FIRST POST
SECOND POST
THIRD POST
FIFTH POST
Continuing to respond to Dr. Riddlebarger on the righteousness of God in Romans 1.16, I again remind readers of a series of posts I did to make a positive case:
I have already pointed out that claiming the “the righteousness of God” interpretation (as opposed to “the righteousness from God” interpretation) “fails to do justice to Paul’s overall theology” one must posit a false antithesis, that Paul couldn’t believe both things and deal with them both in one letter. I’ve also given some lines of evidence from Romans 1-3 both the immediate context and, within a pretty close context, a parallel passage. But Dr. Riddlebarger has his own passages and here they are:
Take, for example, Romans 10:3-4, where Paul writes of his fellow Jews, “since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” In this text, Paul clearly speaks of the righteousness which justifies as coming from God. Paul is not merely echoing the first century Jewish understanding of the righteousness of God. Rather, Paul is correcting the Jewish misunderstanding of God’s righteousness in light of the coming of Christ!
The same thing is found in Philippians 3:9, when Paul speaks of desiring to be found in Christ, “not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.” Once again, the righteousness of which Paul speaks comes from God through the means of faith, not through obedience to the law. And then when we read in 1 Corinthians 1:30: “it is because of [God] that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption,” it is clear that the righteousness which God freely gives us through faith, is the righteousness of Christ himself.
Let’s work these texts backwards.
First Corinthians 1.30: I entirely agree with Dr. Riddlebarger. His interpretation of the passage is right and it can be backed by other passages about how we are identified with Christ so that we share in his legal standing, as well as gaining many other gifts. Of course, some of these can be worked out gradually, but a legal standing is either there or not. There are no degrees, unlike what we call sanctificaiton. Justification in Christ, his righteousness being attributed to us so that we are not judged as unrighteous, is there in the text.
But, as I have pointed out, this doesn’t mean that Paul has to be speaking of the same exact them when he speaks of “the righteousness of God.” In fact, the Greek word for “from” which is found in First Corinthians 1.30 is entirely absent from Romans 1.16.
Philippians 3.9: Again, Dr. Riddlebarger is dead on. But, again, this doesn’t prove anything about Romans 1.16 especially since, yet again, in order to speak of a “righteousness from God” Paul actually uses the Greek word for “from” (ek). This is a different phrase from “the righteousness of God” in Romans 1.16.
Romans 10.3, 4: The first thing to notice here is that the word “from” provided in several English “translations,” is nowhere in the text. The NASB translators, thankfully, give us an accurate rendering in English:
For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
There is no question that in Romans 10.4, Paul refers to righteousness as a forensic status which believers receive. That is the only plausible interpretation in light of 10.10.
But the point in Romans is that God must be both “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3.26; “righteous and the right-ifier” to literalize the Greek). The Jews, Paul tells us, believed that God’s covenant plan was to bring salvation through the Law and the Prophets. But Paul argues that God’s faithfulness to bring the promised salvation could not come that way. By insisting on a perpetual Torah, the Jews were inventing their own righteousness, a fake plan they attributed to God. As a result, rather than being vindicated they were going to be condemned.
More later.