LUTHER’S “RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD” IN ROMANS 1:17

 

 Introduction

One of the most theologically rich phrases in the corpus of the Apostle Paul’s writings is the “righteousness of God.” In many ways, Martin Luther’s breakthrough interpretation of the phrase provided the impetus for the Protestant Reformation. However, modern scholars have disputed Luther’s interpretation, which has potentially put a core construct of Protestant theology at risk. Accordingly, it is necessary to understand whether Luther’s interpretation of the contested phrase is valid. The purpose of this paper is to define Luther’s breakthrough interpretation of the phrase and to determine whether it has biblical and contextual support. The research will first define Luther’s breakthrough and then investigate the biblical and contextual support for his interpretation. Based on the research provided, this paper will prove that biblical and contextual evidence does exist to support Luther’s interpretation of the phrase, the righteousness of God, in Romans 1:17.

 

Definitional Support for Luther’s Breakthrough

The Background

In order to understand Luther’s breakthrough, it is necessary to identify the doctrinal framework that Luther reacted against. Scholastic theology in the Thomistic tradition viewed the concepts of righteousness and justification in light of two distinct types of grace.[1] First, actual grace provided forgiveness of actual sins through the process of confession, but was not powerful enough to remove original sin.[2] Accordingly, an infusion of a second type of grace, habitual grace, was necessary through the sacramental system of the church.[3] In light of the

Scholastic doctrine, Luther was obsessed with whether his confessions were comprehensive enough to forgive all of his actual sins.

Luther’s obsession over the forgiveness of sin led him to additional study, all of which provided support for his future breakthrough. First, Luther studied the works of Gabriel Biel, a nominalist theologian and a proponent of the via moderna, the modern way.[4] The theologians of the via moderna concluded that habits in justification were not necessary.[5] Second, Luther devoured the works of Augustine, who accentuated the personal nature of God, which shifted Luther’s emphasis from a created grace to an uncreated grace in the form of the Holy Spirit.[6] Third, in 1513, Luther began an important study of the Psalms called the Dictata super Paslterium, which led him to conclude that an arrangement, or pactum, between God and humanity must exist in order for God to be “able to justify the sinner.”[7]

At this point, Luther’s understanding of justification aligned directly with the via moderna, which suggested that God was obligated to fulfill his part of the agreement if humanity met a quod in se est – a “minimum condition for justification.”[8] The challenge for Luther was identifying the exact nature of quod in se est. Alister McGrath suggests that, during the time just prior to Luther’s breakthrough, humility was Luther’s early understanding of quod in se est.[9] However, upon returning to the Psalms, a significant shift occurred. By 1519, Luther had determined that the idea of quod in se est was “nothing more and nothing less than Pelagian.”[10]

 

The Breakthrough

In 1545, Luther writes an important “autobiographical fragment” in a preface to the complete edition of his Latin writings that provides significant insight into his breakthrough regarding his interpretation of the “righteousness of God.”[11] Due to the critical importance of the fragment in understanding Luther’s perspective, it is important to quote the passage at length:

Meanwhile, I had already during that year [1519] returned to interpret the Psalter anew. I had confidence in the fact that I was more skillful, after I had lectured in the university on St. Paul’s epistles to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the one to the Hebrews. I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. But up till then it was not the cold blood about the heart,[12] but a single word in Chapter 1[:17], “In it the righteousness of God is revealed,” that had stood in my way. For I hated that word “righteousness of God,” which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as they called it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner….

At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ ” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me.[13]

 

Three important concepts arise from Luther’s famous fragment identifying his breakthrough interpretation of the important phrase. First, Luther identifies the “righteousness of God” as a gift.[14] In other words, Luther recognized God’s righteousness as something other than the wrath that punishes sinners, which caused him so much consternation. Second, faith was the sole vehicle that pronounced the individual righteous.[15] Stephen Westerholm poetically expounds on the connection between faith and righteousness by explaining that Luther’s perspective is not that God overlooks sin, but that Christ bore it, and through a form of “marriage” relationship, “the righteousness of the divine Groom becomes theirs [the believers].”[16] Third, the righteousness identified by Luther was passive. To understand Luther’s perspective of passive righteousness, it is necessary to recognize that Luther identified two types of righteousness. The first type is that of a passive or alien righteousness instilled by Christ through faith, whereby all that Christ has, including his righteousness, occupies the believer.[17] The second type of righteousness is a “proper righteousness,” a righteousness that works in conjunction with the passive or alien righteousness.[18] To provide a fair representation of Luther’s perspective against his antinomist critics, a proper understanding of the relationship between the two types of righteousness is crucial.

Luther’s book Treatise on Christian Liberty may best represent the important chronological connection between the two types of righteousness. Luther begins by referring to the Gospel of Matthew and quotes, “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit” (Matt. 7:18, [NASB]).[19] Accordingly, Luther concludes, “Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good works.”[20] In other words, good works follow a good person, but the reverse is no more possible than roots growing on fruit.[21] Thus, the chronology of the two types of righteousness is critical to a proper understanding of Luther. As Luther explains, a man must first be good via a passive righteousness before he can do good – a proper righteousness.[22]

 

Biblical Support for Luther’s Breakthrough

Analysis of the Grammatical Construction

            Without question, Luther’s interpretation of the phrase “righteousness of God” made a lasting impact on Protestantism. However, the question remains whether biblical support exists for Luther’s interpretation. This section provides a brief analysis of the grammatical construction of the phrase followed by additional interpretive support within the book of Romans.

The Greek phrase for the righteousness of God in Romans 1:17 is dikaiosuvnh qeou:, which is in the genitive case that, in English, is similar to the preposition “of” indicating possession.[23] The Greek genitive case has important exegetical significance due to the variety of interpretations it may convey.[24] N. T. Wright provides four potential ways of interpreting the genitive in Romans 1:17: an objective genitive, a subjective genitive, a possessive genitive, and a genitive of origin.[25] However, Douglas Moo suggests that only three primary options exist. First, the objective genitive that refers to a “status given by God,” the subjective genitive that refers to “an activity of God,” and finally, the possessive genitive that refers to “an attribute of God.”[26]

Luther’s breakthrough aligns closely with the objective genitive interpretation, not in a strict transformative sense, but rather in an alien or passive sense of righteousness whereby the believer’s status modifies forensically.[27] Alternatively, Ernst Käsemann makes the case that, in light of the Old Testament evidence, a proper biblical understanding of the phrase supports a subjective genitive interpretation, which conveys the divine activity of the Creator.[28] Finally, in alignment with early church interpretation, Denny Burk argues that from a linguistic perspective the subjective and objective genitives both need eliminated.[29] Burk proposes that nouns, such as dikaiosuvnh, that end in –suvnh “indicate the qualities or defects of a person’s character.”[30] In other words, Burk persuasively contends the possessive genitive is the only alternative.

With a number of reasonable options provided, it appears the inspired words of Paul should have been clearer, but additional clarity was not required. For only a God who possessed an attribute of righteousness would have the capacity to extend the activity necessary to declare the status of a believer righteous. In other words, it appears unlikely that Luther misunderstood God’s attribute of righteousness or discounted God’s ability to act, but recognized that the culmination of  God’s attribute and activity provided the gift of righteousness, a forensically declared new status, which caused Luther to feel “altogether born again.”[31]

 

Analysis within the Book of Romans

            The difficulty of limiting the interpretation of the phrase “righteousness of God” in Romans 1:17 to a definition that excludes the possibility of a gift that declares the status of the believer righteous is heightened by the numerous references to a forensic righteousness throughout the book of Romans. John Piper references Romans 4 as an important passage that supports the concept that the righteousness of God is a declared righteousness.[32] For example, Paul states, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3). Piper asserts that the righteousness credited to Abraham is an imputed righteousness that inhabits the believer via faith.[33] Piper continues by suggesting that Paul’s metaphorical reference in verse 4 to the external nature of wages supports the idea that imputed righteousness originates externally, or in Luther’s words – an alien righteousness.[34] Piper also references Romans 5:12-17 and explains that Paul desires believers to understand that Christ’s righteousness is imputed in a way analogous to humanity’s relationship with Adam: “As we were in him and share in his sin, so we are in Christ and share in his righteousness.”[35] Finally, it would be difficult to avoid the possibility that God’s righteousness is an externally generated gift in light of Romans 5:17:  “The gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.”

Douglas Moo also references Romans 3:21-22 and 10:3 stating that the verses “include references to the status of righteousness ‘given’ to the believer by God.”[36] Granted, it is possible for the exegesis of individual texts to undermine the idea that the righteousness of God resides within an objective genitive interpretation. However, it appears overwhelming grammatical and scriptural evidence exists to support Luther’s perspective that the righteousness of God may refer to a forensically declared status given by God to the believer.

 

Contextual Support for Luther’s Breakthrough

The Context in Light of the Old Testament

            Certainly, grammatical and scriptural evidence exists to support Luther’s interpretation of the phrase “righteousness of God.” However, it is also necessary to consider whether contextual support exists for Luther’s breakthrough interpretation. This section provides an exploration of the context that Paul communicated the phrase to first century readers.

Sam Williams proposes that since Paul does not give a comprehensive explanation of dikaiosuvnh qeou: in Romans 1:17, one can reasonably conclude that Paul assumed his readers would be familiar with the phrase based on their familiarity with the Old Testament.[37] More specifically, James Ropes contends that the primary meaning of the Hebrew verb “to be in the right” (ṣādaq) has a forensic connotation whereby an individual is “pronounced to be in the right.”[38] Ropes provides a supportive example from Genesis 38:26 where Judah says of Tamar, “She is more righteous than I,” not suggesting an ethical righteousness, but a strength of her case – “she is in the right” (cf. Exod. 9:17, 23:7; Deut. 25:1).[39] However, even more striking are the passages where “God’s vindication of man can be described either as the righteousness of man or the righteousness of God.”[40] Ropes cites an example of when God supplied his righteousness to Israel: “This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord” (Isa. 54:17, KJV; cf. Isa. 41:10; Ps. 69:28).[41] Without a doubt, the Old Testament refers to “righteousness” in other senses, which include a form of moral excellence, an attribute of God, and an activity of God. However, Ropes suggests that Paul knew the variegated perspectives of the righteousness of God referenced in Isaiah and the Psalms; thus, “It is possible to think of it as an attribute and activity of God and as a state [status] of man resulting therefrom.”[42]

The Context in Light of the Greco-Roman Culture

            Frank Thielman proposes that, in addition to investigating the first century readers understanding of the Old Testament, Greco-Roman contextual support for understanding the “righteousness of God” is available from Origen of Caesarea’s commentary on Romans.[43] Origen appears to have understood the righteousness of God in light of the Greco-Roman culture as meaning to treat people – Jew, Greek, or barbarian – fairly.[44] In other words, righteousness traverses all social boundaries. Thielman suggests the fairness of God referenced by Origen was “not equity in meeting out justice but in saving everyone who believes no matter what their social group.”[45] Accordingly, Thielman proposes that, in light of Origen’s cultural perspective, God fairly and impartially extends the righteousness of God to those who believe in the gospel because of the “atoning nature of Christ’s death.”[46] Thus, it appears the Greco-Roman cultural interpretation of the righteousness of God, as exposited by the first interpreter of Romans, also supports the idea of a righteous status given impartially by God to all those who believe.

 

Conclusion

Luther’s breakthrough interpretation of the “righteousness of God” in Romans 1:17 in the early 1500s was that of a gift given to the believer by faith. Although valid arguments for other interpretative stances exist, these views do not mitigate the potential for a forensically declared new status, but in fact, empower Luther’s interpretation. Furthermore, it appears strong grammatical evidence exists for the possibility of an objective genitive interpretation especially as the culmination of a possessive and subjective genitive view of the phrase. In addition, significant scriptural evidence exists in Romans 3; 4; 5 and 10 that appear to reference a forensic righteousness given to a believer by God. Finally, based on the varied understandings of Old Testament references, strong contextual evidence exists that support an interpretation by first century readers that the righteousness of God, at times, refers to a status given by God. Moreover, even the Greco-Roman cultural view of righteousness, which aligns with the notion of impartiality, conceptually supports a righteousness given to all who believe regardless of social or economic boundaries due to Christ’s atoning death. Accordingly, the research has unequivocally proven that biblical and contextual evidence exists to support Luther’s interpretation of the phrase “the righteousness of God” in Romans 1:17.

---