Hope for the Future of New Testament Theology

Abstract

This paper presents the author’s hope for changes in New Testament (NT) theology particularly as currently experienced in American Christian culture. Those changes are based on exegetical work that seeks to place the NT texts into their Jewish first-century thought world. The first part of the paper presents examples of theological concepts that have crept into NT exegesis, translations, and Christian thinking, concepts that appear to be foreign to or contrary to that original-audience thought world. The second part of the article seeks to present a reading of Rom 3:21–26 that better represents Paul’s thinking than what is found in some English translations that read the text through the lenses of some of the foreign concepts mentioned in Part 1. The resulting vision for the future of NT theology is twofold: for NT theologies to self-critically rid themselves of the infiltration of foreign concepts, and for the field to better ground its work in exegesis and translations that better respect the Jewish thought world of the texts.

1. Introduction

My hope for the future of New Testament (NT) theology is that it will become more grounded in placing the NT in the context of the Israelite Scriptures and the thought world of the NT writings. I am writing from the perspective of one in the American Christian culture and as a generalist in biblical studies who has taught the Hebrew Bible (HB)/Old Testament (OT) and NT literature for thirty years. More importantly, I write as one whose main fields are OT/HB and literary criticism, and whose focus is always on trying to reconstruct what the biblical texts might have meant to their original audiences. In my exegetical work, in the classroom, and in church setting, I frequently run up against concepts of NT theology disseminated to the public that stand in opposition to a close reading of NT texts, particularly from an OT/HB perspective. That is, some of these popular concepts reflect foreign theological systems of thinking more than they do the world of the NT. Moreover, some of these concepts stand as significant obstacles to the formation of a healthy Body of Christ. The solution to this issue is to better locate the NT texts in relation to the HB and the thought world of the NT.

1.1. Working Parameters

Although this paper is a product of research, I am writing it in a personal style as a position paper that refers to the identification, perception, and assessment of issues from my circle of experience. That subjective side is, after all, the nature of the human pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

Although NT theology proper may be considered a subset of NT studies, I am avoiding that distinction. I am recognizing that one’s NT theology will to some degree precede interpreting, translating, and applying the NT, since one is forever caught in a hermeneutical circle. What one believes theologically influences one’s understanding of the texts. One cannot escape this circle, but one can seek to be metacognitive about it.

In the same way, although my goal as a biblical exegete is to understand the NT as a work of communication to a first-century audience and to seek to uncover what it meant to that audience, I recognize this goal as impossible to achieve. I am caught up in the hermeneutical circle of my own horizon of experience and limited knowledge as I interact with the texts. Nevertheless, it is worth striving for this goal.

My intended audience is not just NT theologians—I am not presenting a critical survey of their works—but is both scholars who work in interpreting and translating the NT and lay people who study, teach, and preach its texts. My main concern is not to critique NT theologians per se, but the NT theologies behind many standard exegetical works and translations that misinform a popular audience.

1.2. Approach

Below, I will first provide a few examples illustrating the kind of theologically influenced exegetical problems that I encounter (Part 1). Having suggested how serious the problem is through those examples, I will then focus on the problem at the level of translation by translating and discussing a key Pauline text (Rom 3:21–26) that relates to some of these issues (Part 2). I recognize that it is too much to lay the blame for all of these examples at the foot of NT theologians, particularly since translations tend to follow traditional patterns and not the latest theological work. Indeed, in some cases, NT theologians would agree with me.1 Still, I see a significant need for NT theologians to advance more vocal and active correctives as part their future role. Since this article is a programmatic proposal based on my synthesis of accumulative study, I cannot defend every claim here—that would call for a much longer work. Moreover, as an exegete and an HB scholar, I do not pretend to have mastered the current literature of NT theology proper.

2. Part 1: Exegetical Encounters with Poor NT Theology

2.1. Jewish Jesus, Savior of a People

My experience with Christian teaching at the popular level is that for the most part it does not recognize Jesus as a Jew, as the savior to Israel, who unlike the Israelites was successfully tested in the wilderness, whose gospel (good news) was the proclamation of the presence of the Kingdom of God and the nowness of eternal life, a movement extended to Gentiles as a fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, etc.2 This experience leads me, first, to advocate for NT theologies that guard against “Gentilized”, or perhaps better “de-Judaized”, Christianity that lacks grounding in the essential worldview and theology of the HB/OT and has little understanding of Jesus as the Jewish messiah. Such Gentilized Christianity, for example, tends to miss the key concept behind the first words out of Jesus’ mouth in the Gospel of Mark (1:15) about the presence of the Kingdom of God and the mission on which Jesus sent his disciples. Second, in concord, NT theologies should guard against the modern Western model of defining the work of Christ mainly in terms of effecting individual salvation, something that feeds into the American individual “rights” movement that ignores serving the common good. The person with an HB/OT perspective will develop how the Christ relates to the salvation of Israel and fulfilling the promise to Abraham about Israel being a blessing to the nations/Gentiles.3 This perspective recognizes that Jesus calls people into a corporate identity, which is set apart to be holy, and to extend the reign of God. As a Christian, one cannot embrace one’s salvation and role within the will of God without understanding that one is embedded in a greater corporate identity and mission that goes back to God’s call to Abraham.

2.2. Work(s) of Christ and Atonement models

Some popular NT theologies limit the work(s) of Christ almost exclusively to a focus on Jesus’ death and in particular a Reformed penal substitutionary model of atonement influenced by Luther and Calvin, a model that is foreign to the Israelite atonement symbol system.4 Such a narrow, and rather non-Jewish, focus misses the richness and depth of the work(s) of Jesus. In the NT, the whole Christ event contributes to the salvific outcome, such as: Jesus’ involvement in creation, his incarnation, his life ministry by words and deeds, his death, and his resurrection. All of Jesus’ titles and roles are significant, such as: “God with us” (Mt 1:23), the Logos (Jn 1:1), son of David and son of Abraham (Mt 1:1), the last Adam (1Cor 15:45), the Light of the world (Jn 8:12), King of the Jews (Mt 27:11), the Holy and Righteous One (Acts 3:14, our High Priest who intercedes for us (Heb 4:14–16; 723–25), and so forth. Moreover, a penal substitutionary model of the atonement, which is foreign to the HB/OT atonement system, loses two biblical emphases. First, it loses the connection between the God of grace and mercy of the HB/OT who “bears/lifts” the sin of people as expressed symbolically in the atonement process and Jesus who in like manner bears the sins of people (Heb 9:28; 1Pet 2:24).5 Second, it sometimes loses the emphasis on what is new in Christ; that is, in part, what it means to participate in the death and life of Christ in the new age of the Spirit and of life and of reigning over sin and death.

2.3. Eschatological Sequence

At both the popular and scholarly level, I find an often-presupposed eschatological sequence: a person dies, “goes to heaven,” and then gets eternal life. However, the Gospels portray Jesus teaching one of the Jewish eschatological models of the time period: a person dies, “sleeps” in some holding place/state, and awaits the resurrection of the dead at which time will be judgment.6 I marvel weekly at how people at a worship service will recite from one of the classic church creeds that they are awaiting the “resurrection of the dead,” but apparently do not know what they are saying. Even the often taught, so-called “rapture” passage of NT Dispensational theology, 1 Thess 4:13–18, states quite clearly that at the Lord’s coming, it will be the dead in Christ (those fallen asleep) who will be the first to rise and greet Christ in a triumphal processional entry. The popular-level notion of “getting saved” in order to “go to heaven” completely loses sight of the “nowness” of salvation and of the role of the Body of Christ in this world.

2.4. Body–Soul Dualism, Christian Anthropology

In concord with the scholarship of this issue’s editor, Joel Green, I run up against the body–soul dualism that entered Christian theology at an early stage historically (Green 2008). To the contrary, the Israelite/Jewish understanding of a person as found in the HB/OT is wholistic and not one of a soul = person that enters and leaves a bodily shell.7 The word translated to “soul” in the OT, nephesh (נֶפֶשׁ), refers to breathing animals. It is not something that enters a body at birth and leaves at death. The body–soul dualism is a Greek concept that arose with the postulation that the universe was eternal and could never gain or lose anything. A first-century Jew open to the concept of resurrection would not have accepted something less than a bodily raised, albeit transcendent, Jesus as proof of the resurrection of the dead and the irruption of the Kingdom of God into the present era. Moreover, in conjunction with rejecting a body–soul dualism, NT theologies need to provide the Church with a proper biblical anthropology of embodied, embedded, and extended humans in order to ground our self-perception, our actions, our morality, and our ethical decisions. As embodied beings, we need to avoid the pitfalls of monistic materialism and spiritualism as well as separation dualism that pervade our culture. We need to pursue what it means to be embedded not just in our various relationships with our environments but also what it means to be “in Christ.” We need to live according to our identity as extended humans who have been given spiritual gifts and functions within the Body of Christ.

2.5. Immortality, the “Fall”, Total Depravity, and Original Sin

NT theologies have also brought into pop-level Christianity foreign concepts of human immorality, the “Fall,” total depravity, and “original sin” (Duke 2016–2017, pp. 242–50). In the HB/OT, humans are never said to have been created as immortal. To the contrary, they are portrayed as dependent on access to the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden in order to maintain life. The consequence of Adam and Eve seeking to overturn the creational order and “be like God” (Gen 3:5), the root of sin, was for them to be barred from the Tree of Life and face their mortality (3:22). One should note that according to Revelation, in the New Jerusalem after judgment, after those whose names that are not recorded in the Book of Life receive the “second death” (Rev 20:11–15), those who are granted life will once again have access to the Tree of Life (Rev 21–22, partic. 22:2, 14). So, too, the HB/OT does not have a “Fall” theology in which Adam’s sin leads to total depravity and is passed down seminally to all humans as in Augustine’s teaching of “original sin.” Rather, the story of the sin of Adam and Eve demonstrated how failure to give glory to God as God in the face of self-seeking brought a reversal of chaos back into the order that God created, such that humans since then have to face their own mortality.8 This is Paul’s point in Rom 5, when he speaks of how death entered the world and came to all people, because of the “one man” (vv. 12–14). Without this understanding of humanity being under the realm of death and accountable for their own sin(s), Christians will miss the significance of participating now in the reign of life inaugurated by Jesus (Rom 5:17). Again, the Church needs to be equipped with a proper biblical anthropology.

2.6. Hell and Gnashing of Teeth

Connected with the above non-biblical concepts, popular NT theologies have constructed a concept of “hell” that is far from what a first-century understanding of final judgment would have been.9 Once the Greek notion of immortal humans was uncritically accepted into some NT theologies, one is left with the logical, but false, conclusion that people who do not receive eternal life are somehow consciously punished eternally, rather than receiving the “second death” as set forth in Revelation. Along with the mistaken notion of human immortality, was the early English translations of both Hades and Gehenna by the same term “Hell,” a tradition that apparently followed early German translations. However, to a first-century person Hades was an image of a holding place of the dead until the resurrection of the dead. One should note in Revelation that Hades itself, after it gives up the dead, is thrown into the lake of fire (20:14) that is present in the heavenly tableau. The Gehenna tradition, coming from Jeremiah, was a place where dead bodies were dumped without proper burial. Then, too, based on this foreign construct of Hell, the formulaic clause, “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” is misunderstood. It receives the atypical treatment in some modern English translations of being treated as a dependent clause instead of as an independent clause, and it is usually understood as an action attributed to those who receive punishment.10 However, the punishments mentioned would have communicated a judgment of death to a first-century audience, with the result that the recipients could not be weeping and gnashing teeth. Instead, this formula probably reinforced the notion of death having occurred and presents an image of those mourning at a funeral. Without a NT theology grounded on understanding basic NT terms, Christians will misunderstand the nature and consequences of final judgment.

2.7. The Sovereignty of God

Quite popular in American Christian culture is the tendency to fall into the Greek heritage of platonic, abstract definitions of God in distinction from humanity. Whereas humans are limited and frail, God is defined as omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, even apathetic, etc. I have heard my philosophy colleagues naively argue the false conundrum that one cannot explain the presence of evil if God is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. In reality that problem is constructed by creating a “god” based on abstract definitions and not on the revelations of a God who interacts with humans relationally. Perhaps most troubling is defining God abstractly as sovereign in such a way that makes God responsible for all that takes place. One must remember that the HB/OT terms that speak of God as sovereign use that language metaphorically. In the ancient Israelite culture, a king was never understood as personally accountable FOR everything that happened within his realm; the king did not cause everything. Rather, a good king was to act rightly in response TO what happened within his domain; that is, mainly to bring about righteousness, justice, and peace. When NT theologies lose this distinction, the Church tends not only to trivialize others’ pain and suffering as “the will of God,” but also lose sight of how our relational God enters into our crises and suffering and calls us to address their causes.

2.8. Being Reckoned as Righteous vs. Legalistic Perfectionism and Imputed Righteousness

Most troubling to me about the popular-level NT theologies I encounter, due largely to a culmination of reading into the NT some of the wrong conceptions mentioned above, is how the grace of God in the HB/OT is downplayed, overlooked, or distorted. The result is a negative influence on one’s understanding of the work of Christ as wrongly foregrounded on a supposed Jewish teaching of failed legalist perfectionism that calls for the righteousness of Jesus to be imputed to a person. Sound HB/OT and Jewish theology never taught that righteousness was self-achieved by people obeying God’s stipulations.11 Rather, when such “doctrines” as the Fall, original sin, and total depravity have been imported into Christianity and then supplemented from a mentality of criminal law12 with the “doctrines” of penal atonement and the necessity for Jesus’ righteousness to be imputed to people, then it is those NT theologies that are imposing a kind of “legalism” on the Bible that is foreign to the HB/OT and its understanding of covenant relationship with God.

In the second part of this essay, I will provide a translation with notes on a Pauline sentence in Romans that shows the continuity between how God operates in both the HB/OT and NT. In my comments, I will focus on how a key concept of Paul, and of Israelite religion and mainstream first-century Judaism in general, is that God’s declared assessment of someone being right (righteousness) is, and always has been, based on the “heart” of the person, that is whether or not the person is in a relational commitment of entrusting oneself to God Yinger (2019, chpts. 8–9). The Church cannot lose sight of this basic teaching and retain a vital proclamation of the mercy and goodness of God.

3. Part 2: An Illustration from Translating Paul (Romans 3:21–26)

3.1. Introduction

In the second part of this essay, I would like to offer an exegetical overview of Romans 3:21–26 by way of translation with comments to illustrate the circular nature of how NT theology influences translations and conveys that theology to the readers. My motivation for translating this text was to grapple with the inadequate and even misleading nature of some modern English translations that seem to reflect the imposition of theological systems on the text rather than reading it in its original contexts. I encourage readers to compare my translation (and the following paraphrase) with other English translations such as NIV, NRSV, and the NET Bible for some of the differences. Moreover, I recognize that an abundance of exegetical works exists on this text and its related concepts, works which I cannot pretend to control or enter into point-by-point debates, although I will note areas of controversy.13 My general purpose is programmatic: to try to read Paul in light of the HB/OT and first-century Pharisaical Judaism as a suggested move in a more positive direction. I offer it to NT scholars for their assessment.

Romans 3:21–26, which is one sentence in Greek, focuses on the Christ event as an expression of the righteousness of God. Paul’s main theme and various issues begin well before these verses. However, I am mainly focused on Paul’s terminology here and how the Christ event, the Gospel that inaugurates a new era, still expresses a historical continuity of the faithfulness of God to Israel in the past as it reveals God’s righteousness both in terms of God’s faithful behavior and God’s act of reckoning a person as righteous by faith.

In the first few chapters of Romans, Paul makes an argument for how it is that the Gentiles are included in the covenant community. He does so by showing how the model of covenant faithfulness/relationship of God’s current work in the Christ event predates Torah14 and goes back to the Abraham event (God’s offer and promises followed Abraham’s response). Paul’s model is from the HB/OT, mainly Genesis 15:6 and reinforced by Hab 2:4.15 In Genesis 15:6, God graciously offered a covenant relationship of himself to Abraham without first having to “cleanse” or “atone” him; Abraham accepted that offer, entrusting himself to God (וְהֶאֱמִן בַּיהוָה 15:6);16 and God regarded that response as “righteousness” (ṣdqh צְדָקָה 15:6); that is, what is “right” in terms of God’s offer of relationship. This basic connection between entrusting oneself to God and God counting such a person a righteous is all but lost in some NT theologies of the Christ event.

Paul leads up to explaining the Christ event in continuity with Abraham’s expression of faith by arguing that God had already found such a right response from Gentiles who do good and seek God’s glory even without the Torah17 (2:6–11, 14–15), that is, from Gentiles who are circumcised inwardly (2:26–29). In fact, Paul says that no one is properly a “Jew” if not inwardly circumcised of heart (2:28–29). In Chapter 4, Paul develops how Abraham is the father of all who share in his faith response (vv 16–17) and how righteousness is reckoned by God to all who entrust themselves to the God who raised Jesus from the dead (vv 22–24), thereby including Gentiles in the promises to Abraham. This Abrahamic prototype of a response of faith resulting in what God considers “righteous,” prior to Torah even existing, is found again in Gal 3:6–14. For Paul, as in Israelite/Jewish religion proper, Torah obedience is a response of the one of faith (the “righteous”) and not the prerequisite “work” to be deemed righteous.18

Most importantly, to show the continuity of God’s righteousness, Paul uses parallel language between the Abraham event and the Christ event as he briefly formulates it in 3:21–26. Paul’s parallel language draws on concepts of participation of one life in another.19 Paul’s theology of salvation is one of participation (e.g., those who ‘believe into’ Christ— pisteuō eis/πιστεύω εἰς—are in Christ, and, Christ in turn is in them through the Holy Spirit (Chapter 6–8). This vocabulary of participation also comes into play within Chapters 3 and 4, in which Paul makes a rabbinic style argument that connects the Christ event to the Abraham event. Paul draws the connections between how the Gospel reveals the righteousness of God (theme introduced in 1:16) through the faith/faithfulness of Jesus (3:22) on behalf of “the one of the faith of Jesus” (3:26) in parallel to the faith/faithfulness of Abraham (4:9) on behalf of “the one of the faith of Abraham” (4:16). That is to say, as those of the “faith of Abraham,” participate in his act of entrustment and are reckoned righteous, so, too those who are of the “faith/faithfulness of Jesus are reckoned righteous, or as Paul states it a little differently: those who (like Abraham) entrust themselves to the God who raised Jesus from the dead are considered righteous (4:23–24). To this end, Romans 3:21–26 focuses on how the righteousness of God is revealed and expressed in the Christ event. Due to the complexity of this long Greek sentence, English translations can easily lose the key theme of God’s righteousness. Therefore, below the Greek text, I first offer a visual schematic translation of the flow of thought.

3.2. Text (Rom 3:21–26)

• Νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται
• μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν (See Note 19)
• δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ
• διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
• εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας.
• οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή
• πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ
• δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι
• διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
• ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον
• διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι
• εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ
• διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ,
• πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ
• ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα
• τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ20.

3.3. Translation (Spacing Indicates Flow of Thought, Not Syntax; Bracketed Numbers Refer to Comments Below in the Next Section)

•  But now, apart from Torah^[1] righteousness of God^[2] has become made known
•     being attested^[3] by the Torah and the prophets^[4]
•   even (de) the righteousness of God
•     through (dia) the faith(fullness) of Jesus Messiah^[5]
•     on behalf of (eis^[6]) all of the ones believing (pres ptc) ^[7]
•       (gar) because there is no distinction [btw Jew and Gentile]
•       (gar) because all have sinned and become destitute^[8] of the glory of God
•     [on behalf of] (the ones) being declared righteous^[9] gratuitously^[10] by his grace
•     through (dia) the in-Christ-Jesus deliverance^[11]
•       whom God dedicated^[12] [as the] Mercy Seat^[13]
•     through (dia) trust in his blood^[14]
•   for (eis) a verification^[15] of his [God’s] righteousness
•     through (dia) the remission^[16] of former sins by the forbearance of God
•   for (pros) the verification of his righteousness in the present time
•   for (eis) him to be righteous AND the one who declares righteous
•       the one of the faith of Jesus.^[17]

3.4. Commentary Notes

1. “But now”, focuses on the current situation, and “apart from Torah” emphasizes Paul’s point that as in the time of Abraham, the act of God declaring a person “righteous” is not based on Torah obedience.

Excursus on holiness, covenant, and Torah. Knowing that I am dealing with three debated topics in biblical theology, I will simply give my HB/OT theological synthesis. Within the relational contract of covenant, God calls his people to be holy (e.g., Exod 22:31). The root notion of “holy” (קֹדֶשׁ qōdeš) is not perfection but being dedicated or set apart. Therefore, when the Israelites entered into relationship/covenant with Yahweh they were to be set apart to Yahweh and set apart from other people; they were to have a distinctive identity. Obeying the covenantal commands and stipulations of Torah was to set them apart and to have two primary results. First, it would be for their own good to align themselves to the Creator (e.g., Exod 15:25–26; Deut 4:39–40; Psa 1); that result is part of the directional or guidance nature of “torah,” (תּוֹרָה tôrāh) a word which is also used of wisdom (Prov 13:14). Second, obedience to the covenantal stipulations would form a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:3–6). Their priestly role is a high calling; that is, as priests they stand in as intermediaries between Yahweh and the nations, a role that appears to relate back to Abraham’s calling for his people to be a blessing to all other peoples (Gen 12:1–3). Other nations would be attracted to their wisdom (Deut 4:6). Still, although the covenantal stipulations are “righteous” (Deut 4:8, see too Paul in Rom 8:4 for example), never are we told that simply obeying them makes one righteous before God. Paul, who once saw himself as blameless in terms of righteousness in/by the Torah (Phil 3:6), recognizes that being reckoned by God as righteous cannot come by merely following Torah (Gal 2:21; 3:21), because one can pursue Torah righteousness out of works rather than out of faith (Rom 9:31–32)21.

2. God’s righteousness is the key focus of this sentence, but that focus is sometimes lost in translating this lengthy sentence. Paul starts this theme and his thesis in the Thanksgiving section (1:16–17). He states there that the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe (Jew and Gentile). He explains further that in the gospel God’s righteousness is revealed out of (ek) faith into (eis) faith and draws on Hab 2:4 for support: “The righteous one out of (ek) faith will live.” Paul comes back to develop this thesis more in our text.

One should note that at 1:17, theologians debate whether the genitive “righteousness of God” is: (1) a status given to believers “from God,” (2) a declaration “of God” that makes righteous, or (3) an attribute of God (see NET notes). Such sophisticated distinctions are based on theological presuppositions read into the text and not stated in the text. In the previous verse, one could also wrongly try to parse the genitive construct “the power of God,” when God comprehensively: is powerful, exerts that power, and empowers. In the same way, God’s righteousness” (ṣdqh צְדָקָה) has both the nuances of God being faithful to God’s character as just/right in relationship to others (e.g., covenant faithfulness as well as judgements), and how in accord with God’s character, God considers a person as “righteous.” I would suggest that the key notion here of the righteousness of God being revealed “out of faith into faith” (ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, 1:17) involves this connected or circular notion that God’s faithfulness, which comes out of God’s righteous character and behavior, leads into a response of faith (entrusting in God), which God counts as righteousness, as we see demonstrated in the Abraham event of Gen 15:6. This notion is also captured in Paul’s quotation here (1:17) of Hab 2:4, “the righteous out of faith (ἐκ πίστεως) will live.” The ambiguity of that statement (who’s faith/faithfulness?) is fine and maybe deliberate, since Paul is neither exactly rendering the MT nor the LXX. One can rightly take it to mean either “out of God’s initial faithfulness” or “out of one’s response of faith” or both.

Here (3:21–26), following Paul’s argument about how righteousness is by faith and not Torah, the idea would be that God’s righteousness is demonstrated by how he counts people as righteous (see more at Comment 9).

3. Note the connection of thought about God’s righteousness being attested here and verified below at lines 12 and 14, as Paul emphasizes how God’s righteousness is revealed in the Gospel (1:16–17). This is a focal point that gets lost in translations of our text/sentence.

4. How is God’s righteousness being attested/witnessed? The present passive suggests that Paul’s point is that the Scriptures present an ongoing testimony of the righteousness of God. Paul explains in Romans 4 how the Scriptures that tell of the Abraham event reveal the promises to Abraham as including Gentiles. Paul makes a similar case in Gal 3:6–9; however, in that context (14–20) Paul argues that Christ is the seed of Abraham, so that the blessings of Abraham come through (dia) faith in (en) Christ. See Comment 5 below on dia (through), ek (from), en (in), and eis (into).

5. Controversial: The idiom of “faith of Christ/Jesus” (pisteōs Christou/Iēsou / πίστεως Χριστοῦ/Ἰησοῦ) has been much debated22. However, a study of the genitive construction of dia (through), and ek (from), with pisteōs Christou (“faith of Christ”), shows that Paul consistently uses this idiom in a “subjective,” or perhaps better, “general” sense of what comes from the Christ/Christ event, not from the believer. That means that pistis would refer to Christ’s faithfulness (recognizing that the noun pistis/faith refers to a volitional act). The same meaning is there in Paul’s use of the “faith of God” (3:3) and the “faith of Abraham” (4:9). The use of dia and ek expresses a result coming through or from an agent. This reading of the genitive leads into the debate about whether pisteōs Christou (“faith of Christ”) can ever be an objective genitive; that is, meaning “faith in Christ.” I think not, because when Paul does want to communicate that concept, he uses the directional prepositions of en (in) or eis (into) (e.g., in or into Christ) to convey his participation theology, not the vague genitive. Following Zerwick (1963, pp. 12–13), I have come to doubt that there is a pure “objective” genitive, at least not in Paul’s Semitic Greek. The categories of “subjective” and “objective” genitive may be an unhelpful carryover from a Latinized approach to biblical Greek.

6. Here eis has the sense “for, on behalf of” (BDAG #5).

7. This phrase could equally modify “righteousness of God” or “faith of Jesus.” Since it appears that Paul sometimes follows the Hebrew tendency to move from general to greater specificity, I think it qualifies the latter phrase. However, in either case the two options are closely linked, since the “faith of Jesus” expresses the “righteousness of God”.

8. It is difficult to translate ὑστεροῦνται, which expresses the concept of coming into a passive state of “lacking, destitute of” (w/gen.). It is often translated “fall short, which might strike one as communicating human striving, a concept that would appeal to translators who read into the text that Paul is mainly arguing against a concept of “works-based righteousness.” However, Paul’s main point is the equality of Gentile and Jew in terms of righteousness by faith. Additionally, “fall short” loses the passive voice, which might be a theological passive often used to express an activity in which God is involved. Moreover, we need to take into account what Paul thinks about the glory of God. Seeking/acknowledging the glory/honor of God is what people have exchanged for something lesser (1:23); although glory is something they can seek (2:7) and receive (2:10). As a result of exchanging God’s glory, people’s hearts are darkened (1:21, probably a theological passive) and God gives them over to their desires (1:24, 26, 28) to depravity. Given this train of thought, ὑστεροῦνται likely indicates a “descent” away from the divine order associated with the glory of God rather than “falling short” of it. So, I render it “become destitute”.

9. Controversial: Declared/counted righteous” is better than “justified,” since the latter term, popular among NT theologies, may lead the English reader to think of the criminal justice system. However, a criminal justice system is not about establishing or restoring relationships. (Although a criminal may receive a “just” penalty and be restored to society, such penalties do not result in a restored relationship with the victim. That restoration of relationship occurs only when the victim offers mercy and forgiveness as God does through the atonement system in the HB/OT and through the work of Christ.) Note the connection between “the ones believing” (line 5), this line (8), and line 16 in which the one declared righteous is “the one of the faith of Jesus.” “Declared/counted righteous” fits Paul’s repeated emphasis on God’s response to Abraham, reckoning him righteous because he believed (entrusted in) God, Gen 15:6. (See Rom 4:3–6, 9–11, 20–25; Gal 3:6–14; so too James 2:23).

Excursus on “righteous”. To understand Paul’s use “righteous” (δικαιοσύνην), I go back to Hebrew ṣdqh צְדָקָה (“righteousness”) in Gen 15:6). Ṣdqh expresses the notion of meeting the highest standard or measure (e.g., gods’, God’s, king’s, people’s) of correct relational behavior and/or legitimate status. Both of these nuances belong together in social contracts such as in the context of a covenantal (legal) relationship or in a matter like a court case (addressing a type of social contract) in which the “Justice/Judge” can declare a person cleared/legitimated or not. In the case of being legally cleared, this is not a state only achieved after someone is punished. God, as the standard, can both be righteous in his faithful, loyal behavior and be the one who declares/counts as righteous (legitimates the relational standing of) the person of faith. This dual divine demonstration of righteousness is what Paul sees so clearly and ultimately demonstrated in the Christ event as God makes him the Mercy Seat (hilastērion ἱλαστήριον) (line 10) but is lost by NT theologies that miss the HB/OT connection between one’s faith and being considered righteous.

10. The adverb here, δωρεὰ, can have the sense of “without cost” or “without reason/result.” Although “freely” works well, it can have the sense of “loosely.” As such, even though “gratuitously” is not a word in frequent use, it captures the sense of a status that is given without cost to the recipient. Again, contrary to some NT theologies, the declaration of “righteous” is based on God’s mercy, not on a penalty paid or a status earned.

11. There is possibly a parallel track of thought among the four “through” (dia) phrases (lines 4, 9, 11, 13), such that what was done through the faith/faithfulness of Jesus (line 4) is developed further as ἀπολύτρωσις (line 9), a term which is best rendered here as “release” or “deliverance” or even “transference” rather than “redeem” or “ransom.” Paul, again in accord with the HB/OT, does not use the term narrowly as if some literal price was paid to a third party as a ransom, but uses it more generally as deliverance from one state of being into a new state (e.g., the deliverance of our old body into a new state, Rom 8:23; or in association with sanctification, 1Cor 1:30; or in association with spiritual inheritance, Eph 1:14; or, most importantly, being rescued from the dominion of darkness and into the kingdom of God, Col 1:13–14). In Romans, Paul argues for a work of Christ that delivers people from the reign of sin and death into the reign of the Spirit and life (5:12–6:14) just as God redeemed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt (e.g., Exod 6:6).

12. The term προτίθημι is sometimes translated as “to display,” but it means more than that. In the Greek HB/OT, it is used to describe how cultic objects are set forth or offered before God (e.g., Exod 29:23; Lev 24:8) with the nuance of “dedicated to.” When God is the object of the verb (e.g., people do not set forth God before them, Psa 54:3), again the notion of “dedicated to” is there. Here God is setting forth Jesus as the Mercy Seat; that is, presenting or dedicating Jesus to that place/function.

13. Controversial: Although sometimes translated at “propitiation” (KJV) or “sacrifice of atonement” (NIV, NRSV), the word ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion) in the Greek HB/OT refers to the Mercy Seat, the top of the ark of the covenant that resided in the Holiest Place in the Temple. It was the place where the blood of the sin offering on the Day of Atonement was applied to symbolize the removal of the effects of sin and the restoration of a right relationship with Yahweh. The Mercy Seat in terms of cultic symbolism was the closest space/place of “contact” between God and the people. It was the place of reconciliation. Some translators, apparently for theological reasons, have given preference to the non-biblical, external Gentile usage of the term as relating to a propitiatory offering to a god as if Jesus was killed to appease God. However, this preference for non-Jewish usage ignores Paul’s understanding as a trained rabbi of Jewish Temple practice and cultic language. For instance, elsewhere Paul calls Jesus “the sin offering” itself (hamartia ἁμαρτία) which provided the pollution cleansing blood (Rom 8:3) that was applied to the Mercy Seat. Thus, Paul, too, uses hamartia again in 2 Cor 5:21 where it is sometimes translated too generally as “sin”, when hamartia was also the technical term that Paul would for the sin offering.

14. Strangely, NET does not render “in his blood” as modifying “through faith (pistis)” which it follows, but adverbially modifying “dedicated” (“displayed” NET). For example, NET has “God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith,” translating “in his blood” as “at his death” because the translator wanted to have Paul avoid making “a violent mixed metaphor’ (translator note, 32). As mentioned above (Comment 13), Paul also refer to Jesus as “the sin offering” who provides the cleansing lifeblood in Rom 8:3. We should recognize that Paul had no problem using both metaphorical images here: Jesus is not only the Mercy Seat (place of reconciliation) where the blood was applied, but also the sin offering that provided the blood that symbolically eliminated the pollution of sin and restored an unimpeded relationship with God. Paul does not avoid mixed metaphors elsewhere. For example, C.K. Barret, in his commentary on 2 Corinthians mentions Paul’s “hopelessly mixed” metaphors (Barrett 2001, p. 152).

15. The term ἔνδειξις does not merely mean an act of demonstration, but has the stronger sense of verification, proof. Again, the continuity of God’s righteousness in the past is proven in the Christ event.

16. Paul is stating that God’s act now of dedicating Jesus as the Mercy Seat verifies God’s past merciful righteousness. The term πάρεσιν (paresin) is about remitting a debt, not overlooking or “passing over” sin in a negligent, forgetful way as popularly understood theologically. Rather, Paul is making a positive statement about God’s righteousness. However, some translators (e.g., NIV) and even lexicons see πάρεσιν of “done-before sins” (τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων) as negative, as if God had not properly, or yet, punished people for sins of the past. They seem to see God’s reputation as being “just”—apparently in a Calvinistic legal sense—as being at stake and creating the need for Jesus to receive the punishment of “justice” in order for his work to be redemptive. Such readings presuppose a theology in which punishment is necessary to achieve God reckoning a person as “righteous.” However, as seen in Paul’s example of Abraham (Gen 15:6), that is precisely not the case. God reckons a person as righteous on the basis of that person’s entrustment/faith. “Passing over sin” in the sense of remitting debt is precisely what the mercy of God is about in the HB/OT! God’s appointment of Christ as Mercy Seat serves as a continuation of the proof of God’s former merciful righteousness, albeit the ultimate one. For Paul, the Gospel of Christ introduces the new era of the Spirit, an era that supersedes that of the Torah, an era in which the righteousness of God is ultimately revealed in God being both the one who is righteous and also the one who makes righteous by his grace through the faithful act of Christ being the hilasterion (Mercy Seat) for the redemption of the who believes (trusts oneself to) Christ Jesus (“the one of the faith of Jesus,” line 16).

Further support of this point is the repetition of ἔνδειξις (“verification;” see lines 12 and 14 as well as 2) of God’s righteousness; that is, the verification of God’s righteousness occurs in reference to the former sins and in reference to those in the present time/age (τῷ νῦν καιρῷ). As I have tried to capture the flow of thought in the spacing of my translation, this whole sentence is focused on developing Paul’s theme of the revelation of God’s righteousness and how, in continuity with the behavior of God in the past, it is ultimately displayed in the Gospel of Christ Jesus.

17. As mentioned in my introduction to the translation, this phrase “the one of the faith of Jesus” is going to be paralleled by “the one of the faith of Abraham” in Rom 4:16 as Paul shows that God’s inclusion of Gentiles goes back to the promises to Abraham and the response of entrustment/faith that that God counts as “righteousness”.

3.5. Summary of Key Points

Since it is easy to become lost in the details of Paul’s long, complicated, but important sentence and his flow of thought within the immediate context, I will summarize some key points. First, it is imperative to track Paul’s theme of how the gospel reveals the righteousness of God (starting at 1:16) and its continuity of expression from Abraham through the Christ event (specifically 3:21–26). This is not to say that there are no unique aspects of the Christ event, but rather to say that some NT theologies, which read a perspective of forensic “justification” into the NT, miss the basic nature of faith and righteousness. The righteousness of God is how God “keeps faith” to his offer of relationship and how he declares those “righteous” who trust in him. This theme is wrapped around the Abraham event of Gen 15:6 and supported by Hab 2:4, because Paul explains the inclusion of the Gentiles in terms of the Abraham event, using it as a model with some parallel language: “faith of God”, “faith of Jesus”, “faith of Abraham”, “one of the faith of Christ”, “one of the faith of Abraham”. Sometimes overlooked is how before the Christ event, “being righteous in God’s sight” could apply to Gentiles, who not having the Torah, but obeying it, are considered inwardly circumcised of heart (e.g., 2:13–15, 28–29). Therefore, my graphic translation tries to show how this text is about the revelation and verification of God’s righteousness in continuity with God’s earlier expressions of righteousness.

Second, I have sought to understand the Christ-event language of 3:21–26 through an HB/OT perspective that assumes Paul knew the Temple symbol system well (e.g., Mercy Seat and atonement language). This perspective counters some popular NT theological positions, particularly that of penal substitution. God offers the relationship gratuitously, not after “cleansing” someone (e.g., Abraham, the people of Israel, Gentiles). The Temple atonement symbolism is about how God mercifully forgives those who have broken covenant, not that God achieves “justice” by demanding a price of punishment. So, my translation varies most on: “faith of Christ” not meaning “faith in Christ”, hilasterion as Mercy Seat and not “propitiation” or “expiation,” “in his blood” referring to the cleansing blood of the sin offering and not “death” (the punishment idea), and paresin meaning remission of a debt (forgiveness) and not a temporary “passing over” until God could finally take care of sin by punishing Jesus.

3.6. Translation Paraphrase

However, now, God’s righteousness has been made known apart from Torah, though the Torah and the prophetic writings show how it works. We are talking about how God puts people in right relationship with God by means of Jesus Christ’s own faithfulness. This deliverance is offered to those who entrust themselves to God (whether they are Jews or Gentiles) because all humans, on their own, lack a relationship with God. God delivers people gratuitously—as a free gift—with no deserving or earning involved. This is possible because Jesus functions for us like the Mercy Seat (in the Old Testament atonement ritual) when we trust in Jesus’s function as a sin offering and enter into intimate relationship with him. This plan of God’s verifies God’s righteousness, both in the way God forgave sins in the Old Testament and in the way God forgives sins now. God is righteous, so God is the one who can declare humans righteous now, and God does this for the person who benefits from the faithfulness of Jesus23.

4. Resulting Vision for Future NT Theology

As illustrated in Part 1 and Part 2 above, NT theologies have been read into exegeses and translations of the NT and embraced in popular American Christianity, leading me as an HB/OT scholar to a twofold vision for the future of NT theology. The first aspect, and ongoing step is for disciplinary introspection to rid NT theologies from the infiltration of foreign concepts such as Greek body–soul dualism, platonic definitions of God, the conflation of Gehenna and Hades, atonement models far from the conceptual realm of the Israelite atonement system, etc. A task of the NT theologian is to restate and reapply the messages of the first-century texts to a contemporary audience. However, the theologian must guard against the encroachment of foreign concepts and paradigms for the messages of those texts to be faithfully represented in Christian teaching and NT translations. Just as historians in the 20th century became self-critical of essentialist approaches to history and moved to more contextualized historiography, so NT theologies need to be introspective, self-critical, and self-purging.

The second part is concomitant: NT theologies need to become more Israelite/Jewish. For example, they need to recognize: Hebraisms in the Greek texts, an Israelite (biblical) anthropology, Abrahamic participatory theology in Paul, the Israelite symbol system of atonement, Jewish eschatologies, Davidic-Messianic theology in the hymnic allusions in the Passion Narratives, etc. Just as the New Perspective on Paul movement has been a necessary corrective to the kind of Protestant scholarship that portrayed both HB/OT prophets and Paul as faithful Protestants, so, too NT theology must continue to embrace the same corrective approach across the NT literature. NT theologies must always start with exegesis that seeks to understand how the first-century audiences would have heard the NT literature. These correctives will deepen and enrich Christians’ understanding of the nature of faith, of the grace of God, of the work(s) of Christ, of their participatory role in the Kingdom of God, and of their participation in the new era of the reign of the Spirit and life.