This paper seeks to outline the meaning of the ‘righteousness’ or ‘justification’ language in various constructions and functionally equivalent phrases in Romans. To fully deal with the ‘righteousness’ terminology in Romans, five lexemes, each of the δίκαι— stem need to be analysed. The five δίκαι lexemes are δίκαιος, δικαιοσύνη, δικαιόω, δικαίωσις, and δικαίωμα. Moreover, there are two other significant constructions that need to be understood: the constructions that use the verb λογίζομαι with the noun δικαιοσύνη, and the construction using the verb καθίστημι with the adjective δίκαιος. It is also worth ascertaining the exegetical foundations of and providing a conceptual distinction for what systematic theology has identified as the ‘instrument’ or ‘means’ of justification on the one hand, and the ‘grounds’, ‘basis’ or ‘meritorious cause’ of justification on the other.
First, the adjective δίκαιος is the most primitive lexeme of the family, and when applied to a person, it denotes the quality of adhering to or conforming to a norm. It almost always has moral and ethical connotations. The adjective δίκαιος means ‘observant of custom or rule’, thus ‘righteous’, ‘just’,[1] or ‘conforming with set and agreed standards’.[2] A person is δίκαιος due to his or her disposition to act justly (i.e. lawfully and fairly) in keeping with the behavioural requirements of the moral virtues.[3] This is born out in the various uses of δίκαιος in Romans (eg 3:10, 26).
Second, the noun δικαιοσύνη, building on the adjective, is the quality of being a δίκαιος, expressed as an abstract noun. The suffix —σύν attaches to the adjective ending in —ος to turn the attribute (δίκαι—) into a noun.[4] Thus, δικαιοσύνη is not a verbal noun and does not denote a verbal action (e.g. saving righteousness, justification or just acts) as such,[5] but might do so by way of metonymy. For Aristotle, δικαιοσύνη is a dispositional quality of character distinguishable from righteous action; δικαιοσύνη leads to righteous effects in the person’s actions and wishes.[6] Belonging to the semantic domain of ethics, δικαιοσύνη denotes the disposition that leads to behaviour proper to some relationship, conformity to a norm, or behaviour in accord with some standard.[7] For Paul, that norm with regard to humans is God’s law, and in Romans, particularly the divine will expressed in the Mosaic law.
In the normal course of events, δικαιοσύνη (in Westerholm’s parlance, ‘Ordinary Dikaiosness’[8]) is clearly an ethical and moral category which is both presupposed by and contrasted with the new gift of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (in Westerholm’s parlance, ‘Extraordinary Dikaiosness’[9]) given to the ungodly non-working Abraham and his descendants in the faith (Romans 4:3).
Some scholars[10] have posited that δικαιοσύνη is a forensic term but it does not denote an ethical quality of righteousness that a person possesses, which then is the basis of the judicial declaration in the ordinary course of events, but instead it denotes a relational status of right or favourable standing. The common way of saying this is that ‘righteousness’ means ‘right relationship’. For Leon Morris, for example, ὁ δίκαιος is the one accepted by God, and thus righteousness is not an ethical term. Morris held that the idea of Christ’s merit being imputed is very difficult to substantiate. Morris adopted the idea of righteousness as a ‘conferred status’. Only the status of acceptance is imputed. Similarly, N T Wright[11] considers that δικαιοσύνη means ‘conformity with a norm’, but the norm is ‘the covenant’, and thus δικαιοσύνη means ‘covenant faithfulness’ when applied to God and ‘covenant membership’ when applied to humans. For Wright, ‘righteousness’ is forensic in that the court has found in a person’s favour, but not a moral character or repute that needs to be imputed. Again, Shellrude has asserted that, ‘what is credited or given the believer is not “moral righteousness” but a soteriological standing before God’.[12] Those who assert that righteousness is a ‘relational status’ or ‘covenantal faithfulness’ tend to discount any ethical connotations, and are especially allergic to viewing righteousness as ‘merit’.
But whether or not the δικαι—terminology can ever lose its moral connotations, according to many scholars it clearly has not in Paul,[13] and this is born out by Paul’s usage of the δικαι— family in Romans. In Romans 1:18-3:20, Paul uses the noun δικαιοσύνη as the opposite of the alpha privative ἀδικία (Romans 1:18, 29; 2:8; 3:5), which is also expounded as ἀσέβεια (Romans 1:18), and Paul’s listed litany of evil rendering the doer worthy of death (Romans 1:29-32; cf Romans 2:21-23; 3:13-18). These evils explain δικαιοσύνη by antithesis, giving δικαιοσύνη an undoubted moral flavor in contrast to the patent ‘immorality’ of the opposite conceptions. Paul also uses the negated adjective δίκαιος (Romans 2:13; 3:10), or the negated verb δικαιόω (Romans 3:20; cf 2:13). While Paul does not continue to use the ‘unrighteousness’ language in 3:20-5:21 (the language reappears in 6:13), Paul’s anthropologically pessimistic language continues unabated to describe sinful humanity.[14] In Romans 4:3-8, several negative epithets[15] still apply to Abraham and David some time after they first exercised faith (Romans 4:5; Genesis 15:6; Hebrews 11:8).[16] It is based on this reality, as well as the classical view of Romans 7:14-25 and Galatians 5:17, that the Reformers described the justified believer as simul and semper iustus et peccator (simultaneously and always righteous and a sinner).[17] If the ‘unrighteousness’ of which Paul has accused all humanity still taints even the justified many years after the first exercise of faith in God, then believers are never righteous in and of themselves before the tribunal of God’s justice. They need ‘alien righteousness’ if they are to stand before God on the day of judgment.[18]
There is always something more basic to δικαιοσύνη than simply getting the verdict. This is because God is righteous (δίκαιος) in his attribution of righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) to humans. Compare Romans 2:5-6, where God will reveal his just judgment (δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ) because he will give to each according to his works, and Romans 3:26, where God demonstrates his new δικαιοσύνη with a view to him being both just (εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον) and also the justifier of the one having faith in Jesus Christ (καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ). This is only possible for God in view of the redemption, propitiation and obedience rendered by the Messiah on behalf of the many.
Moreover, God has posited his holy law, and the commandment God has given is holy and just (δικαία) and good (Romans 7:12). If ‘righteousness’ then denotes conformity to the norm, and that norm is the Law of Moses as the yardstick and foundation for ‘righteousness’ for Israel, then the moral connotations of the righteousness language are unavoidable and must be recognized, as keeping the law is likewise holy, just and good. Indeed the world and the gentiles outside the nation of Israel are not without a moral law against which they know their conduct is divinely assessed (Romans 1:32, 2:14-15). So there is always a norm which conditions and constitutes what is ‘righteous’ behaviour steming from a righteous disposition.
Methodologically, the either/or approach, that ‘righteousness’ is either a ‘relational status’ or a ‘moral quality’, but cannot be both, discounts the possibility that the forensic declaration and consequent relational status might be grounded on a moral basis or meritorious ground. A moral basis for the court declaration or justification is the only acceptable ground for a declaration of righteousness in the ordinary course of events. That ground lies within the person themselves, and is analytic rather than synthetic. The righteous person who has the inherent attribute of ‘justice’ and who thereby has acted with justice in the matter brought to trial, is thereby justified when the court declares him to be what he actually is, a δίκαιος. So for example
Now if a dispute arises between men, and they should come forward into judgment and they [the judges] judge, and they justify the righteous (καὶ δικαιώσωσιν τὸν δίκαιον) and condemn the ungodly (καὶ καταγνῶσιν τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς), then […] (Deuteronomy 25:1 LXX)
Εὰν δὲ γένηται ἀντιλογία ἀνὰ μέσον ἀνθρώπων καὶ προσέλθωσιν εἰς κρίσιν καὶ κρίνωσιν καὶ δικαιώσωσιν τὸν δίκαιον καὶ καταγνῶσιν τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς
In view of this forensic background for the righteousness words, false dichotomization of either the ‘relational’ or ‘covenantal’ status on the one hand, or the ‘moral-ethical’ quality denoted by the noun on the other, must be avoided.[19] Also to be avoided is any strict dichotomisation between ‘Greek’ and ‘Hebrew’ concepts of ‘righteousness’,[20] for as Hengel argues, ‘after a more than three-hundred-year history under the influence of Greek culture Palestinian Judaism can also be described as “Hellenistic Judaism”’.[21]Moreover, the Hebrew background of Paul’s use of Genesis 15:6 strongly suggest that ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη || tzedaqah) connotes ‘merit’. [22] The ‘Hebrew’ idea of ‘righteousness’ as ‘merit’ for conforming to a norm is not really all that different to the ‘Greek’ concept of measuring an individual against an ideal and thereby saying that person has a dispositional quality of ‘righteousness’.
The forensic declaration in the normal course of events (Westerholm’s ‘Ordinary Dikaiosness’) is grounded on a moral or ethical ground, attributed on an analytical basis to the person about whom the declaration is made. The righteous person is justified according to his own righteousness. In an analogous but distinct way, in the case of the new ‘righteousness of God by faith’ (Westerholm’s ‘Extraordinary Dikaiosness’), ‘the righteousness of God’ comes from God to the ungodly human believer as a gift (Romans 5:17-19; cf Philippians 3:9), and is imputed or accounted by God to the believer (Romans 4:1-8, 11, 22-25). The divine declaration of righteousness is thereby made on a synthetic basis vis-à-vis the believer, grounded on an external and alien righteousness in so far as the believer is concerned, and an objective and ground, being Christ and his merit; but this righteousness is nevertheless in the divine economy of grace properly attributed to the person justified through the instrumentality of faith, on the ground or meritorious basis of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ (Romans 3:25-26; 5:19). In this case, it is not a righteous man who is justified according to his own righteousness, but an ungodly sinner who is justified according to the righteousness of another, for what in God’s gracious economy are good reasons.
In either case, whether in any given situation we have our own righteousness derived from our conformity to God’s law, or in the case of the final judgment for the Christian we consider the gracious gift of righteousness coming from God and descending upon faith (Philippians 3:9), the relational status is always based on a moral ground. In the first, the justification is analytic, based on and drawn from the subject. The righteous are justified before God. In the second, the justification is synthetic, in that the declaration is not and cannot be inherently contained within or based upon the subject, but based on things external to the subject. The ungodly are justified before God on account of and on the grounds of the work of Christ, alien to them, done for them when they could not, but in no less a meritorious way.
Third, the verb δικαιόω is a forensic term (‘forensic’ meaning it’s use is primarily or originally found in legal or courtroom contexts, or that it trades on a courtroom metaphor), and denotes the declaration or proclamation or attribution that someone is a δίκαιος. While I cannot verify this personally, Godet’s ‘dangerously universal proposition’ is ‘As to δικαιόω, there is not an example in the whole of classical literature where it signifies to make just’.[23] While often verbs in –όω have a factitive meaning, this is not always the case (eg, ἀξιόω meaning ‘I think or deem worthy’). The well-attested forensic meaning of ‘declare righteous’ in the LXX and secular sources is confirmed by the usage in Romans. So Fitzmyer rightly but tentatively recognises:
Normally in the Septuagint, however, dikaioō has a declarative, forensic meaning: “declare righteous.” At times, the declarative sense seems to be, indeed, the meaning in Paul’s letter (Romans 2:13; 3:4, 20; 8:33) […] The LXX translators intended dikaioō to carry the same range of meanings as that carried by hitsdiq, and that, when they used the Greek verb, they did have the picture of a judge as clearly in their minds as did the authors of the Hebrew Bible when they used the Hebrew equivalent.[24]
The verb is first used in a courtroom or judicial context in Romans 2:1-16, along with the legal terms κρίμα, κρίνω and κατακρίνω, δικαιοκρισία, and νόμος, in view of the final judment of God. In Paul, the verb clearly denotes the positive judicial finding of acquittal or righteousness, and as such this is consistent with the LXX but different from the classical use, whereby δικαιόω might mean ‘pass sentence against’ or ‘condemn’ or ‘punish’, and as such the action it denotes is a rectification of injustice (by way of punishment).[25] However, in Paul, the verb is the opposite of κατακρίνω (I condemn), and denotes ‘the finding of righteousness’, ‘vindication’, and thus ‘acquittal’. For example:
θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν· τίς ὁ κατακρινῶν; Χριστὸς [Ἰησοῦς] ὁ ἀποθανών […].
God is the one who justifies. Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus, the one who died […] (Romans 8:33-34)
It is clear that God is pictured as the judge of all humans, whose lives and conduct in the flesh will be measured according to God’s good law. The good news is that the divine verdict is given to us now. The bad news is every human is found to fall short (Romans 2:12-13; 3:10-20, 23), and thus justification by works of the law is not open to us. Thus, with a view to the final judgment, Paul says:
Now, we know that as much as the law says, it speaks to those in the law, so that every mouth may be shut and the whole world might come under the judgment of God. Therefore, no flesh will be justified (δικαιωθήσεται) before him from the works of the law, for through the law [is] knowledge of sin (Romans 3:19-20)
19οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὅσα ὁ νόμος λέγει τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λαλεῖ, ἵνα πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ καὶ ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ· 20διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, διὰ γὰρ νόμου ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας.
But the good news is that a new way of justification has been made known, which is free justification by God’s grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus (δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι: Romans 3:24).
For humans to be justified with or before God (ἐδικαιώθη […] πρὸς θεόν: Romans 4:2), there is the necessity that God must justify the ungodly (τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ: Romans 4:5). This justification of the ungodly is expounded as ‘the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works’ (τὸν μακαρισμὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ᾧ ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων: Romans 4:6), and is further explained metynomically, because the object of justification is characterized as ‘ungodly’ (ὁ ἀσεβής), as the blessedness of lawlessness forgiven (ἀφέθησαν αἱ ἀνομίαι), sins covered (ἐπεκαλύφθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι), and the blessedness of the Lord never imputing sin (οὐ μὴ λογίσηται κύριος ἁμαρτίαν) to a person (Romans 4:7-8, quoting Psalm 32:1-2). The exclusive focus in Romans 4:1-8 is not on God bringing moral improvement of humans by factitively making them ethically good, but on God as just but merciful judge covering and hiding human transgression of his law from his own sight, and instead reckoning us to be righteous, so that God does not take account of our sins and justly punish us.
Some regard justification as an act of creation ex nihilo based on Romans 4:17, where God is described as the one who gives life to the dead (θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς) and the one who calls the things not being as being (καὶ καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα).
Paul in the first description reintroduces the motif of resurrection.[26] By introducing God’s resurrection power in 4:13-25, Paul connects resurrection with God’s verbal act of imputing δικαιοσύνη to Abraham (Romans 4:6, 11) and justifying τὸν ἀσεβῆ (Romans 4:3, 5, 6). God verbally calls (καλοῦντος) the dead to life just as he verbally declares the ungodly righteous. Abraham faces the deadness of his own body and Sarah’s womb (νενεκρωμένον; νέκρωσιν: Romans 4:19), but God makes the dead alive (θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκρούς) and calls those things not being as being.
While many commentators argue that the background of Romans 4:17b, καὶ καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα, is creation ex nihilo, there are good arguments against this position,[27] because the seed (τὸ σπέρμα σου) already exists in Abraham and Sarah’s dead bodies. From their supposedly ‘dead’ bodies, living seed will be drawn.[28] The paradigm is not so much ‘something from nothing’ (ex nihilo) but ‘life from the dead’. It is not a calling into being, but a calling of the things not being ‘as’ (ὡς) being.[29] A further indicator that τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα (Romans 4:17) does not allude to creation ex nihilo is Paul’s parallel use in 1 Corinthians 1:28.[30] The Corinthian Christians are described as τὰ μὴ ὄντα, so that their calling might nullify τὰ ὄντα. Though not many were wise, powerful, or wellborn, God called (κλῆσιν: 1 Corinthians 1:26 || καλοῦντος: Romans 4:17) the so-called ‘nothings’, so that ‘no-one might boast before him’ (ὅπως μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ: 1 Corinthians 1:29; cf Romans 3:27; 4:2). Again, this is not creation ex nihilo, but the divine calling of the despised, powerless, and lowborn, all of whom have no boast before God. By faith in the gospel the Corinthians have not themselves, but Christ, as their δικαιοσύνη (1 Corinthians 1:30).
Thus, in Romans 4:13-25, God is summoning and naming nations and descendants from Abraham where deadness suggests that fulfilling the divine promise is impossible.[31] God has power to do what he promised (Romans 4:21), and Abraham believes both God’s promise and power, so is a paradigm for Christian faith.[32] While Abraham’s belief in the face of deadness was directed towards God’s promise of seed (οὕτως ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου: Romans 4:18; Genesis 15:5), the believer’s object of faith is He who accomplished the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ (τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν: Romans 4:24; cf 10:6-9).[33] ‘The conception and birth of Isaac is therefore an anticipation of Jesus’ resurrection’.[34] In the meantime, Abraham, though ἀσεβῆ, has δικαιοσύνη reckoned to him (Romans 4:5, 6, 11, 22). Abraham, like us, is simul iustus et peccator (Romans 6:11-13; 7:14-25; 8:10; 11:18, 20; 12:3,9,16, 13:11, 14; 14:1-12, 20, 23; 16:17-19; Galatians 5:17). We likewise are summoned to believe unto righteousness (εἰς δικαιοσύνην: Romans 10:10; 4:22-24) despite our continuing deadness because of sin. Abraham’s body was at once dead, yet, by the promise of God, living. Though we are dying, yet because of Christ’s righteousness, we live.
When God is the object of the active verb or subject of the passive verb of δικαιόω, the word can only mean to attribute or proclaim or show righteous, because humans cannot factitively make or transform God from being unrighteous to being just, for example:
But let God be true and every human a liar, just as it is written, that you might be justified in your words and prevail when you judge (Romans 3:4, quoting Psalm 51:4 LXX).
γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής, πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης, καθὼς γέγραπται· ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου καὶ νικήσεις ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε.
The use of δικαιόω with God as subject of the passive verb supports the traditional protestant contention that elsewhere in Romans and Paul, when humans are said to be justified, it is a proclamation or declaration of righteousness from a judge that is intended by δικαιόω, and not that God factitively transforms the person to become righteous. Some argue that the verb δικαιόω is transformative in Romans 6:7, but the verb is quite acceptably understood forensically, rather than transformatively, I think N T Wright is correct to say:
Why, then, ‘justified,’ rather than ‘freed’ [in Romans 6:7]? The answer must be that, unlike most of his recent readers, Paul is able to keep the lawcourt metaphor still running in his mind even while expounding baptism and the Christians solidarity in Christ. The Christian’s freedom from sin comes through God’s judicial decision.[35]
Two further lexemes, verbal nouns, need to be studied to deal with the ‘justification’ terminology in Romans. They are verbal nouns because the nouns are built onto the verb stem. They are formed by suffixing nominal endings to δικαιόω, either —σις, which tends to mark a process, or —μα, which tends to mark a concrete act.
Fourth, the verbal noun δικαίωσις is the process of δικαιόω nominalised (ie the process of justification) and is used in Romans 4:25 and 5:18. It is thus rightly translated as ‘justification’ or ‘vindication’[36] and denotes the action of a lawcourt putting things right by pronouncing the verdict,[37] though in Paul it always means the positive verdict. The emphasis is on the process of justification rather than[38] or in addition to[39] its result.
Fifth, the verbal noun δικαίωμα denotes the act, decree or sentence of δικαιόω nominalized. That is, it is the act or decree of justification, and is used in Romans 1:32; 2:26; 5:16, 18; 8:4. The frequent LXX usage of δικαίωμα as meaning ‘statute’ can actually be conceived of as derivative of the decree of justification, and probably can account for the uses of δικαίωμα even in Romans 1:32 and 2:26.[40] A very strong argument can be made that the meaning of it in 5:16 should also be extended to its use in 5:18, and a strong argument also that the meaning ‘justification’ should be given it in 8:4.
The following phrases, many from Romans, are functionally equivalent and must be accounted for in any treatment of Paul’s doctrine of justification. In the following, X represents the object of justification, that is, the person being justified:
Of these functionally equivalent constructions, it is worth isolating two classes for further analysis: constructions using λογίζομαι and δικαιοσύνη, and the construction using which uses καθίστημι and δίκαιοι.
As can be seen from the functionally equivalent phrases, any treatment of justification must deal with the usage of λογίζομαι used with the noun δικαιοσύνη, that is, to be accounted or reckoned or imputed righteousness. Thus, it becomes an exegetical and not merely systematic theological necessity to deal with imputed righteousness, despite claims that imputation should be isolated to the domain of systematic theology. Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536), the Roman Catholic humanist and biblical scholar, first rendered the Greek λογίζομαι as the Latin imputare, not reputare, as in the Vulgate, because it better conveyed the accounting connotations he believed λογίζομαι carried.[41] So the question of ‘imputed righteousness’ is actually an exegetical issue, not just a systematic issue, which can be hermetically sealed off from exegesis.
Righteousness is said to be imputed in Romans 4:6, 11, which is part of Paul's exposition of Genesis 15:6 cited in Romans 4:3. In Romans 4:6, which extolls the blessedness ‘of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works’ (τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ᾧ ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων), the noun δικαιοσύνην is the object of the finite verb λογίζεταi, and the recipient of righteousness is expressed by the dative relative pronoun, ᾧ. In Romans 4:11, in the phrase ‘so that righteousness also be reckoned to them (εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην), the noun δικαιοσύνην is the accusative of respect of the (divine) passive infinitive λογισθῆναι and the recipient is dative pronoun αὐτοῖς. As Dunn says, ‘That Paul puts δικαιοσύνην as the direct object (in place of εἰς δικαιοσύνην in Gen 15:6) confirms that he [Paul] does not think of God accepting faith merely as a substitute for righteousness, but that righteousness is actually accorded […] the idea is of God treating someone as […]’.[42]
That is, the phrase λογίζεται ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ εἰς δικαιοσύνην (Genesis 15:6 || Romans 4:5), spoken of Abraham and applied to us, means that a quality, attribute, or characteristic of ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη) that would not normally be attributed to that person or thing (Abraham is ungodly, ἀσεβή, in Romans 4:5, and so are we in Romans 5:6), is attributed to that person or thing (Abraham, and those of his faith), and the quality so attributed is not inherent or otherwise attributable to that person or thing (Abraham and we are ungodly, ἀσεβή, which would normally be a barrier to the reckoning by a just God in the ordinary course of events), but there are appropriate reasons for the reckoning (the faith, pistis, πίστις, of the person justified, and the obedience, satisfaction, resurrection, and session of Christ: Romans 3:25-6; 4:25; 5:6-9, 16-19; 8:3) for the attribution or characterization through the process denoted by logizomai (λογίζομαι).
This understanding of the construction provides analogous results when applied to Romans 2:26, where uncircumcision can be reckoned as circumcision, even though it would not be able to be so reckoned in the normal course of affairs by the God of truth, but in the extraordinary situation of that verse (the uncircumcised Gentile has kept the law), there are appropriate reasons for that reckoning.
Therefore, if the uncircumcised person keeps the righteous decrees of the law, his uncircumcision will to reckoned for circumcision, won’t it? (Romans 2:26)
ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ, οὐχ ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ εἰς περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται;
In the example of Romans 2:26, that which is the reality (the uncircumcision of the gentile who for the purpose of the argument is said to keep the law) and that which is reckoned or imputed (physical circumcision) are diametrically opposed and cannot be considered an equivalent. Circumcision is not of itself uncircumcision. Uncircumcision is not the means of, or the ground of,circumcision. Circumcision is the antithesis of circumcision. Uncircumcision is a barrier to be overcome for circumcision to occur. It is only when the uncircumcised is actually a ‘gentile law-keeper’ that uncircumcision will be reckoned circumcision. But even then, circumcision is not the equivalent of uncircumcision. That would be non-sense, like calling ‘black’, ‘white’. Rather, a better explanation is that the gentile law-keeper is reckoned ‘as if’ he is circumcised, because although circumcision and uncircumcision do not matter in the New Covenant, they can never be ‘identified’ or be ‘equivalent’, according to the nature of the case.
This is similar to God reckoning the ungodly non-worker, of which Abraham and David are examples, to be righteous, in that their characterization as ungodly non-workers (Romans 4:5-6) is diametrically opposed to their being reckoned righteous (Romans 4:6,11). But in each instance there are good reasons for the reckoning. In Romans 2:26, the reason why the reckoning is appropriate and just is because it is in the case of ‘the gentile’s law keeping’ (which unfortunately proves to be hypothetical and not actualized in reality: Romans 3:10-20, 23). In Romans 4:5, the reason that the reckoning is appropriate is because of the ground of divine righteousness through Christ’s coming and work, and the instrumentality of faith exercised by those justified.
I have asserted above that one of the functionally equivalent constructs conveying Paul’s idea of justification is in Romans 5:19, where Paul says ‘through the obedience of the One the many will be constituted righteous’ || διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί. This requires an analysis of the verb kathistēmi (καθίστημι). In sum, Paul’s use of καθίστημι comes after the heavy usage of λογίζομαι in correlation with δικαιοσύνη in Romans 4:6, 11, 23-24, and the use of ἐλλογεῖται (Romans 5:13). It is followed by the reintroduction of λογίζομαι in Romans 6:11. This suggests that the verb καθίστημι here carries the attested denotation in a quasi-accounting context of ‘reckon him as one of […]’[43] or ‘numbered’ (Xenophon, Memorabilia, 2:1:9)[44]. Another example of this meaning is in Deuteronomy 25:6 LXX. Just as ποιέω (2 Corinthians 5:19-21) and γίνομαι (Romans 2:25-26) can effectively mean something very similar to λογίζομαι, so too can καθίστημι, if context warrants it. And the context warrants it. ‘[T]he forensic element is evident at v18 (κατάκριμα –δικαίωσις).’[45] This is a ‘judicial act of καθίστημι’.[46] According to the lexicographer Danker:
[A]lmost any use of the term καθίστάναι in a legal context would intimate someone’s appearance under charges before a judge […] In Paul’s usage of καθίστάναι the main purpose is to convey the legal atmosphere.[47]
Paul’s use of καθίστημι in Romans 5:19 is closest to that of Susanna 1:60 LXX which in turn is an application of Deuteronomy 19:15-20. In Susanna, Daniel ‘established’ (κατέστησεν) the two Jewish elders as ‘both false witnesses together’, just as Deuteronomy 19:16 requires. This usage of καθίστημι as ‘establish in court’ or ‘judicially set down’ is supported by the use in 3 Maccabees 3:19, where the meaning of καθίστημι is ‘establish’, in the sense of ‘show’ or ‘prove’.
Thus, given the forensic context of Romans 5:12-21, we should translate the two instances of καθίστημι in Romans 5:19 in conformity with the attested usage as ‘judicially establish’, or ‘established in court’, and not in any factitive or transformative way.
It is important to establish the nature of the faith that justifies. The noun πίστις (Romans 4:3) and cognates throughout Romans in Romans 3:21-5:21 denotes ‘belief’, ‘trust’,[48] and contextually, ‘trusting God’s promise’, rather than ‘faithfulness’ (Genesis 15:5-6; Romans 4:13-22).[49] Moreover, Paul clearly distinguishes between πίστις and ἔργα (Romans 4:2-6).[50] To define πίστις so that it effectively means (good) works hardly makes sense. This is what those who define ‘faith’ as ‘faithfulness’ do.[51] Paul presents faith as instrumental for justification using the following grammatical constructions:
An appropriate starting point for an explication of justification by faith in Romans is Romans 3:21-31, which lays the foundation of why it is appropriate that God treat the ‘ungodly non-working believer’ (Romans 4:5) as if he or she is ‘righteous’ (Romans 4:3, 5, 6, 11), because the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ has been manifested διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Romans 3:21-22). The controversial phrase πίστεως Χριστοῦ (Romans 3:22, 26) could denote the whole course of Christ’s faithfulness,[53] thereby providing a ground for imputed righteousness,[54] but the objective genitive is preferable.[55] Free justification (δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν: Romans 3:24) has come to sinners (Romans 3:9-12, 19-20, 23) who believe in Christ (δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ: Romans 3:26, 22, 25) without compromising divine justice (εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον: Romans 3:26) on the ground of the redemption (ἀπολυτρώσις) in Christ (Romans 3:24) and God publicly displaying Christ as a propitiation (ἱλαστήριον) (Romans 3:26).[56] Christ’s death as redemption and propitiation is the divine penalty for sin and punishment deserved for sin, inflicted by the justice of God on the Son of God as our substitute.[57]
However, stopping the analysis of justification by faith at Romans 3:21-31 has a disadvantage, in that, to use systematic-theological language, at the point of Romans 3:21-26, only Christ's ‘passive obedience’ to the law’s penalty, an accursed death on a tree, has been expounded (Romans 3:25-26), and not Christ’s obedience to the law’s precept, grounding his imputed righteousness. Moreover, if one depends on Romans 4 alone to establish the imputed righteousness of Christ’s active obedience, the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ is to the end of that chapter could only be based on the moral connotations of δικαιοσύνη as ‘merit’ and the action of λογίζομαι. The doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience is certainly defensible on that basis (Romans 4:3-6, 11),[58] but a stronger case requires finding an explicit scriptural seat of doctrine for Christ’s ‘active obedience’. Likewise, Romans 5:6-9a grounds only Christ’s ‘passive obedience’.
It is my contention that Romans 5 verses 17, 18 and 19, are an explicit ground for establishing Christ’s ‘active obedience’ as likewise a material cause of justification along with Christ’s ‘passive obedience’.
The notion of 'imputation of Christ’s righteousness' or ‘active obedience’ has been severely criticised and parodied by some as a crass concretization of righteousness, turning righteousness into a substance, gas, object, package, or parcel.[59] However, for Paul in Romans 5:17, δικαιοσύνη as an abstract noun can indeed be given, received, and possessed (τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λαμβάνοντες). As Westerholm observes:
No one has better grasped the absurdity of ‘receiving righteousness’ than N T Wright [...] But the absurdity of it all in no way alters the fact that Paul speaks of ‘receiving the abundant overflow of grace and of the gift of righteousness’ (Romans 5:17).[60]
Gifts are given, bequeathed, conveyed or otherwise transfered. Southall rightly says that '[t]he idea that the gift is a status or relationship sustained by God is possible, but it does not seem overly convincing in the light of the “concrete” connotations of δωρεὰ’, and Southall rightly observes that the idea of a 'gift' in normal parlance is an object which leaves the possession of the giver and becomes possession of the believer.[61] Righteousness is also arguably viewed as a possession in Romans 9:30-10:6 and Philippians 3:8-11.
To attempt to understand the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in its various contexts, it methodologically wise to first expound and ascertain the meaning of justification in Romans through the action of the verb, the two verbal nouns, and the phrase, ‘reckoned righteous’, and only after doing that work should we then return to the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ where it occurs. The phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is probably polyvalent,[62] the genitival flexibility making it useful for various contexts as one slogan apt to convey three ideas, none necessarily exclusive of the others:
God’s righteousness as an action, an attribute, and a gift, are clearly related. God’s saving actions win the victory by rescuing a people for himself. God does so in a way consistent with his justice, punishing wickedness in his Messiah. Yet God’s salvation is gracious, in which he attributes to his people ‘righteousness’, in the normal course of events the personal quality that law keeping produces, even though they are in fact ‘ungodly’. All three aspects resolve in Jesus Christ and all three are important for understanding imputation, and justification and the divine reckoning of righteousness recursively informs our understanding of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. The notion of the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as a gift of righteousness from God, most clearly supported in Romans 5:17, 10:3-4, and Philippians 3:9, provides another ground of support for the traditional Protestant doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The divine righteousness comes from God in that Christ, who is our righteousness, is sent from God to do what we by obedience to the law could not do (1 Corinthians 1:30; Romans 8:3).
Recent New Testament scholarship has rightly brought Christ’s resurrection into closer relationship to justification than in previous generations in New Testament studies. Good arguments have been presented from Romans 1:3-4, 4:25 (and supported by 1 Timothy 3:16), that show that for Paul, Christ’s resurrection was God’s judicial act justifying Christ as the sinless Messiah.[63] ‘After his death for sin, the righteousness of Christ is declared by his resurrection, which is the sign of his vindication.’[64] In our union with the justified Christ we are likewise justified (Romans 4:25).
These insights can be applied to Romans 5:18 and the instance of δικαίωμα there. In Romans 5:16, the noun δικαίωμα is almost universally held to mean ‘justification’ or ‘vindication’. The exception to this is the recent single demurrer of Kirk, who has to my mind unconvincingly argued that δικαίωμα in Romans 5:16 means ‘judgment’, ‘penalty’, or ‘reparation’.[65] However, despite the modern consensus on Romans 5:16, that δικαίωμα means ‘justification’ in that verse, the modern scholarly consensus on the instance of δικαίωμα in Romans 5:18 is that δικαίωμα should NOT be translated ‘justification’ in Romans 5:18, as it should be in Romans 5:16, but that the ἑνὸς δικαιώματος of 5:18 should be rendered ‘one act of righteousness’ (eg NIV). This ‘one act of righteousness’ is then understood to be a referent to Christ’s obedient death on the cross, his ‘passive obedience’ to the penalty of the law, and it excludes his ‘active obedience’ to the precept of the law.
But against this current consensus of the commentaries, significant exegetes have held that ἑνὸς δικαιώματος in Romans 5:18 should be rendered ‘one vindicating act’, ‘one act of justification’ or, what is my preferred translation, ‘the justification of the one’, who is Christ.[66] The verbal noun δικαίωμα in Romans 5:18 thus refers to the justification or vindication Christ received in his resurrection, and in which believers share.[67] So Augustine (AD 354-430) says of Romans 5:18:
Now when he says in reference to Christ, “By the justification of one,” he has more expressly stated our doctrine than if he were to say, “By the righteousness of one”, inasmuch as he mentions that justification whereby Christ justifies the ungodly, and which he did not propose as an object of imitation, for He alone is capable of effecting this.[68]
Similarly, John Calvin (AD 1509-64) comments on Romans 5:18 as follows:
He [Paul] does not say the righteousness – δικαιοσύνη, but the justification – δικαίωμα, of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful.[69]
Others rendering δικαίωμα as ‘justification’ in both Romans 5:16 and 18 include Godet (AD 1812-1900),[70] Shedd (AD 1820-1894),[71] and Sanday and Headlam (AD 1902).[72] O’Neil comments similarly, that:
[T]he Greek […] more probably should be translated, ‘one trespass […] one vindication’. The vindication referred to is the resurrection; […] the word has already occurred in v 16, as here, in close proximity to condemnation, and there it means vindication (RSV: justification). We must therefore keep the same meaning here too.[73]
Leon Morris argued the word δικαίωμα ‘normally refers to a pronouncement of some kind, not an action’.[74] He rightly observes that:
We are faced with a choice between an inexact antithesis and using the word in two different senses in the same passage without explanation […] It seems better to retain consistency both in the way the word is used generally and in the way it is used in verse 16 (so SH, Lenski, and others). ‘Sentence of justification’ or ‘justificatory sentence’ (Godet, Gifford) suits the present context admirably, while the word has the meaning ‘righteous act’ rarely if at all.[75]
Morna Hooker likewise takes δικαίωμα in verse 18 to refer to God’s act of acquittal, justification or vindication regarding Christ himself in raising Christ from the dead.[76] Christ himself is justified and acknowledged to be righteous in his resurrection. Hooker argues that the unusual term δικαίωμα is appropriate because it means ‘the amendment of a wrong, the act of vindication’.[77] Since the condemnation of the many results from the condemnation of Adam, the logic of the argument suggests that the acquittal of the many depends on the acquittal of Christ. This acquittal, which leads to life for the many, would have taken place at the resurrection, an act of vindication which established his righteousness.[78] It is the obedience of the Christ (v19), that leads to the one act of acquittal of him by God the Father.[79] Believers share in Christ’s acquittal before the Law, and in God’s declaration of his righteousness, and so believers share in his righteousness, just as we once shared in Adam’s transgression and condemnation.[80] I H Marshall has more lately agreed:
As Hooker has demonstrated, the dikaiōma in Romans 5:18 should have the same sense as in v 16, and refer to the vindication or acquittal of Christ by God that then results in the dikaiōsis or justification of all who are united with him through faith.[81]
If imputation’s modern advocates accept this recent finding by New Testament scholars, which simply re-institutes the accepted understanding of δικαίωμα prior to and subsequent to the reformation, they will have a sound foundation to rehabilitate Romans 5:19 as one of the sedes doctrinae (seat of doctrine) for the imputation of the whole course of Christ’s obedience. No longer is justification by imputation limited to Christ’s passive obedience only in Romans 5:19 by the δικαίωμα referring to Christ’s death as a righteous deed. That ἑνὸς δικαιώματος means 'the justification of the one' and refers to Christ’s resurrection, is supported by Isaiah 53:11 LXX. The verb κατεστάθησαν 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).
Paul’s use of the justification language in its various constructions is an example of a specialized use that depends on the forensic meanings of the lexemes. But the fact that the context trades on the forensic does not mean that any moral or ethical connotations of either the noun or the adjective should be discounted. The extra-ordinary situation of the new righteousness of God Paul announces involves the attribution or imputation of the quality of righteousness to those who apart from God’s action in Christ would rightly only deserve the designation or declaration of ‘sinner’, ‘ungodly’ or ‘unrighteous’. In the instances where we can track the meaning of the verb through contextual factor, it does not mean to transform or to change inwardly, but to declare righteous. Paul also uses the quasi-accounting notion of ‘imputation’ or to ‘reckon righteousness’ in circumstances where the reckoning is not based on the person (analytic) but is based on grounds external to the person (synthetic). The ground of justification is Christ and his obedient and sinless life, sin bearing death, resurrection and session. The means or instrument is faith as trust, reliance or dependence.
[1] H G Liddell, R Scott, H S Jones, R McKenzie (eds), A Greek-English Lexicon (9th Ed: Oxford: Clarendon, 1940), 429. Hereafter LSJM.
[2] T Muraoka (ed), A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets (Louvain/Paris/Dudley: Peeters, 2002), 127.
[3] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 5.1.8 [1129a]; R Weed, ‘Aristotle on Justice (δικαιοσύνη): Character, Action and Some Pauline Counterparts’, JGRChJ 3 (2006), 72-98 at 83.
[4] W W Goodwin, A Greek Grammar (London: Macmillan, 1955), §824; D Burk, ‘The Righteosuness of God (Dikaiosunē Theou) and Verbal Genitives: A Grammatical Clarification’, JSNT (2012) 34(4), 346-360, 347.
[5] Burk, ‘The Righteousness of God’ (2012), 352.
[6] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 5.1.3 [1129a]; Weed, ‘Aristotle on Justice’ (2006), 81.
[7] J A Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry: SNTSMS 20 (Cambridge: CUP, 1972), 38; D J Southall, Rediscovering Righteousness in Romans: Personified dikaiosynē within Metaphoric and Narrational Settings: WUNT2 240 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 17; D MacLeod, ‘How Right Are the Justified? Or, What is a Dikaios?’, in SBET, 22:2 (Autumn 2004), 173-195 at 186-7.
[8] S Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New On Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004), 263-273.
[9] Westerholm, Perspectives Old & New (2004), 273-284.
[10] R Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, (ET K Grobel: London: SCM, 1952); Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross: a study of the significance of some New Testament terms, (3rd Ed: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965); David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms: SNTSMS 5 (Cambridge: CUP, 1967).
[11] N T Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (London: SPCK, 2009), 46, 49; idem, ‘Justification: Yesterday, Today, and Forever’, JETS, 54.1 (March 2011), 49-63 at 56-57; cf K L Onesti and M T Brauch, ‘Righteousness’, in G F Hawthorne, R P Martin, D G Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), 828-9; K A Grieb, ‘The Righteousness of God in Romans’, in J L Sumney, Reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 65-78 at 70, 73; E M Humphrey, ‘Glimpsing the Glory: Paul’s Gospel, Righteousness and the Beautiful Feet of NT Wright’, in N Perrin & R B Hays (eds), Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N T Wright, (Downers Grove: IVP, 2011), 162-182 at 164, 167; B B Colijn, Images of Salvation in the New Testament (Downers Grove: IVP, 2010), 200-203.
[12] G Shellrude, ‘Imputation in Pauline Theology: Christ’s Righteousness or a Justified Status’, SBET, 28:1 (Spring 2010), 18-23 at 21, cf 27.
[13] Westerholm, Perspectives Old & New (2004), 277 fn 39; cf 265 fn 7-8; E de Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians: ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921), 469; Ziesler, Meaning of Righteousness (1972), 51; M A Seifrid, ‘Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism’ in D A Carson, P T O’Brien, M A Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism Vol 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001, 415-442 at 422, 424; D A Carson, ‘The Vindication of Imputation: On Fields of Discourse and Semantic Fields’ in M Husbands and D J Treier (eds), Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates? (Downers Grove/Leicester: IVP/Apollos, 2004), 46-78 at 51; J Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to NT Wright (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 73-80; T D Gordon, ‘Observations on N T Wright’s Biblical Theology: With Special Consideration of “Faithfulness of God”’ in G L W Johnson and G P Waters, (eds), By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 61-73 at 67; D VanDrunen, ‘To Obey is Better Than Sacrifice’: A Defence of the Active Obedience of Christ in the Light of Recent Criticism’, in G L W Johnson and G P Waters, By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification’, Wheaton: Crossway, 2006, 127-146 at 140-2.
[14] ἀσέβεια: 1:18; cf ἀσεβής: 4:5, 5:6; ἁμαρτία: 3:9, 20; 4:7, 8; 5:12, 13, 20, 21, etc; ἁμαρτωλὸς: 3:7; 5:8, 19; 7:13; ἁμάρτημα: 3:25; ἀνομία: 4:7, 6:19; παράβασις: 2:23; 4:17; 5:14; παράπτωμα: 4:25; 5:15, 16, 17, 18, 20; 11:11, 12; ἀσθενέω: 8:3 and cf ἀσθενής: 5:6; ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ: 3:23; cf 1:23; 2:7; μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ: 4:5; cf 2:10; 4:4; ἐχθροὶ.: 5:10; κακός: 1:30; 2:9; 3:8; 7:19, 21 etc.
[15] ἀσεβής: Romans 4:5; ἁμαρτία: 4:7, 8; ἀνομία: 4:7; μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ: 4:5.
[16] J Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed J T McNeill; tr F L Battles; Library of Christian Classics Vol XX, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 2 Vols, III.14.11 (1:778-9); Contra P A Rainbow, The Way of Salvation: The Role of Christian Obedience in Justification (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), 85 fn 28; B Schliesser, Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4: Paul’s Concept of Faith in Light of the History of Reception of Genesis 15:6: WUNT2:224, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007), 348-50.
[17] S J Gathercole, Where is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5, (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002), 243 fn 79.
[18] Carson, ‘Vindication of Imputation’ (2004), 60.
[19] Schliesser, Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4 (2007), 126-129.
[20] For example, Dunn holds that for Paul the essence of ‘righteousness’ is the ‘Hebrew’ concept of meeting the claims of a relationship, rather than the ‘Greek’ ideal against which an individual is measured: J D G Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998), 341; idem, Romans 1-8, 9-16: WBC 38A-B (Waco, TX: Word/Nelson, 1988), 2 Vols, 1:40-41. This however, falls foul of the fact that the relationship under the Mosaic covenant is regulated by law (the Law of Moses), and thereby has ‘norms’, being the law to which the human covenant partner must conform to enjoy the benefits promised. ‘Laws’ are not inimical to ‘relationship’, but govern and regulate the relationship.
[21] M Hengel, The ‘Hellenization’ of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (ET: J Bowden: London/Philadelphia: SCM/Trinity, 1989), 53.
[22] See N M Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (New York: JPS, 1989), 113; E A Speiser, Genesis: AB (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 110; B Jacob, ‘The First Book of the Bible Genesis, (ET E I Jacob and W Jacob: New York, KTAV, nd), 100; G W Plaut, The Torah Genesis: A Modern Commentary (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1974), 146; Compare R W L Moberly, ‘Abraham’s Righteousness (Genesis XV 6)’, in J A Emerton (ed), Studies in the Pentateuch (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 103-30 at 109; L Gaston, Paul and the Torah, (Vancouver: University of British Colombia Press, 1987), 55; Ziesler, Meaning of Righteousness (1972), 103, 109; Morris, Apostolic Preaching (1965), 266-8; Schliesser, Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4 (2007), 129-130, 157; P S Alexander, ‘Torah and Salvation in Tannaitic Literature’, in D A Carson, P T O’Brien, M A Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism Vol 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (Tubingen/Grand Rapids: Mohr Siebeck/Baker, 2001), 261-302 at 300-1; M McNamara, ‘Some Targum Themes’ in D A Carson, P T O’Brien, M A Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism Vol 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (Tübingen/Grand Rapids: Mohr Siebeck/Baker, 2001), 303-356 at 326-8; R Bauckham, ‘Apocalypses’ in D A Carson, P T O’Brien, M A Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism Vol 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, (Tübingen/Grand Rapids: Mohr Siebeck/Baker, 2001), 135-187 at 156, 173-4; E Phillips, ‘They are Loved on Account of the Patriarchs: Zekhut Avot and the Covenant with Abraham’, in S A Hunt (ed) Perspectives on Our Father Abraham: Essays in Honour of Marvin R Wilson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 187-220 at 187, 189, 219; N L Collins, ‘The Jewish Source of Rom 5:17, 16, 10 and 9: The Verses of Paul in Relation to a Comment in the Mishnah at M. Makk 3.15’, RB 2005 - T 112-1, 27-45 at 34-6; D A Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 101-2, 104, 109.
[23] Quoted in L Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (3rd Ed: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 252 fn 2; also in H Blocher, ‘Justification of the Ungodly (Sola Fide): Theological Reflections’, in D A Carson, P T O’Brien, M A Seifrid, Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul (Grand Rapids/Tubingen: Baker/Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 493.
[24] J A Fitzmyer, ‘Justification by Faith in Pauline Thought: A Catholic View’, 77-94, in D E Aune (ed), Rereading Paul Together: Protestant and Catholic Perspectives on Justification (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 84 and fn 25.
[25] Ibid.
[26]P M Head, ‘Jesus’ Resurrection in Pauline Thought: A Study in Romans’ in P M Head (ed), Proclaiming the Resurrection: Papers from the First Oak Hill Annual School of Theology, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998, 58-80 at 66; A J Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2011), 187; M D Hooker, ‘Raised for Our Acquittal’ (Rom 4:25), in R Bieringer, V Koperski & B Lataire, Resurrection in the New Testament: Festschrift J Lambrecht, Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2002, 323-341 at 331; I H Marshall, ‘Raised for Our Justification: The Saving Significance of the Resurrection of Christ’, in W Dembski & T Schirrmacher (ed), Tough Minded Christianity: Honoring the Legacy of John Warwick Montgomery, Nashville: B&H, 2008), 244-271, 256.
[27] D J Moo, Romans: NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 232; Schreiner, Romans (1998), 236-7; C G Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Pillar (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans/Nottingham: Apollos, 2012), 217.
[28] Schreiner, Romans (1998), 236.
[29] Moo, Romans (1996), 281-2; J Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: NICNT (Grand Rapids: MI, 1959, 1965), 1:1467; contra G H Visscher, Romans 4 and the New Perspective on Paul: Faith Embraces the Promise: SBL 122 (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 206-7.
[30] Hultgren, Romans (2011), 189.
[31] Schreiner, Romans (1998), 237.
[32] M F Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective: PBM (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007), 50.
[33] Moo, Romans (1996), 287-8; Hooker, ‘Raised for Our Acquittal’ (2002), 331
[34] Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God (2003), 247.
[35] N T Wright, ‘The Letter to the Romans’ in New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol X (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 540.
[36] LSJM, 429; W Bauer, F W Danker, W F Arndt, F W Gingrich (eds), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd Ed: Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 250 (hereafter BDAG); G Schrenk, ‘δικαίωμα’ in G Kittel, G W Bromiley, F Gerhard (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 10 vols, 2:220 (Hereafter TDNT); D J Moo, The Epistle to the Romans: NICNT (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996), 288; N T Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (London: SPCK, 2003), 248; idem, ‘Romans’ (2002), 504; C E B Cranfield, Romans 1-8: ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2001; 10th corrected Impression), 1:251-2; Hultgren, Romans (2011), 191-2; L Morris, The Epistle to the Romans: Pillar, (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge/Leicester: Eerdmans/Apollos, 1988), 216; idem, Apostolic Preaching (1965), 289; Dunn, Romans (1988), 1:225; contra R Jewett, Romans: Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 343.
[37] Hooker, ‘Raised for Our Acquittal’ (2002), 331.
[38] Moo, Romans (1996), 288 fn 8; Morris, Romans (1988), 216.
[39] BDAG, 250; M F Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective (PBM, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007), 51.
[40] Philo uses the plural δικαίωματα as those rule or decrees grounded in nature or creation, as opposed to positive statute law or law by convention (those laws imposed by the mere will of the legislator), that and both are virtues towards men. It is possible that Philo’s analysis also suggests that to the Graeco-Roman mind that δικαιωματα connotes an older ‘right’ previously judicially recognized (ie, a precedent), and therefore the δικαιωματα are the outcomes of previous processes of justification, hence the translation of the LXX into English as 'statutes' or 'decrees': Philo, Supplement I: Questions and Answers on Genesis: LCL 380, Books I-IV, (ET: R Marcus: London/Cambridge: Heinemann/Harvard University Press, 1953), 467-468.
[41] Greta Grace Kroeker, Erasmus in the Footsteps of Paul (University of Toronto Press, 2011), 81.
[42] Dunn, Romans (1988), 1:205-6.
[43] LSJM, 855.
[44] Xenophon, Memorabilia, Oeconomicus, Symposium, Apology: LCL 168, Vol IV (ET: E C Marchant, O J Todd: Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press, 1923), 87.
[45] A Oepke, ‘καθίστημι’, TDNT, 4:445.
[46] J –A Bühner, ‘καθίστημι’, in H Balz, G Schneider (eds) Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 3 Vols, 3:225 (Hereafter EDNT); Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness (2000), 71.
[47] F W Danker, ‘Under Contract: A Form-Critical Study of Linguistic Adaptation in Romans’, in E W Barth & R E Cocroft, Festschrift to Honor F Wilbur Gingrich (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 91-114 at 106 and fn 3.
[48] Dunn, Romans (1988), 1:204.
[49] Cranfield, Romans (2001), 1:231, E Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (ET: G W Bromiley: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 107, 110; Dunn, Romans (1988), 1:204; Kruse, Romans (2012), 206.
[50] Moo, Romans (1996), 263-4; T R Schreiner, Romans: BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 214-5; Schliesser, Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4 (2007), 337-9.
[51] See further my article ‘Justified by Faith NOT Faithfulness’ (2014) at http://highstreetmedia.com.au/demo/acr/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Justification-by-Faith-NOT-Faithfulness_WEB1.pdf.
[52] M Silva, ‘Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians’, in D A Carson, P T O’Brien, M A Seifrid, Justification and Variegated Nomism Vol 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul (Tübingen/Grand Rapids: Mohr Siebeck/Baker Academic, 2004), 217-248 at 227-234; J H Lee, ‘Against Richard B Hays’s “Faith of Jesus Christ”’, in JGRChJ 5 (2008), 51-80; R B Matlock, ‘The Rhetoric of πίστις in Paul: Galatians 2:16, 3:22, Romans 3:22, and Philippians 3:9’ JSNT 30.2 (2007), 173-203; idem, ‘Saving Faith: The Rhetoric and Semantics of πίστις in Paul’ in M F Bird and P M Sprinkle (eds), The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Pistis Christou Debate (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009), 73-89; Bell, R H, ‘Faith in Christ: Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections on Philippians 3:9 and Ephesians 3:12’ in M F Bird and P M Sprinkle (eds), The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Pistis Christou Debate (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009), 111-125.
[53] D A Campbell, ‘The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans 3:22’, in M F Bird & P M Sprinkle (eds), The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Pistis Christou Debate (Peabody/Milton Keynes: Hendrickson/Paternoster, 2009), 51-71.
[54] P T O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1991), 398-400.
[55] Moo, Romans (1996), 224-5; Schreiner, Romans (1998), 181-6; D A Carson, ‘Atonement in Romans 3:21-26’, in C E Hill & F A James III, The Glory of the Atonement: Essays in Honor of Roger Nicole (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 119-139 at 125-127; Silva, ‘Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians’ (2004), 227-234; Matlock, ‘The Rhetoric of πίστις in Paul’ (2007), 173-203; Matlock, ‘Saving Faith: πίστις in Paul’ (2009), 73-89; F Watson, ‘By Faith (of Christ): An Exegetical Dilemma and its Scriptural Solution’ in M F Bird and P M Sprinkle (eds), The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Pistis Christou Debate (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009), 147-164.
[56] Carson, ‘Atonement in Romans 3:21-26’ (2004), 127-136, 137-8; Morris, Apostolic Preaching (1965), 40-51 at 45, 184-202 at 198-201; Contra B B Colijn, Images of Salvation in the New Testament (Downers Grove: IVP, 2010), 206-7.
[57] Carson, ‘Atonement in Romans 3:21-26’ (2004), 128-9, 133.
[58] Carson, ‘Vindication of Imputation’ (2004), passim.
[59] N T Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Oxford: Lion, 1997), 98; M F Bird, ‘Progressive Reformed View’ in J K Beilby & P R Eddy (eds), Justification: Five Views (Downers Grove: IVP, 2011), 131-157 at 150; idem, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 563.
[60] Westerholm, Perspectives Old & New (2004), 275 n 31.
[61] D J Southall, Rediscovering Righteousness in Romans: Personified dikaiosynē within Metaphoric and Narrational Settings: WUNT2 240 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 23.
[62] F Thielman, ‘God’s Righteousness as God’s Fairness in Romans 1:17: An Ancient Perspective on a Significant Phrase’, JETS 54:1 (March 2011) 35-48 at 35, 45; Moo, Romans (1996), 84.
[63] R B Gaffin Jr, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (Grand Rapids/Phillipsburg: Baker/P&R, 1978/1987), 119-124; idem, By Faith, Not By Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006), 84-5; idem, ‘Justification and Eschatology’ in K Scott Oliphant (ed) Justified In Christ: God’s Plan For Us in Justification (Fearn: Mentor, 2007), 6-14; H Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (ET J R De Witt: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 538-9; Head, ‘Jesus’ Resurrection in Pauline Thought’ (1998), 58-80; M A Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification: NSBT 9, (Leicester: Apollos/IVP, 2000), 47, 90-91; M F Bird, ‘Raised for our Justification: A Fresh Look at Romans 4:25’, Colloquium 35/1 (2003), 31-46; idem, ‘Justified by Christ’s Resurrection: A Neglected Aspect of Paul’s Doctrine of Justification’, SBET 22 (2004), 72-91; idem, ‘Incorporated Righteousness: A Response to Recent Evangelical Discussion Concerning the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness in Justification’, JETS, 47/2 (June 2004), 253-75 at 266-7; idem, Saving Righteousness (2007), 40-59; idem, ‘Progressive Reformed View’ (2011), 149-50; G K Beale, ‘Resurrection in the Already-and-Not-Yet Phases of Justification’, in S Storms & J Taylor (eds), For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 190-212 at 193; Cf D L Dabney, ‘Justified by the Spirit: Soteriological Reflections on the Resurrection’, IntJST Vol 3 No 1 March 2001, 46-68; F D Macchia, Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010).
[64] C R Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 398.
[65] J R D Kirk, ‘Reconsidering Dikaiōma in Romans 5:16, JBL 126 No 4 (2007), 787-92 at 787; idem, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008), 102.
[66] J C O’Neil, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: PelNTC (Hammondsworth: Penguin, 1975), 105-106; Morris, Romans (1988), 238-9, M D Hooker, From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge: CUP, 1990), 29-32, 39-40; idem, Paul: A Short Introduction (Oxford: One World, 2003), 94ff.
[67] Hooker, Adam to Christ (1990), 30-4; I H Marshall, Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity (Milton Keynes, Paternoster, 2007), 87.
[68]The Merits and Remission of Sins and Infant Baptism, 1.14.18 cited by D F Wright, ‘Justification in Augustine’ in B L McCormack (ed), Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges (Edinburgh/Grand Rapids: Rutherford House/Baker, 2006), 60-61, 61 n 25.
[69] J Calvin, Comm Rom, 5:18 in Calvin Translation Society, Calvin’s Commentaries (Reprint: Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 22 Vols, 19:211 (hereafter CC).
[70] F L Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1883: Reprint Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 224-5.
[71] W G T Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans (1879: Reprint Birmingham AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2007), 138.
[72] W Sanday & A C Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: ICC (5th Ed: Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), 141-2.
[73] O’Neil, Romans (1975), 105-106.
[74] Morris, Romans (1988), 239; cf idem, Apostolic Preaching, 288.
[75] idem, Romans (1988), 239.
[76] Hooker, Adam to Christ (1990), 29.
[77] ibid, 31.
[78] ibid, 29.
[79] ibid, 31.
[80] idem, Adam to Christ (1990), 34.
[81] Marshall, Aspects of the Atonement (2007), 87; idem, ‘Raised for Our Justification’ (2008), 258.