apply a completely new meaning to the text?
The Old Testament Context of Habakkuk 2:4
Habakkuk 2:2 introduces us to the context- Jehovah is giving Habakkuk a prophecy to write down. This prophecy is two-fold. First, there is a reference to the coming Messiah at an appointed time in the future (Hab. 2:3). The second part is a contrast of two people. The first is the Chaldean, who has yet to come (Hab. 2:4a, 5-19); and the second is the believer (Hab. 2:4b).[2] The believer, who places his faith in the coming Messiah, will be given life. The word “life” (chayah) seems to carry an eschatological sense. The Chaldean, who is puffed up, is presumptuous and has placed his faith in idols (vs. 18-19) will not be given the life that “the just” will receive.[3] Bruce points out that the Hebrew word used in Habakkuk for “faith” has the sense of fidelity or steadfastness, and this means that “the just” would be firm in his belief on the coming Messiah.[4] Therefore, the passage in Habakkuk presents a biblical method of salvation condensed into one phrase: “the just shall live by faith.” The other side of this implication is the one who is not saved (i.e. the Chaldean) because his faith is not in the coming Messiah, but in himself and his idols. The Chaldean will not have life, because his faith is misplaced. Evk pi,stewj, in the genitive sense, answers the question “how?” This shows that the prepositional phrase modifies the verb, “shall live”. Ergo, “the just shall live.” How shall they live? The answer is, “by faith”.
The Hebrew Text Carried into the New Testament
The second hermeneutical question focuses on the rendering of the Greek. A textual difference depends on whether Paul used the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint. The Masoretic Text would be translated, “But the righteousness by his faith/faithfulness shall live”, whereas the Septuagint would read, “But the righteousness shall live by my faithfulness”.[5] Paul seems to drop the pronoun and states, “But the righteous by faith shall live”.[6] The second hermeneutical question then is, where should evk pi,stewj be applied, does it support di,kaioj, zh,setai, or both?
Hendriksen argues that evk pi,stewj should be applied to zh,setai.[7] Hendriksen’s argument is for this reasoning is six-fold and will be summed up. First, the Habakkuk passage links the phrase ‘by his faithfulness’ with ‘he lives’. Second, if Paul meant to have ‘by faith’ affecting ‘the just’, he would have written “o` de. evk pi,stewj di,kaioj” instead of the present rendering. Third, evk pi,stewj is used in a predicate sense [comparing evk pi,stewj eij pi,stin]. Fourth, there is no known parallel to “righteous by faith” in any of Paul’s writings. Fifth, if evk pi,stewj is connected to di,kaioj, this should also be applied to the same use of Hab. 2:4 in Gal. 3:11.[8] Hendriksen argues that the context of Galatians determines the translation as “live by faith”. Sixth, using his argument from Galatians, the emphasis must be on “[the just shall] live by faith” and not “[the just] by faith shall live”.[9]
Cranfield counters this argument in three ways. First, the context [Rom. 1:16-17] contains no direct reference to living by faith, but as seen in vs. 17a, righteousness by faith is addressed, evk pi,stewj with dikiaosu,nh. Second, the way that Romans is written demands such a translation; 1:18-4:25 builds and contrasts o` di,kaioj evk pi,stewj, 5:1-8:39 explains the promise of zh,setai to the righteous evk pi,stij. Third, the correlation between righteousness and faith is contextually argued for (Rom. 5:1; 4:11, 13; 9:30; and 10:6).[10]
Dunn argues for a third viewpoint. Based on his understanding of evk pi,stewj eij pi,stin (vs. 17a; from faith to faith) in which God grants a believer faith to believe, Dunn attributes Paul’s use of evk pi,stewj in 17b to both di,kaioj and zh,setai.[11] Dunn also argues that Paul knew both variations of Habakkuk 2:4 and intentionally left out the pronouns found in the Septuagint as well as the Masoretic Text, but not in order to provide a new meaning to the text of Habakkuk.[12]
Did Paul leave out pronouns intentionally? No, and here is why. Di,kaioj is an adjective pointing to an understood subject of “one.” “The just/righteous [one] shall live.” Zh,setai is a singular, third person, future middle verb.[13] This means “live” will occur in the future (as a statement of fact), based on the subject acting upon itself.[14] Since the subject is acting upon itself, this then removes the possibility of the understood mou. The prepositional phrase evk pi,stewj is a genitive preposition of means.[15] The future life is dependent upon the righteous one having faith. Thus, the full meaning would follow: The righteous [one] shall live [future assertive fact] by [by means of one’s] faith. In this sense then, Dunn is wrong to assume such ambiguity.[16]
With this understanding, does evk pi,stewj support di,kaioj, zh,setai, or both? It seems that the prepositional phrase carries the same meaning here as it did in Habakkuk 2:4. The contrast of those living by faith will follow in Rom. 1:18-3:21. Whether the translation reads, “the just, by faith, shall live” or “the just shall live by faith” does not necessarily matter because the essential theme is arrived at- justification by faith alone is necessary for eternal life.[17] Fitzmyer, although arguing for emphasis on zh,setai, agrees in that the Pauline emphasis is to use this phrase to point to the way of salvation in Christ.[18] This is the same meaning as the Habakkuk text. The only real difference is that there is no “Chaldean”. However, Romans 1:18-3:20 will more than make up with the example of universal depravity. Paul will build upon this theme exponentially in Romans.
The Necessity and Means of Justification by Faith
From Romans 1:18-4:25, Paul demonstrates that justification by faith is central to the gospel message of Christ.[19] His first argument for justification by faith is that no one, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion can save himself or herself (1:18-3:20). Paul then explains justification by faith more clearly (3:21-31), and then presents an example of Old Testament faith, characterized in Abraham (4:1-4:25). Paul follows Abraham with the comparison of the old man with the new man by faith (5:1-8:39). Paul then focuses primarily on the relationship between the Jew, the Gentile, and their relation to salvation-history (9:1-11:36).
All Are under Sin
From Romans 1:18-3:20, Paul systematically explains that both the Jew and Gentile, of themselves, is unregenerate and is incapable of becoming righteous. The Gentiles are accountable to God because God can clearly be found in nature, but their faith is not in God. The Gentiles have replaced the truth of God with idols (1:18-23; cf. Ps. 19:1-2); therefore, God gave them over to sinful lusts and perverted actions (1:24-32). The Jew is, likewise, under condemnation (2:1-3:8).[20] The Jews, who have no right to judge, are condemned because of their judgment of others (2:1-4). Jews and Gentiles are both judged by works (2:5-11). Jews and Gentiles are judged impartially (2:12-16). The Jews do not obey the Torah (2:17-29). The unrighteousness of Israel is compared to the righteousness of God (3:1-8). All are guilty before a holy and sinless God, and no one can be justified on their own (3:9-20).
As one reads Romans 2, three problem verses arise in this section with the same question, could one truly be saved by works? They are Rom. 2:7, 2:13, and 2:26-27.[21] Romans 2:17 and 2:13 are part of a Pauline diatribe.[22] Paul has all ready concluded in 2:1-5 that no one, not even the self-righteous Jew, can pass judgment upon anyone, even those described in 1:18-32.[23] Paul then uses two paragraphs to explain why God must be impartial in His judgment (vs. 5-11 and 12-16).[24] If one were to treat these verses eisegetically, one could arrive at the conclusion that Paul is teaching salvation by works; however, this is not the case. Moo correctly summarizes the context of this passage. A person can [theoretically] be justified by doing the actions of the law (2:13), [but] all humans [both Jew and Gentile] are under the control of sin (3:9), which means that no human being will be justified by the works of the law (3:20).[25] Kasemann rightly states,
The need for the gospel of God’s righteousness does not seem so compelling in relation to the Jew. Hence, his illusions must be eradicated. This yields a structure based on the subject matter. The basic principle is enunciated in vv. 1-11. Before the Judge there is no respect of persons. We then find a three-fold development in vv. 12-29: first, justification only on the basis of possession of the Torah is rejected in vv. 12-16; then Jewish transgression of the law is demonstrated in vv. 17-24; and circumcision as a privilege is devalued in vv. 25-29. In 3:1-8 Jewish objections to Paul’s proclamation are then dealt with. Finally, in 3:9-20 it is shown that the common guilt rules out the law as a way of salvation.[26]
Justification by Faith Explained
Paul has now clearly demonstrated that there is no hope for Jew or Gentile. In Romans 3:21-31, Paul will clearly explain how the condemned Jew and Gentile can be justified before a holy God. Paul begins this section with the phrase, nuni. de,, which is used to issue in a transition.[27] Verse 21 is merely a reiteration of 1:17, bringing the reader back to the context of the righteousness of God being revealed.[28] This physical manifestation of righteousness was testified to by the law and the prophets. In 3:22-23, Paul then explains that this righteousness is available to anyone who would believe in Christ, because all have sinned.[29]
The first mention of justification in the Greek comes in vs. 24. Added to this fact is that justification is freely given (dwrea.n)by God’s grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus further testifies that this salvific method is removed from the law and placed under the gospel of Christ (3:24; cf. 1:16). Propitiation can only occur through faith in his [Christ’s] blood (vs. 25a).[30] God uses the act of propitiation to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance [patience] of God.[31] The propitiation further declares that God is both just and the justifier “of him which believeth in Jesus” (vs. 26). Because God is just, God is the only one that can justify the one who has faith in Christ Jesus.
Verse 27 opens with a rhetorical question with the obvious no to follow.[32] This then removes the opportunity for one to boast. Since it was not of works that man earned the justification by faith, there is no right to ownership of the praise (27a). Paul then introduces the phrase, “law of faith”. Cranfield argues that this phrase is an intention of the Torah, which now summons men to faith.[33] However, in the New Testament, the Spirit that draws men to faith, not a new interpretation of the Torah. Moo argues metaphorically that “Paul is contrasting two principles of justification: one by works and one by faith”.[34] Schreiner argues for a more literal sense.[35] However, Schreiner’s argument is not compelling.
Furthermore, verse 28 will provide some context to answer this question. From the explanation presented in vs. 21-27, Paul now draws his conclusion, “that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Again, the law is contrasted as apart from salvation. With this in mind, verse 27 leans toward a metaphorical sense, such as presented by Moo. Verses 29-31 recap on what has been discussed. God is the God of everyone, Jew and Gentile (vs. 29). This same God will justify both the circumcised and uncircumcised by faith (vs. 30). Morris is correct in pointing out that not all circumcised [or uncircumcised] will be justified, only those that are justified by faith.[36] Is the law [of Moses] void by faith? No, it is established by faith (vs. 31)! This rightly deserves the question, how can this be? Fitzmyer sees the answer in the context to come, namely chapters 8, 10, and 13. Morris argues from the understanding of Romans 3:21, which states that the law witnessed the coming Messiah.[37] Moo and Schreiner both argue instead that this is a reference to the Christian obeying the law- by faith; we are to continue to obey the moral commands of the law.[38] It is my opinion that it covers both aspects. Romans 3:21 clearly points to the law testifying to a coming Messiah.[39] His argument is based on the fact the Greek phrase in vs. 21 includes the term, “and the prophets”; however, contextually, Paul has only discussed the law, so why would he not continue in this manner? Morris argues that the law laid the foundation the way of faith, but it could not reconcile us to God- only faith in Christ’s work upon the cross could.[40] Therefore, what the law began, but failed, to do- faith in Christ established it in the end. This does not mean that we simply disregard the law either. As Moo points out, those who walk according to the Spirit fulfill the law in them.[41]
Romans 1:18-3:20 give us a clear picture of the hopelessness of humanity. However, hope in the gift of salvation is possible. Romans 3:21-31 establishes the fact that justification by faith is the only way to be reconciled before God.
The Example of Justification by Faith
Romans 4:1-25 contains a specific example of an Old Testament patriarch who was justified by faith. Romans 4:1-8 contains an interrogative question that Paul will decisively answer.[42] Romans 4:9-12 removes circumcision from the cause of his salvation. Romans 4:13-15 removes Abraham’s salvation from the law. Romans 4:16-25 finally explains more fully, what is taught in 4:3, Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.[43]
Paul begins this section with another rhetorical question in 4:1. Verse 2 argues the point that if Abraham was made righteous by works, he would have a reason to boast, but Abraham could not boast, because he was not justified before God.[44] Thus, Paul introduces the reason Abraham was justified- by faith. The theological explanation in Romans 3 is now given a real life scenario in Romans 4. Romans 4:4 builds upon Romans 4:2- if Abraham had been justified by works, he would merely be receiving payment a debt owed for his works.[45] Since no man can do that, grace is needed. Therefore, 4:5 explains that the one who believes on “him that justifies the ungodly” shall be counted righteous. Again, justification by faith is the only way for one to be declared righteous.
Paul then follows 4:1-5 with a quote from David in 4:6-8. Schreiner states,
Before leaving the example of David three other observations should be made on verses 6-8. First, Paul clarifies that God is the one who reckons righteousness […]. Second, righteousness is defined here in terms of forgiveness of sins. To be counted as righteous apart from works is to have one’s lawless deeds forgiven, one’s sins covered, and one’s sin not taken into account. Finally, the word makarismo,j (makarismos, blessing) testifies to the gracious character of justification. Those who have experienced forgiveness of sins are conscious of receiving a great blessing from God, a gift that brings happiness precisely because it is undeserved and unexpected.[46]
Paul then moves on to demonstrate that Abraham’s faith was counted righteous before he received the rite of circumcision (vs. 9-10). Furthermore, because of Abraham’s place in Paul’s theology, Paul demonstrates that Abraham is the father of all saved, both Jew and Gentile (vs. 11-12). Paul succinctly argues in four verses that the rite of circumcision is not a basis for justification. In fact, this is an argument previously made by Paul in Rom. 2:25-29.
Since Paul has established that Abraham was not justified by circumcision, Paul now moves onto the argument that Abraham was not justified by the law. Paul first points out that Abraham received the promise, not through the law, but because of his faith. Fitzmyer explains Paul’s argument. If inheritance was only conditioned upon obedience of, the law, then faith would be made void and God’s promise would have been worthless.[47] The law demonstrates the need for a savior, but since it cannot save; only due punishment is the result.[48]
This leads us to the rightful conclusion; Abraham was justified by his faith in the promises of God. First, Abraham believed that he would in fact become the father of many nations (vs. 17). Abraham was beyond his child-producing years when he received this promise. Nevertheless, Abraham held steadfast to the promise that God made, even when the situation seemed hopeless (vs. 18). Because of this hope, Abraham became the father of many nations. Schreiner rightly points out however that the key is not Abraham’s faith in his promise, but in the type of faith Abraham had.[49] It is the quality of the faith Abraham had- being fully persuaded and acted upon that persuasion with full effect (vs. 21). It was this God-centered faith that was imputed unto Abraham for righteousness (vs. 22).[50] Furthermore, this was not written down for Abraham’s faith alone, but that one might see what true faith looks like. Anyone may receive justification by faith, but their faith must be securely planted in God, who raised up Christ; who was delivered for our trespasses, and raised again for our justification (vs. 24-25).
CONCLUSION
I have argued that Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 is central to his argument for justification by faith and not based on the works of the law. Furthermore, the necessity and means of justification by faith, as understood in view of Habakkuk 2:4 is not only important, but also integral to understanding Romans 1-4. Just as the Chaldean of Habakkuk has no hope in eternal life, the sinner found in Romans 1:18-3:20 has no hope, except in the gracious gift of justification by faith. In the words of Leon Morris,
Having made it devastatingly clear that all mankind is caught up in sinfulness, Paul turns his attention to the way sinfulness is overcome. It is central to his understanding of the Christian way that no human merit can ever avail before God, but that the death of Christ on the cross changes all that. He sees the death of Christ as a great divine act that may be viewed from many angles. […]. It is a way of saying that man has no merit at all; his sin has disqualified him in the heavenly court. But because of what Christ has done, he can now face that court with assurance. The verdict that will be rendered on the believer is ‘Not guilty’.[51]
The example of Abraham cemented Paul’s understanding of justification by faith. But, Abraham’s story was not written for him alone, “But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:23-25).
Bibliography
Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland. "The Greek New Testament, 4th Edition." Germany: C. H. Beck, 2001.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmann's, 1977.
Cranfield, C.E.B. The Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975.
Dana, H.E., and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: MacMillan, 1957.
Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1-8. Vol. 38a, in Word Biblical Commentary, edited by Bruce M. Metzger, Ralph P. Martin and Lynn Allan Losie. Nashville: Nelson, 1988.
Edwards, James R. Romans. Vol. 6, in New International Biblical Commentary, edited by W. Ward Gasque. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. Vol. 33, in The Anchor Yale Bible, edited by William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman. New Haven: Yale Publishing, 2008.
Hendriksen, William. Romans, Chs. 1-8 in, New Testament Commentary by William Hendriksen. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.
Hodges, Zane C., and Arthur L. Farstad. The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Nashville: Nelson, 1985.
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Job-Malachi. Vol. II, in A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008.
Kasemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmann's, 1982.
Keil, C. F. Minor Prophets. Vol. 10, in Commentary on the Old Testament, by C. F. Keil and C. F. Delitzsch. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006.
Moo, Douglas J. Encountering the Book of Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
________. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmann's, 1996.
Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmann's, 1988.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans, in Baker Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
Shulam, Joseph. A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Romans. Baltimore: Lederer, 1997.
Wallace, Daniel B. Basics of Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
________. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Witherington III, Ben. Romans, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 2004.
[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Vol. 6, in Baker Exegetical Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 31.
[2] Robert Jamieson; A. R. Fausset; David Brown, Job-Malachi, Vol. 2 in A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008), 628. However, Keil comments that the Chaldean is actually a picture of a sinner that is contrasted with the believer [C.F. Keil, The Minor Prophets in Vol. 10, Commentary on the Old Testament, by Keil, C.F.; Delitzsch F. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006), 401].
[3] Keil, Minor Prophets, 401.
[4] F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans in Vol. 6, Tyndale New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1977), 80.
[5] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans in Anchor Yale Bible, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 264-265. Fitzmyer actually presents five versions of Hab. 2:4- one in the MT, a Greek form in a fragmentary text, and three forms in the LXX [also Gal. 3:11 and Heb. 10:38]. For this paper, I will use the main two as listed above.
[6] Literal translation found in Schreiner, Romans, 73. The Greek quotation is the same for both the UBS4 and the Majority Text, “O`````` de. di,kaioj ek pi,stewj zh,setai”.
[7] William Hendriksen, Romans, Chs 1-8 in New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 64.
[8] The Greek text is the exact same for both passages. Furthermore, the KJV and NIV translate both phrases the same way, “The just shall live by faith.”
[9] For Hendriksen’s complete argument, see Romans, Chs 1-8, 64-65; so also Fitzmyer, Romans, 265.
[10] C.E.B. Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 1 in International Critical Commentary, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982), 102.
[11] James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Vol. 38a in Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 1988), 48.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Daniel B. Wallace, Basics of Biblical Greek, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 156.
[14] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 448.
[15] Ibid, 125; see also H.E. Dana, Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (New York: MacMillan, 1957), 102, 114.
[16] Dunn, Romans 1-8, 48.
[17] Cranfield, Romans, Vol. 1, is wrong to assume that this is a thematic outline of the book of Romans. Specifically, this outline would only cover the first eight chapters.
[18] Fitzmyer, Romans, 265; see also Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans in The Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1988), 72. Morris does argue that evk pi,stewj modifies di,kaioj but arrives at the same final conclusion, “Paul is speaking of the way a person is made righteous, namely by faith, and assuring us that it is the one who is made righteous in this way who will live”.
[19] Depending on the author, the following outline will vary. Two examples for further comparison are found in Schreiner, Romans, 25-27 and Fitzmyer, Romans, viii-xii. The outline presented is loosely based off the outline found in Schreiner, Romans, 26-27. Romans 5:1-16:27 will not be discussed due to the practical nature and focus on sanctification in the believer.
[20] Schreiner, Romans, 102; so also Morris, Romans, 107; Moo, Romans, 125-126; contra Ben Witherington III who sees Gentiles as the subject of Romans 2:1-16. See his argument: Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to Romans, A Social-Rhetorical Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 2004), 73-78.
[21] Romans 2:10 is a repetition of Romans 2:7 and will be treated under that discussion.
[22] Douglas J. Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 64. This work is hereafter referred to as “Moo, ECR, and page number”.
[23] Moo, Romans, 126.
[24] Ibid, 127.
[25] Moo, ECR, 65; so also Schreiner, Romans, 114.
[26] Ernst Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1980), 52-53.
[27] Schreiner, Romans, 180; see also Moo, Romans, 221; Morris, Romans, 173.
[28] Moo, Romans, 219.
[29] Ibid; so also, Schreiner, Romans, 185; whether or not the phrase should be “faith in Christ” or “faith of Christ” will not be discussed here, refer to Schreiner, Romans, 181-186.
[31] The phrase, “sins that are past” has had some issue. Summing up what Schreiner wrote, God has mercifully allowed the propitiation of Christ’s blood to be applied to the OT believers whose animal sacrifices were not enough to wash away their sins (Heb. 10:4). This then leaves their faith in the sacrificial one to come who would be able to do so [Schreiner, Romans, 195].
[32] Morris, Romans, 185. So also I Cor. 1:29 cf. Eph. 2:8-9.
[33]Cranfield, Romans, Vol. 1, 220.
[34] Moo, ECR, 87; his use of Gal. 3:12 in order to back up this definition is on point, since Paul is specifically showing that the law cannot save, nor can the works of the law- only faith, which is found in Gal. 3:11 and is another quotation of Hab. 2:4. See also: Moo, Romans, 249-250. Fitzmyer calls this an “oxymoronic use”, comparing the laws of works and faith; see Fitzmyer, Romans, 363.
[35] Schreiner, Romans, 201-202.
[37] Ibid, 189.
[38] Moo, Romans, 255; cf. Schreiner, Romans, 208.
[39] Pace Schreiner, Romans, 207.
[40] Morris, Romans, 189.
[41] Moo, Romans, 255; Moo is citing Rom. 8:4.
[43] Moo, ECR, 91; Moo points out that Paul had a second reason for choosing Abraham as his example of faith. Jews exonerated Abraham to a status much higher than what should have been. Paul needed to bring him back down to his humanity and establish the fact that only by faith was he justified and counted righteous before God.
[44] Schreiner, Romans, 212.
[45] Moo, ECR, 91. Moo, Romans, 263 explains that the contrast is between grace and obligation.
[47] Fitzmyer, Romans, 385.
[48] Morris, Romans, 206-207.
[50] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment