This thesis argues that the imputation of Christ's active obedience in justification is supported by the exegesis of Romans 5:16-19. After discussing the history of exegesis, the meaning of 'righteousness', analysing the syntax of Genesis 15:6 appropriated in Romans 4:3, 5, and noting that Paul teaches that righteousness is a gift received and possessed (Rom 5:17, 9:30-10:6, Phil 3:9), the thesis engages in close study of the motif of resurrection in Romans 4 and 5 and determines the meaning of key terms, δικαίωμα and δικαίωσις, in the light of the Graeco-Roman and LXX background, and contextually. In Romans 5:16, δικαίωμα means 'justification', against Kirk. In Romans 5:18, 'ἑνὸς δικαιώματος' means 'the justification of the one' and not 'one act of righteousness', against the modern consensus (cf. Isaiah 53:11 LXX). The resurrection of the Christ is 'the justification of the one' referred to in Romans 5:18. There is thus no reason why the referent of 'the obedience of the one' in Romans 5:19 is to be limited to Christ's death, and should be seen to refer to the whole course of Christ's obedience under the law. The verb καθίστημι in 5:19 means 'judicially establish' (cf. Susanna 1:60 LXX). Thus, the many are 'judicially established' righteous through the whole obedience of Christ, both his fulfillment of the law's precept ('active' obedience) and penalty ('passive' obedience). The thesis then offers suggestions concerning the exegesis of δικαιόω in Romans 6:7 and 'τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου in Romans 8:4.
‘Chapter 1: Introduction: Definitions & Issues’ clarifies the systematic-theological categories of the ‘active’ and ‘passive’ obedience of Christ. The context of this clarification is the recent interaction between exegetes and systematic theologians in the contemporary debates about imputation and justification. The recent interpretation of Romans 5:18-19, and particularly of the meaning of the word δικαίωμα, differs markedly to that which pertained in other periods in the history of exegesis. The observation is made that some advocates of imputation adopt an exposition of Romans 5:18-19 that is vulnerable to criticism and does not support their systematic-theological conclusions. Reasons for re-examining Romans 5:18-19 are provided.
Chapters 2 to 3 provide an analysis of some important exegetical matters that have arisen from the recent debates about imputed righteousness and also from trends in contemporary New Testament and Pauline scholarship. These chapters provide necessary preparation for the main contentions of this thesis.
‘Chapter 2: Genesis 15:6 and the meaning of righteousness (δικαιοσύνη)’ analyzes the key text of Genesis 15:6 in both the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and the Greek Septuagint (LXX). This is a key verse which uses the language of ‘imputation’ (λογίζομαι) and ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη). It investigates whether δικαιοσύνη has an habitual moral or ethical connotation. ‘Chapter 3: Paul’s appropriation of Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4’ analyses the Pauline usage, informed by a parallel construction in Romans 2:26.
Chapters 4 to 8 form the heart of this thesis. These chapters not only tests some of the contemporary insights from Pauline New Testament scholarship but it also applies them to Romans 5:16-19, and challenges other exegetical decisions made by modern scholars, whether they are ‘Reformed’, ‘broadly Evangelical’ or from the ‘New Perspective on Paul’ (NPP).
‘Chapter 4: Receiving and possessing the gift of righteousness (Romans 5:17)’ exegetes Romans 5:17 in context, and argues that the text ‘those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness’ (οἱ τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λαμβάνοντες), understood in the light of Philippians 3:9 and Romans 9:30-10:6, provides a corrective for those who assert that for Paul, ‘righteousness’ cannot be given or possessed. It also discusses the relationship of the imputation of righteousness with the motif of union with Christ.
Chapters 5 to 8 engage in detailed exegesis of Romans 5:18-19 in context, with discussion of the key terms δικαίωμα and δικαίωσις.
‘Chapter 5: The Meaning of δικαίωμα and δικαίωσις and the motif of resurrection in Romans 4’, consists of a broad usage survey of δικαίωμα and δικαίωσις in the Graeco-Roman corpus, the LXX, the non-Pauline NT, and Paul’s usage prior to Romans 5:16, 18 and 8:4, and closes with exegesis of Romans 4:25 in context. The motif of resurrection (Rom 1:4, 4:17, 24-25; cf. 1:17; 2:8) brings the resurrection of Christ into relationship with Paul’s doctrine of justification.
‘Chapter 6: The Resurrection in Romans 5 and the Meaning of δικαίωμα in Romans 5:16’ continues the analysis of the motif of resurrection into Romans 5, determines the probable referent of ἑνός in verses 12, 15-19, and assesses the recent suggestion questioning the modern consensus that δικαίωμα (Rom 5:16) means ‘judgment’, ‘penalty’, or ‘reparation’, and not ‘justification’: J R D Kirk, ‘Reconsidering Dikaiōma in Romans 5:16’, JBL 126 No 4 (2007), 787-92.
‘Chapter 7: The ἑνὸς δικαιώματος of Romans 5:18’ argues that δικαίωμα in Romans 5:18 should be rendered ‘sentence of justification’, as it is in Romans 5:16, against the modern exegetical consensus. The phrase ‘the justification of the one’, refers to the resurrection of Christ as his divine judicial vindication, which then produces the ‘justification of life’ for those in Christ. Support for this contention is found in Isaiah 53:11LXX and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 45-49, and the arguments of some modern NT scholars. The modern advocates of imputation will find that if they accept these arguments, which simply re-institute the accepted understanding of δικαίωμα from Augustine to the start of the 20th Century, they will have a sound foundation for the exegetical grounding of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience in Romans 5:19, subject to the findings of Chapter 8.
‘Chapter 8: The referent of τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς and the action of καθίστημι (Rom 5:19)’ finds firstly that ‘the obedience of the one’ refers to the whole course of Christ’s obedience, and that there is no reason why any of Christ’s obedience should be excluded from its reference. Second, after a survey of Graeco-Roman, LXX and NT texts, the conclusion is drawn that καθίστημι in Romans 5:19 means ‘judicially establish’ (cf. Susanna 1:60LXX), and does not connote ‘transformative righteousness’. Thus Romans 5:19 teaches that through the obedience of Jesus Christ, being his entire life of obedience to the precept of the Mosaic law, and any other intra-trinitarian command received by him, the many will in the future be judicially established as righteous before the tribunal of God. Further, against a number of proposals, both the ground and instrument of initial and final justification is seen to be the same, the ground being the active and passive obedience of Christ, and the instrument being faith. Justification’s beginning, continual progress, and consummation is by fiduciary faith, not works (however categorised).
The final chapter ‘Chapter 9: Beyond Romans 5: Re-evaluating δικαιόω in Romans 6:7 and δικαίωμα in Romans 8:4’ provides an initial sounding which works out the implications of the exegesis offered in Chapters 4 to 8 to two key texts in justification debates. First, in Romans 6:7, (‘For the one who died has been justified from sin’), it is suggested that Paul is speaking about a forensic justification, against the near universal understanding of the verb δικαιόω as ‘freed’ here, and relates justification to the believer’s union with Christ, in which both Christ’s death (Rom 3:21-26, 4:25, 6:9) and resurrection (Rom 4:25, 5:18-19; cf. 5:9-10) bring about the believer’s justification.
Second, another key text (Rom 8:3-4), thought by many to say nothing regarding imputation, is considered in context, especially the key phrase τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν (v. 4). After providing an account of Paul and the law in Romans 1-7, and especially looking at Paul’s apology for the law in Romans 7:7-25, an account of Christ’s coming ‘in the likeness of the flesh of sin and for sin’ entails that Christ fulfilled the law’s precept and bore the law’s curse. The polyvalent genitive τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου firstly refers to the justification of the Mosaic law, the topic of Romans 7:7-25, which comes by the justification of the Christ, who received court-approved righteousness (Rom 5:18), and secondly refers to ‘the justification that the law requires’. It is fulfilled ἐν ἡμῖν by God because the theatre of sins operations was ‘in us’ (Rom 7:14-25), and because Christ dwells in our hearts by faith (Gal 2:20-21; Eph 3:16-17).