“The Just Shall Live By Faith”: Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:16-17

By Robert P. Martin

Dr. Robert P. Martin is Pastor of Emmanuel Reformed Baptist Church, Seattle, WA, and Editor of Reformed Baptist Theological Review.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith.

In no small degree, Paul’s eagerness to preach the gospel at Rome is rooted in his attitude towards the gospel. When he declares, “I am not ashamed of the gospel,” he is saying that he has complete confidence in the gospel, i.e., “I believe in its ability to accomplish the great purpose for which it is preached, which is to save sinners.” In its assessment of religion, the world is impressed by human virtue and disdains any creed in which men are said to be helpless to save themselves. If a religion is permeated with flatteries of man’s goodness, wisdom, and strength, the men of the world will run to it and profess it with eagerness and pride; but they see nothing attractive in a religion that insists on man’s total spiritual inability and depravity. And yet, it is just such a religion of which Paul says, “I am not ashamed of the gospel.” How can he have such an attitude? Judged by the criteria of his contemporaries, the gospel is weak and foolish. Why then does Paul not join the world in disdaining it? The answer is that he knows something about the gospel that the world does not see. In the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians, he expands the point in great detail, saying that contrary to the assessment of the worldly wise, “the word of the cross. .. is the power of God” (1:18). For this reason, he says, his message is “Jesus Christ, and him crucified,” so that men’s “faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (2:1–5). Far from being ashamed of the gospel because it does not suit the wisdom of the world, Paul is confident that, God’s adding his blessing to its proclamation, his good pleasure is to save them that believe its testimony. In Romans 1, Paul echoes these same principles, expressing the reason for his confidence in these terms: “for (truly as the case stands)[1] the gospel is divinely powerful unto salvation.”

In a word, Paul is confident in the operative principle of the gospel, which he identifies as “the power of God.”[2] Sanday and Headlam’s observation at this point is helpful:

We shall not do wrong if we think of the Gospel as a ‘force’ in the same kind of sense as that in which science has revealed to us the great ‘forces’ of nature. It is a principle operating on a vast and continually enlarging scale, and taking effect in a countless number of individuals. This conception only differs from the scientific conception of a force like ‘heat’ or ‘electricity’ in that whereas the man of science is too apt to abstract his conception of force from its origin, St. Paul conceives of it as essentially a mode of personal activity; the Gospel has all of God’s Omnipotence behind it. As such it is before all things a real force, not a sham force like so many which the Apostle saw around him; its true nature might be misunderstood, but that did not make it any less powerful.[3]

In the context of Romans, the expression δύναμις θεοῦ. .. εἰς σωτηρίαν points to two great facts. First, Paul sets the gospel of Jesus Christ over against every religion of self-justification, especially the form manifested in first-century Pharisaic Judaism (cf., 9:30–10:4). The gospel does not promise to reward a righteousness secured by one’s own works, i.e., by human power, for “there is none righteous, no not one.” Rather, it promises to reward an alien righteousness, i.e., a divine righteousness (secured by divine power) which God imputes to sinners. Christianity, therefore, is a sinner’s religion, fitted by its heavenly Author to meet the need of those who do not have a righteousness of their own. Second, when Paul uses the term “salvation,” he is affirming that the gospel has to do with deliverance which is from the (present and eschatological) righteous manifestation of God’s wrath against sin (cf., 1:18; 2:5; 5:9) and which also is unto the conferring of an adoption, which brings with it an heir’s share in the glory of Christ (cf., 8:14–21).[4] Not to be missed, however, is that there is an experience of this “salvation” in terms of living the Christian life now, chiefly a perfecting of sanctification which Paul describes elsewhere in terms of a cooperative working of the Christian and God-“working out your own salvation, for it is God who works in you” (Phil. 2:12–13). In Romans, the Christian life that is meant to be lived by those joined by faith to Christ is a life of “walking according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh” (8:4). As we will see, it also is a living by faith in Christ. The blessings of this gospel-the forgiveness of sins, imputed righteousness, adoption, etc.-are, Paul says, “to every one who believes,” i.e., to all those who believe the gospel, who believe in Christ and in God who has acted in his Son by his power unto salvation. The exposition of this gospel in terms of its present and eschatological meaning is the message of Romans.

On what basis, however, does Paul preach such a message? Elsewhere he vigorously denies that it is his invention and insists that he received it by revelation from Jesus Christ himself (cf., Gal. 1:11–12). And yet he would also have us know that it stands firmly on the revelation that God gave in preceding generations, now inscripturated in the Old Testament. This concern, of course, was in accord with Christ’s own claim that Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms had spoken concerning himself (cf., Luke 24:27, 44).

Paul exhibits the intimate connection between the Old Testament witness and the gospel in a great variety of ways, but in no way more plainly than in his explicit Old Testament quotations. In Romans, where Paul quotes the Old Testament no less than fifty-nine times, in some places he virtually argues in Old Testament quotations. At first glance, perhaps we are tempted to think that he merely uses the Old Testament for proof-texting, inserting passages as he thinks they will secure the reader’s assent in difficult points; but that is not at all what he is doing-at least not in Romans. Some writers describe Romans in terms of parallels to rabbinical midrash and Qumran pesher quotation, and much of what they say is accurate.[5] In a very real sense, the entire letter fits this model of “quotation-exposition,” in which a Pentateuchal text or a proem (“opening”) text is cited and then its principles expounded, illustrated, and applied throughout the whole. In the case of Romans, the Pentateuchal text, not cited until chapter four, is Gen. 15:6 (“Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness”), while the proem text, cited at Rom. 1:17, is Hab. 2:4 (“The just shall live by faith”). The rest of Romans is exposition, illustration, and application of the principles of these texts-especially of Hab. 2:4, which is not only “the key to the whole book of Habakkuk”[6] but also the “golden principle of Old Testament theology.”[7]

In Gal. 3:6–11, Paul also places Hab. 2:4 and Gen. 15:6 together. There Hab. 2:4 is seen to contain the general principle that is illustrated in the specific case of “father” Abraham (Gen. 15:6). This is also Paul’s point in Romans, where he cites Hab. 2:4 as the pivotal principle, while he points to Abraham not only as an illustrious example of the principle but also as an obviously pivotal figure in covenantal history. While the rabbis recognized the importance of Hab. 2:4 (and occasionally even expounded it in conjunction with Gen. 15:6), their exposition was at odds with the case that Paul makes from it. But that, of course, is no small part of the point of his using this text as his proem text for expounding the gospel of gracious justification. The rabbis, and even the Qumraners, interpreted Hab. 2:4 in terms of the law-keeping and suffering of the Jews;[8] but Paul interprets it in terms of its original context and meaning.[9] As Nygren says, “He takes it out of the hands of the representatives of the righteousness of the law and makes it the motto and crowning expression of a view which is directly opposite, of the righteousness of faith.”[10]

Clearly we need to recognize the importance of 1:16, 17 (and Hab. 2:4) to understanding Paul’s treatment of the gospel in Romans.[11] Paul says, “for therein (i.e., in the gospel) is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith.” This verse, however, presents us with several difficult questions: (1) what is the “righteousness of God” revealed in the gospel? (2) what does “from faith unto faith” mean? and (3) in what way does Paul use Hab. 2:4?

Before taking up these questions, consider first the meaning of the verb translated “is revealed” (ἀποκαλύπτεται). Generally speaking ἀποκαλύπτω in the passive voice (as here) means to be uncovered, disclosed, made known, revealed. As Paul uses it here, however, it has the additional meaning of “to be manifested,” i.e., to be exhibited in a tangible way by its actual presence in the world. This is how Paul uses the word at 1:18, where he speaks of God’s wrath as an active principle actually present and operative in the world now. It is clear that at 1:17 the meaning of ἀποκαλύπτεται is not exhausted by the mere idea that the place of God’s righteousness in salvation is disclosed to our understanding in the gospel. The parallel with 1:18 is too close to admit that interpretation. Even as Paul is not simply saying that the ὀργὴ θεοῦ is being revealed cognitively, so he is not merely saying that the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is being revealed cognitively to men in the gospel. This is further confirmed by 3:21 (“a righteousness of God hath been manifested”), where Paul substitutes the stronger word φανερόω for ἀποκαλύπτω.[12] On the basis of the analogy of 1:18, it seems that Paul speaks at 1:17 of the “righteousness of God” as an active principle actually present and operative in the world now in the preaching and belief of the gospel. Moo is correct in noting that the significance of the present tense is that in the gospel this disclosure is present and on-going, so that whenever and wherever the gospel is preached and received in faith, this manifestation of the “righteousness of God” is made.[13] This is but to say that the idea contained in the verb ἀποκαλύπτω is dynamic, not static.[14] Prof. Murray puts the point this way:

So, when the apostle says, the “righteousness of God is revealed”, he means that in the gospel the righteousness of God is actively and dynamically brought to bear upon man’s sinful situation; it is not merely that it is made known as to its character to human apprehension but that it is manifest in its saving efficacy. This is why the gospel is the power of God unto salvation-the righteousness of God is redemptively active in the sphere of human sin and ruin.[15]

Paul’s point is that the gospel is powerful (“the power of God unto salvation”) because (γάρ, truly as the case stands) it contains (there is manifested in it and through its present application in the life of the sinner) an active, effective principle-here called the “righteousness of God.”

What is the “righteousness of God” revealed in the gospel? [16]

Though with a great deal of variation in detail and supporting argument, and even combining of views, three basic answers have been given to this question.[17]

First, the expression “righteousness of God” may denote an attribute in God, and this in one of two ways. It may refer to the virtue of perfect moral rectitude or justice in God’s character.[18] In this case, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ[19] is the impeccable ethical uprightness that belongs to God as part of his divine nature. It is also possible, however, to understand δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ more specifically in terms of God’s faithfulness to his promises (i.e., viewing his faithfulness as a subset of his perfect moral rectitude). The general idea is favored by 3:25–26; the specific idea by 3:3–5. However conceived, whether generally, or specifically in terms of his faithfulness, there is no question that this aspect of God’s character is accounted for in the design of the gospel, in such a way that not only is he seen to be faithful to his covenant promises-“how many soever be the promises of God, in him is the yea: wherefore also through him is the Amen” (2 Cor. 1:20), but also so that “he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus” (3:26). Standing alone, however, the idea of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as a virtue in God fails to account for a paramount concern in the letter, which is that the “righteousness of God” in view (whatever else may be suggested by the expression) is a saving righteousness that may be possessed by sinful men by faith (cf., 3:22). While understanding the Bible’s teaching about God’s perfect moral rectitude and faithfulness is essential to understanding the gospel, these ideas alone do not reach to the heart of Paul’s usage of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (and expressions like it) in Romans.

Second, some argue that θεοῦ is a subjective genitive (used with a noun of action, in which the noun in the genitive produces the action implied by a verbal idea in the noun that it modifies).[20] This view, of course, requires that the term “righteousness” be taken as a noun of action. It is further argued that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ should be understood in the same way as ὀργὴ θεοῦ at 1:18, i.e., as an activity of which God is the producer.[21] According to this idea, even as wrath is “the reaction of the Divine righteousness when it comes into collision with sin,”[22] so salvation is the product of God’s righteousness powerfully acting in accord with the principles of the gospel. Cited in support of this view are Psa. 98:1–2; Isa. 46:13; 51:5–8; 56:1 (cf., Isa. 54:17). In these texts, God’s “righteousness” (which is “the activity of his saving power”[23]) is clearly linked to his “salvation.” As Sanday and Headlam say,

In all these passages the righteousness of God is conceived as ‘going forth,’ as projected from the Divine essence and realizing itself among men.. .. In close attendance on the righteousness of God is His salvation; where the one is the other immediately follows.[24]

In the end, however, this view is distinguished from the previous one chiefly by conceiving of God’s righteousness as an active instead of merely a static virtue. But again, this does not fully answer the need of the context, which speaks of a saving righteousness that may be possessed by sinful men by faith. As helpful as this view is in seeing δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as the active principle in salvation, ultimately it misses Paul’s point.

Third, others take θεοῦ as a genitive of source or origin and view δικαιοσύνη as denoting a righteous status or actual righteousness imputed or given to the believer as the result of God’s act of justifying.[25] In this view, the expression is more properly translated as “a righteousness from God” (cf., NIV). This idea, of course, accords with both the context and theme of Romans and has many parallels in Paul’s epistles (cf., Rom. 3:20–22; 4:6–13; 5:17; 9:30–31; 10:3 [where θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην is contrasted with τὴν ἰδίαν δικαιοσύνην]; 10:10; 1 Cor. 1:30;[26] 2 Cor. 5:21. At Philip. 3:8–9, Paul is very explicit, saying that he counts all of his former grounds of confidence before God as dung, that he may gain Christ and be found in him, “not having a righteousness of mine own (μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην), even that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith (τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει).” Prof. Murray says,

Justification is the theme of this epistle, and in these two verses [Rom. 1:16, 17] the apostle is giving us an introductory summary of his leading thesis. The righteousness of God is therefore the righteousness of God that is unto our justification, the righteousness which he calls later on the free gift of righteousness (5:17), the “one righteousness” (5:18), “the obedience of the one” (5:19).[27]

Summing up this view nicely, echoing the language of the Westminster Confession (11.1), Hodge says that the “righteousness of God,” therefore, of which Paul speaks at Rom. 1:17, the righteousness for which sake we are justified, “is neither anything done by us nor wrought in us, but something done for us and imputed to us. It is the work of Christ, what he did and suffered to satisfy the demands of the law.”[28]

This is what Paul designates at 3:22 as “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe.” This is that “righteousness from God” which is the active element in the “power of God (which is) unto salvation to everyone who believes.” And it is this saving “righteousness from God” which is ours ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν.[29]

What does “from faith to faith” (ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν) mean?

The number (and ingenuity) of interpretations of this expression is impressive.[30] Rather than chase down every rabbit hole that has suggested itself to interpreters, we will focus on the linguistic parallels to Paul’s language and see if we can come to a conclusion that enjoys credible exegetical support.

The expression ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν is not used elsewhere in the Bible. There are, however, close parallels at Psa. 84:7 (83:8), ἐκ δυνάμεως εἰς δύναμιν (“from strength to strength”); Jer. 9:2 (9:3), ἐκ κακῶν εἰς κακὰ (“from evil to evil”); and especially 2 Cor. 2:16, ἐκ θανάτου εἰς θάνατον and ἐκ ζωῆς εἰς ζωήν (“from death unto death” and “from life unto life”).[31] Stanley suggests that these are “Hebrew superlatives” that correspond to the Semitic idiom whereby emphasis is conveyed through the repetition of a word.[32] Similarly, speaking of our text, Cranfield says that ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν most probably is “an emphatic equivalent of ἐκ πίστεως, the εἰς πίστιν having much the same effect as the ‘sola’ of ‘sola fide’.”[33] The benefit of this explanation is its simplicity. As Hendriksen notes, “The expression ‘from faith to faith’ is too short and simple to allow for complicated interpretations.. .. The most simple interpretation of such a brief expression is usually the best.”[34] While this is wise counsel, we must nonetheless give attention to the expression’s peculiarity as well as to its alleged simplicity. Dunn is certainly correct in saying, “The idiom is clearly one denoting some sort of progression, where ἐκ refers to the starting point and εἰς the end.”[35] Assuming that both halves of the expression (ἐκ πίστεως and εἰς πίστιν) refer to man’s faith in Christ and the gospel,[36] then Paul has in mind the progress or growth or ongoing role of faith in the experience of the believer.[37]

The idea that by the expression ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν Paul has in mind the ongoing role of faith in the Christian experience has much to commend it. This is especially suggested by the idea that Paul intends us to understand Hab. 2:4 (i.e., in the Old Testament quotation that follows the expression that we are now considering) in such a way that the phrase “by faith” is connected with “live,” i.e., “live by faith.” If, as I will suggest later, the statement “the righteous shall live by faith” means that the righteous man’s life is one of faith from beginning to end-not just in faith’s initial exercise in justification but as an ongoing reality in sanctification, then Paul may be using the expression ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν to express the idea that what is “by faith” (ἐκ πίστεως) at the beginning of the Christian life (i.e., in justification) is “unto faith” (εἰς πίστιν) as an ongoing principle of the Christian life.[38] Taking this position, Matthew Henry says that by ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, Paul means. . .

from the first faith, by which we are put into a justified state, to after faith, by which we live, and are continued in that state:. .. from faith engrafting us into Christ, to faith deriving virtue from him as our root: 

both implied in the next words, The just shall live by faith. Just by faith, there is faith justifying us; live by faith, there is faith maintaining us; and so there is a righteousness from faith to faith. Faith is all in all, both in the beginning and progress of a Christian life.. .. To show that this is no novel upstart doctrine, he [Paul] quotes for it that famous scripture in the Old Testament, so often mentioned in the New (Hab. ii.4): The just shall live by faith. Being justified by faith he shall live by it both the life of grace and of glory.[39]

Or, as Christopher Wordsworth says,

By this expression, ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, from or out of Faith (as a root), unto Faith (as the tree), St. Paul enters on his great argument concerning Faith. .. . By the words ἐκ πίστεως, he declares that Faith is the root of the Christian life, and by adding εἰς πίστιν, he guards against the supposition that the Christian life consists only in the root, and shows that it is continually growing with fresh increments from the small seed (Matt. xvii. 20) to greater altitude and vigour, putting forth new leaves and branches, and bringing forth new fruit in due season; but still it is ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. The vital principle is one-Faith, the “prora et puppis” [bow and stern] of the Christian life.[40]

In what way does Paul use Habakkuk 2:4?

Perhaps the place to begin answering this question is to recognize that Paul quoted Hab. 2:4 because he believed that it contains the same doctrine of justification, i.e., an imputed righteousness from God by faith, that he is developing in the rest of the letter. It is likely that he believed that the verse contains a larger principle (see Henry’s comment above); but at the very least, we must affirm that he believed that Hab. 2:4 taught justification by faith. Apart from this assumption, his use of the text has no defensible rationale. Further, we must assume that in his judgment he was using the text in accord with its meaning in the Old Testament context in which it originally occurred. Apart from this assumption, what possible proof could it afford of the gospel principles that he is declaring? Paul uses the verse as a proof that the basic principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the same as the basic principle of the religion of the Old Testament.[41] And far beyond the question of Paul’s judgment in these things, we believe that the Holy Spirit caused Hab. 2:4 to be used in this place. Whatever errors in judgment may be predicated of fallible human writers, none may be ascribed to the Spirit of God, whose word this is. We affirm, therefore, that Hab. 2:4 is a gospel text and that Paul, by the Spirit’s inspiration, uses it in accord with its original context and meaning.

Habakkuk begins with a prayer concerning a great burden that is on his heart (1:1–4). The land is full of injustice, violence, plundering, and strife. God’s law, which was meant to regulate the life of the nation, “is torpid”[42] (1:4), i.e., “God’s law is numbed. Its sensitivity to the cause of right has been stifled.”[43] NASB’s “the law is ignored,” though interpretive, captures the dynamic of the situation. Habakkuk speaks for himself and for “others throughout Israel that remain steadfast in faith despite their perplexity.”[44]

God’s response to Habakkuk is that he is raising up the Chaldeans to act as his instrument of judgment on Judah for the things that grieve the hearts of the righteous (1:5–11). Robertson says,

Awesome is the answer of the Lord to the complaint of the prophet. Interestingly, in no way does the Lord dispute the analysis of Habakkuk concerning the circumstances prevailing in the nation. The Lord agrees with the prophetic indictment against the behavior of the covenant people.. .. The Lord himself is fully in sympathy with the prophet’s agony over the suffering righteous ones. Although having larger concerns as well, the Lord knows and sympathizes with these who have been surrounded by the wicked.. .. Preparatory to unveiling his resolution to this injustice, the Lord warns with ominous words of the awesomeness of that which prophet and people shall see (v. 5). Then he identifies specifically the instrument he has prepared to bring judgment (v. 6a). Finally he characterizes with as many as twenty details the coming force for retribution (vv. 6b–11).[45]

In what follows, Habakkuk questions the rightness of God’s using an unrighteous instrument to punish Judah’s unrighteousness (1:12–17). We may be tempted to think that Habakkuk is out of line in challenging the righteousness of God’s dealings in this matter, or that this shows that he is not a righteous man who lives by faith after all; however, his manner of speaking is not without precedent (cf., Job 23). “By this bold manner of entering into dispute with God, the wise of Israel hoped to receive divine clarification of their perplexities.”[46]

The Lord responds not by reproving his prophet but by giving Habakkuk a vision of hope that he is to record for future generations (2:2–3), a vision in which he contrasts the righteous and the proud (2:4–5) and in which he pronounces the certain doom of the proud Chaldeans (2:6–20). Paul’s quotation at Rom. 1:17 is from 2:4. “Behold, his soul, not upright (tranquil, composed)[47] is swollen in him (i.e., with arrogance and pride); but the just (or, righteous) by his faith shall live” (וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה).

As noted already, this verse is “the key to the whole book of Habakkuk.”[48] It is the heart of God’s response to Habakkuk’s complaint. And as he reflects on this principle, i.e., that “the righteous by his faith shall live,” Habakkuk takes his place “by faith” among the righteous, who, regardless of what comes, confess, “I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation” (3:18).

As we consider the appropriateness of Paul’s using this verse as an expression of (at least) the doctrine of justification by faith, we must ask three questions: who is “the righteous” man of whom Hab. 2:4 speaks? what is the meaning of “by his faith”? what is the grammatical connection of “by his faith” in Hab. 2:4?[49]

First, who is “the righteous” man (צַדִּיק) of whom Hab. 2:4 speaks? In taking up this question it is tempting to think of the term צַדִּיק merely in terms of personal morality, i.e., the righteous man (צַדִּיק) is one who manifests righteousness (צְדָקָה) in his obedience to God’s law (cf., Deut. 6:25). Robertson, however, suggests that here we should translate צַדִּיק as “the justified.” He says that “the concept of righteousness. .. in the OT. .. is bound inseparably to the idea of judicial standing.”[50] In other words, the “just” man (if he is truly righteous before God and not just righteous in the eyes of men) must be thought of as the “justified” man who has been justified by God by means of a perfect righteousness that has been imputed to him. Leon Morris, commenting on the use of צַדִּיק, says, “The righteous are those acquitted at the bar of God’s justice, and righteousness is the standing of those so acquitted.”[51] Helpful in sorting out the meaning of צַדִּיק at this place (especially since Paul, whatever else he may be doing, plainly uses Hab. 2:4 to support a doctrine of imputed righteousness) are Gen. 15:6 and Isa. 45:21–25.

Citing Gen. 15:6 in conjunction with Hab. 2:4 in both Galatians (cf., 3:6–11) and Romans, Paul certainly means for us to understand Gen. 15:6 and Hab. 2:4 in terms of one another. “And he (Abraham) believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned (חָשַׁב, imputed)[52] it (i.e., his believing God’s promise) to him for righteousness” (לּוֹ צְדָקָהß והֶאֱמִן בַּיהוָה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ). Keil rightly observes that “it is impossible to mistake the reference in צְַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה [at Hab. 2:4] to Gen. xv. 6.”[53] Robertson likewise says that Hab. 2:4 contains “a deliberate echo of Gen. 15:6.”[54]

In the context of Habakkuk, a test of faith similar to that experienced by Abraham due to the nonfulfillment of divine promises is evident.. .. The judicially righteous of Hab. 2:4b therefore are those justified precisely as was Abraham. He believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. The justified of Hab. 2:4b therefore are the “justified by faith.”[55]

There is no question that Gen. 15:6 refers to an imputed righteousness and not to any righteousness that Abraham possessed by virtue of his deeds. This is easily proved from the divinely inspired exegesis of the text in Rom. 4:1–8, where Paul, interpreting Gen. 15:6 in light of Psa. 32:1–2, not only denies to Abraham the glory of a “self-achieved attainment”[56] but also explicitly speaks of Abraham’s case in terms of “the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.”

The language of Gen. 15:6 declares that Abraham’s faith was “imputed to him for righteousness”; however, we must interpret this carefully lest we find in this verse precisely what Paul (by divine inspiration) says is not found here, i.e., the idea of meritorious faith.[57] Faith (which, in its nature, is non-contributory) is not the righteousness that is imputed to believers but the condition on which a saving righteousness from God is received. John Eadie’s comments on Gal. 3:6 are very helpful at this point.

The passage before us implies that Abraham had no righteousness, or was in want of a righteousness which no law could provide for him, and that Jehovah reckoned faith to him as, or in lieu of, such a personal righteousness which he had not. A new principle was brought in by God Himself; as the Hebrew text so distinctly expresses it-“He counted his faith to him for righteousness;” and the non-righteous Abraham stood before the divine tribunal acquitted and accepted as truly as if he had possessed a personal righteousness through uniform obedience. His faith, not as an act, but as a fact, put him into this position by God’s own deed, without legal fiction or abatement. He believed God; that is, God in the promise given by Him in Gen. xv. 5: “And He brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them. And He said unto him, So shall thy seed be.” He was lifted into acceptance with God, however, not on account of his faith, but through it laying hold of the promise. That faith had no merit; for what merit can a creature have in believing the Creator’s word?-it is only bare duty,-but Abraham’s trust in God introduced him into the promised blessing. His faith rested on the promise, and through that faith he became its possessor or participant. That promise, seen in the light of a previous utterance, included the Messiah; and with all which it contained, and with this as its central and pre-eminent object, it was laid hold of by his faith, so that his condition was tantamount to justification by faith in the righteousness of Christ. In Abraham’s case the promise was vague-the Redeemer had not become incarnate, and righteousness had not been formally provided; but now the person and work of Christ are distinctly set before us as the immediate object of saving faith-the characteristic doctrine of the New Testament.[58]

Now, if the chief idea of Hab. 2:4 parallels the principle found in Gen. 15:6 (and there can be no doubt that it does), then we must assume that the righteousness of which Hab. 2:4 speaks likewise is imputed. In other words, “the righteous” man of Hab. 2:4 is “the justified” man because, like Abraham, “he believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness.” Viewed in terms of Psa. 32:1–2, with which Paul interprets these texts in Romans 4, the “righteous” man is the “blessed” (or, divinely favored)[59] man “unto whom God reckons righteousness apart from works” (Rom. 4:6). Viewed in gospel terms, he is righteous not with a righteousness of his own but he has received “the righteousness which is from God through faith” (Phil. 3:9).

Consider also Isa. 45:21–25 (cf., 53:11). This text is important in that it shows us that Paul’s doctrine of justification is not a New Testament innovation but finds its counterpart in the Old Testament in a place where the subject is the free offer of salvation. Men from the ends of the earth are invited to look to Jehovah in faith and be saved, for there is no other God like him, i.e., “a just God and a Savior.” This invitation is set against the background of the declaration that the day is coming when all men will bow the knee to him (45:23). And what will those who come to the Lord in faith find? He answers: “Only in Jehovah, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength” (45:24). Jehovah will give to all who come to him in faith a justifying righteousness and strength to live a godly life. The text ends with the declaration, “In the Lord (i.e., by coming to him in faith) all the (spiritual) seed of Israel (Jew and Gentile) shall be justified (יִצְדְּקוּ, declared righteous), and shall glory,” i.e., the Lord alone will be the ground of their boasting (45:25). Given this clear passage,[60] which speaks of the Old Testament method of justification and the Christian life, it is eminently reasonable to think that “the righteous” at Hab. 2:4 are none other than those who are of the seed of Israel who have been justified by faith.

If this line of thought is correct (i.e., taking our cue from Gen. 15:6 and Isa. 45:21–25), then (thus far) Paul’s use of Hab. 2:4 is legitimate, i.e., Habakkuk uses the term צַדִּיק to refer to the man justified by faith, which is also Paul’s subject in Romans. Further along, we will see, however, that both Rom. 1:17 and Hab. 2:4 take us beyond the bare doctrine of justification to underscore the larger principle of faith by which the justified man lives.

Our second question has to do with the meaning of “by his faith” (בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ). It has been said that for Habakkuk, אֶמוּנָה means “steadfastness” or “faithfulness” instead of “faith.”[61] But the word אמוּנָה includes the idea of faith, in the sense of trust in Jehovah, and is a comprehensive term embracing the essence of Hebrew religion (the verb form appears at Gen. 15:6).[62] In the scriptural view of the godly life, faith and faithfulness are always inseparable. True faith bears fruit in faithfulness to covenant obligations and, vice versa, faithfulness to the covenant presupposes faith in Jehovah, the covenant God.[63] Thus at Hab. 2:4, אמוּנָה means more than “faithfulness.” In its context it means “a radical faith in the sovereignty of God.”[64] As Keil says,

It is. .. indisputably evident from the context that our passage treats of the relation between man and God, since the words themselves speak of a waiting (chikkah) for the fulfilment of a promising oracle, which is to be preceded by a period of severe suffering. “What is more natural than that life or deliverance from destruction should be promised to that faith which adheres faithfully to God, holds fast by the word of promise, and confidently waits for its fulfilment in the midst of tribulation? It is not the sincerity, trustworthiness, or integrity of the righteous man, regarded as being virtues in themselves, which are in danger of being shaken and giving way in such times of tribulation, but, as we may see in the case of the prophet himself, his faith. To this, therefore, there is appended the great promise expressed in the one word יִחְיֶה” (Delitzsch). And in addition to this, ’emunah is opposed to the pride of the Chaldeans, to his exaltation of himself above God; and for that very reason it cannot denote integrity in itself, but simply some quality which has for its leading feature humble submission to God, that is to say, faith, or firm reliance upon God. The Jewish expositors, therefore, have unanimously retained this meaning here, and the LXX. have rendered the word quite correctly πίστις.[65]

The third question has to do with the connection of “by his faith” in Hab. 2:4 (a connection critical to understanding Paul’s use of the verse). Does Habakkuk (and Paul) mean “the righteous by his faith shall live” (i.e., so that he is viewed as righteous not in himself but by means of faith in God)[66] or “the righteous shall live by his faith” (i.e., so that the righteous man is viewed as living by faith in God as the ongoing principle of life)[67]? The proper view is that Paul and Habakkuk meant the same thing.[68] This is the crux interpretatum.

While what we saw above is true, i.e., that “the righteous” man of Hab. 2:4 is “the man justified by faith,” the idea that Habakkuk meant us to take “by his faith” as qualifying “righteous” has not commended itself to most writers. Instead, most take Habakkuk to mean “the righteous man shall live by his faith.”[69] Nevertheless, even if we agree with the majority and link “by his faith” with “live,” we must not think that the idea of “righteous by faith” is out of the picture. This is the background, derived from Gen. 15:6, which is assumed in the term “righteous” at Hab. 2:4. We can thus paraphrase Habakkuk this way: “the righteous [who, like father Abraham, is justified by faith] shall live by faith.”

This greatly helps our understanding of Paul’s use of Hab. 2:4 at Rom. 1:17. The doctrine of justification by faith is there, not by way of novelty or misuse but bound up in the apostle’s recognition that behind the use of the term צַדִּיק in Hab. 2:4 stands the Old Testament doctrine of the truly righteous or justified man. The doctrine of justification does not, however, exhaust the meaning of this text for Paul. He does not use Hab. 2:4 simply because he sees implied in it the doctrine of justification by faith. He uses it because it describes the governing principle of the righteous man’s life. The life of the righteous (including the way of his justification) is by faith. In this sense the quotation of Hab. 2:4 undergirds the doctrines of justification (at the beginning of life by faith) and sanctification (the life by faith of the justified) which dominate the Roman letter. If we insist that justification is in the forefront of Paul’s concern at 1:17, it is only because it is in the forefront of the blessings which faith in Christ brings; however, the larger implication of the gospel as it concerns living by faith cannot be far from Paul’s mind. He comes to this larger concern in due course, after establishing the scriptural doctrine of justification.

Some may object to the idea that Rom. 1:17 (and Hab. 2:4) is the theme text of the entire letter (and not just of the opening chapters where justification is specifically the issue). While it is true that the sections of Romans that treat of sanctification and the Christian life make comparatively little mention of the role of faith (cf., 14:23–24), the example of Abraham cited in chapter 4 must not be overlooked. Though Abraham is brought forward for the purpose of exhibiting the principles of his justification, nonetheless Paul describes him in terms of his larger example as a righteous man living by faith throughout the whole course of God’s dealings with him. This point is especially clear in Heb. 11:8–19, where faith is said to be the governing principle of Abraham’s walk with God from the time he left Haran “by faith” until he died “in faith.”

Further, the range of usage that Hab. 2:4 receives in the New Testament points to a broader application of its chief principle beyond merely the doctrine of justification. In addition to Rom. 1:17, it is also cited at Gal. 3:11 (where Paul again speaks of a justification which is not of the works of the law but by faith) and at Heb. 10:38–39 (which speaks of a faith that is steadfast or persevering, as opposed to a drawing back to perdition). This range of usage indicates that Hab. 2:4 teaches that the righteous man’s life is one of faith from beginning to end-not just in its initial exercise in justification but as an ongoing reality. As we saw above, this may be Paul’s point when he says that in the gospel “a righteousness from God” is revealed which is “from faith unto faith”—as Wordsworth says, “The vital principle is one-Faith, the ‘prora et puppis’ [bow and stern] of the Christian life.”[70] For an explicit declaration of the doctrine of living by faith, we need only consult Gal. 2:20, where Paul says, “the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

Is Romans a midrash on Hab. 2:4, a text that Paul viewed as containing the general principle illustrated in the life of Abraham? The answer is yes, but Paul’s conclusions from it are very different from those of the rabbis. In Romans, Paul expounds the gospel of Jesus Christ, in which he has the greatest confidence in the matter of saving sinners. The effective, powerful element in that gospel, received by faith, powerfully active in its present manifestation, is “a righteousness from God.” But this righteousness, imputed to and possessed by the believer, is meant to be a powerful reality not just at the beginning (in justification) but throughout the whole of the Christian life. Righteous by faith, the Christian is to live by faith, in the way that a man righteous before God should. This is Abraham’s example. This is the great principle of Hab. 2:4. This is the message of Romans.

Notes

1. The conjunction γάρ (from γέ and ἄρα) is “properly a particle of affirmation and conclusion, denoting truly therefore, verily as the case stands” (Thayer).
2. Δύναμις denotes more strictly the attribute of power in itself, while ἐνέργεια denotes the attribute of power in action. Sanday and Headlam, however, correctly observe: “But the two words are closely allied to each other and δύναμις is so often used for exerted power, especially Divine superhuman power, that it practically covers ἐνέργεια. St. Paul might quite well have written ἐνέργεια here, but the choice of δύναμις throws the stress rather more on the source than on the process.” William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, in The International Critical Commentary (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1896), 23. Emphasis theirs.
3. Ibid., 23. Emphasis theirs. On this point, cf., especially 1 Thess. 1:5.
4. Sanday and Headlam put the point this way: When used of the Christian hope, “σωτηρία covers the whole range of the Messianic deliverance, both in its negative aspect as a rescuing from the Wrath under which the whole world is lying. .. and in its positive aspect as the imparting of ‘eternal life’.” Ibid., 24. See both of these aspects together at 1 Thess. 5:9-10.
5. Especially helpful at this point is E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981) and Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978). See also Renee Bloch, “Midrash,” in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement 5. Bloch calls Rom. 1:17–4:25 and chapters 9–11 examples of “le grand midrash.”
6. Charles L. Feinberg, The Minor Prophets (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), 211.
7. David Brown, The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950), 16.
8. See Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 56; C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, in The International Critical Commentary (reprint ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Limited, 1980), 1:101; Andre Viard, Saint Paul Epitre aux Romains (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, J. Gabalda et Cie., Editeurs, 1975), 51.
9. As he does with other Old Testament texts, cf., especially Deut 9:4 and 30:12–14 at Rom. 10:6–8.
10. Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949), 82–83.
11. Schreiner is correct when he says, “Virtually all scholars acknowledge that these verses are decisive for the interpretation of Romans.” Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 58.
12. As 2 Cor. 4:10–1, Col. 3:4, and 1 Tim. 3:16 show, in certain cases φανερόω speaks of the actual presence of the thing revealed. Moo suggests that we understand 1:17 in this “historical” sense, so that “Paul’s point will be that the gospel in some sense actually makes manifest, or brings into existence, ‘the righteousness of God.’. .. Wherever the gospel is being proclaimed, the ‘righteousness of God’ in its eschatological fullness is being disclosed.” Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 69–70. It is not altogether clear what Moo means by this, but he is on the right track in seeing ἀποκαλύπτὼ in this case as synonymous with φανερόω.
13. Ibid., 70.
14. Again, as at 1:18, where the idea of a present and on-going, dynamic and powerful, manifestation of the wrath of God is plainly in view, so at 1:17 we see the other side of God’s “revealing” activity towards sinners, i.e., a present and on-going, dynamic and powerful, manifestation of the righteousness of God.
15. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), 1:29–30.
16. Moo’s treatment of the relevant Hebrew and Greek words impinging on this question is excellent. See Moo, Romans, 79–90.
17. Moo’s observation is very much to the point: “These options are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, and two or more of them are often combined in the interpretation of 1:17. In fact, every possible combination of the three basic interpretations is found in the literature.” Moo, Romans, 72. Moo himself combines the ideas of activity and status. See Ibid., 74. Schreiner similarly says that here the righteousness of God “is both forensic and transformative.” Schreiner, 66.
18. This is the view, e.g., of J. Barmby, Romans, in The Pulpit Commentary, ed. H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, n.d.). “It is maintained in this Commentary. .. that not only in this opening passage, but throughout the Epistle, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ does mean God’s own eternal righteousness, and that even in passages where a righteousness that is of faith is spoken of as communicated to man, the essential idea beyond is still that of God’s own righteousness including believers in itself.” Barmby, xi. He argues, among other reasons, that “the obvious reference of vers. 16 and 17” is to the LXX at Psa. 98(97)2, where “God’s own righteousness is undoubtedly meant.” Barmby’s treatment of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is marred by his denial that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer. “It may be observed. .. that the common idea of Christ’s personal righteousness being imputed to believers is not scriptural. It is, of course, scriptural to say that in the Person of Christ the Divine righteousness was humanly manifested; he was peculiarly ὁ δίκαιος; but we find nowhere in the New Testament the phrase ‘the righteousness of Christ,’ but always ‘the righteousness of God.’” Ibid., xii. And, “Its intrinsic meaning is there [in his Introduction, from which the preceding remarks are excerpted] taken to be God’s own eternal righteousness, revealed in Christ for reconciling the world to himself, rather than (as commonly interpreted) the forensic righteousness (so called) imputed to man.” Ibid., 8. Emphasis his. Barmby’s idea of a gospel without the imputation of a forensic righteousness to the believer, a gospel which promises only the forgiveness of the believer’s sins in a way that is consistent with the divine righteousness, is half a gospel. As Paul argues in Rom. 4:5-8, justification involves more than the non-imputation of sin (certainly a forensic transaction) but also the imputation of righteousness apart from one’s personal works of obedience to God’s law. This also is a forensic transaction. But if there is no imputation of Christ’s righteousness to sinners, only the imputation of our sins to Christ, whose forensic righteousness is imputed to believers? And what is Paul saying in Rom. 5:17-19? Barmby does not speak of the imputation of “God’s righteousness” [which, according to his scheme, distinguished from “Christ’s personal righteousness,” is the only divine righteousness in view] but only of “God’s own righteousness” being “communicated to man” (although not forensically)-of its “including believers in itself.” Under this scheme, imputation is at best single, but not double, i.e., our sins imputed to Christ but not his (or, God’s) righteousness imputed to us. Not surprisingly, Barmby also denies the imputation of Adam’s transgression to his descendants, for it is a notion “which jars on our conception of Divine justice.” Ibid., 126-27. For further thought on the inadequacy of this scheme in describing justification, see John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 121-25.
19. In this case the genitive is that of possession.
20. Moo, Romans, 71; also Douglas J. Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 46. Citing an assumed parallel, Cranfield says, “That in 3.5 θεοῦ is a subjective genitive is hardly to be doubted” (1:96, n.1). This interpretation depends, of course, on identifying “the (definite article implied) righteousness of God” (3:5) with “the (definite article supplied) faithfulness of God” (3:3) and “the (definite article supplied) truth of God” (3:7).
21. “In view of the parallelism of structure between v. 17a and v. 18, the fact that in v. 18 θεοῦ is a subjective genitive suggests that θεοῦ in v. 17a is likely also to be one, and the fact that ὀργὴ refers to an activity of God suggests that δικαιοσύνη is likely also to do so.” Cranfield, 1:96.
22. Sanday and Headlam, 35.
23. Cranfield, 1:96. Moo (71) places Dunn here, however, Dunn’s idea of God’s righteousness as a divine activity has a special nuance. He says that God’s righteousness at 1:17 is “the power of God put forth to effect his part in his covenant relationship with Israel, that is, particularly his saving actions, his power put forth to restore Israel to and sustain Israel within its covenantal relationship with God.” James D.G. Dunn, Romans, 2 vols., in Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988), 47. Dunn’s obscure view of “God’s righteousness” is in full accord with his obscure view of justification. One is hard pressed to find in Dunn’s commentary an actual definition of justification. He denies that it is to be understood in terms of the “the classic dispute between Catholic and Protestant exegesis” over the meaning of δικαιοῦν (“to make righteous” vs. “to count righteous”). Dunn, 41. What seems to come out, however, in Dunn’s treatment of Romans is that just as “the ‘righteousness of God’ is nowhere conceived as a single, once-for-all action of God, but as his accepting, sustaining, and finally vindicating grace,” so justification also must be understood in terms of a covenant relationship in which God’s “enrighteousing” of his people has a future as well as a past and present dimension. Dunn, 97.
24. Sanday and Headlam, 35.
25. See Martin Luther, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, trans. J. Theodore Mueller (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1979), 76–77. While at this place Calvin says, “I take the righteousness of God to mean, that which is approved before his tribunal,” elsewhere in his comments on Romans he explicitly identifies the “righteousness of God” in view as the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer. John Calvin, Commentaries of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, trans. John Owen (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 64, 138. See also W.G.T. Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (reprint ed., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978), 16–18; E.H. Gifford, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (reprint ed., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1977), 61; Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 30–31; Murray, Romans, 1:30.
26. The phrase ἀπὸ θεοῦ extends its meaning not just to σοφία but also to the three substantives which illustrate and exemplify σοφία. As Godet rightly observes, “ἀπὸ θεοῦ depends more naturally on the verb ἐγενήθη [rather than on σοφία]; it serves to bring out the idea of the ἐξ αὐτοῦ at the beginning of the verse.” Frederic Godet, Commentary on First Corinthians (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1985), 117. Also, Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, in The International Critical Commentary (reprint ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950), 27. Paul says, therefore, that Christ is made to us righteousness “from God.”
27. Murray, Romans, 1:30.
28. Hodge, 31.
29. It makes little difference if we connect ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν with ἀποκαλύπτεται or with δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. In both cases the point is that it is to the believer that this saving righteousness comes with power.
30. See Cranfield, 1:99.
31. Cf., 2 Cor. 3:18, ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν (“from glory to glory”).
32. Arthur P. Stanley, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians (1876), cited by Philip Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), 81.
33. Cranfield, 1:100. This idea is very popular, found also, e.g., in Hodge (“by faith alone”) and Hendriksen (“From start to finish this righteousness is sola fide; that is, by faith alone”). Hodge, 31; William Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, in New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 1:63. Nygren, noting that “the manner of expression suggests something like sola fide,” concludes that “by this coupling of phrases the last trace of works-righteousness is uprooted.” Nygren, 78–79.
34. Hendriksen, 1:63. From this premise Hendriksen rejects the interpretation suggested by John Murray. Prof. Murray argues: “‘From faith to faith’ in verse 17 is to the same effect as ‘to every one that believeth’ in verse 16.. .. It would appear that the clue to the interpretation is provided by Paul himself in a passage that furnishes the closest parallel, namely, 3:22 (cf. Gal. 3:22). There he speaks of ‘the righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ unto all who believe’. It might seem that the expression ‘unto all who believe’ is superfluous in this instance because all that it sets forth has been already stated in the expression which immediately precedes, ‘through faith of Jesus Christ’. But the apostle must have some purpose in what seems to us repetition. And the purpose is to accent the fact that not only does the righteousness of God bear savingly upon us through faith but also that it bears savingly upon every one who believes.. .. ‘From faith’ points to the truth that only ‘by faith’ are we the beneficiaries of this righteousness, and so it is a ‘faith-righteousness’ as truly as it is a ‘God-righteousness’. ‘To faith’ underlines the truth that every believer is the beneficiary whatever his race or culture or the degree of his faith.” Murray, Romans, 1:31–32. This explanation is overly complicated. It may very well be correct. Were the “progressive” emphasis of these kind of phrases not so plain, I could wish for nothing more in an interpretation of ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. On this view see also Albert Barnes, Romans, in Notes on the New Testament (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974), 37.
35. Dunn, 43.
36. This is defensible chiefly on the premise that ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν is to be understood in terms of παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι in 1:16 and ἐκ πίστεως in the quotation from Hab. 2:4. Dunn argues that we should interpret Paul in this way: “from (God’s) faithfulness to (man’s) faith.” Dunn, 43–44. Dunn acknowledges the objections to this view, but his explanation as to why it should be preferred is not convincing. See Schreiner, 71–73. John Murray’s helpful critique of Thomas F. Torrance’s presentation of this view is found in Murray, Romans, 1:363–74.
37. Calvin’s remarks at this point are capable of being misconstrued. “Instead of the expression he used before, ‘to every one who believeth,’ he says now, from faith; for righteousness is offered by the gospel, and is received by faith. And he adds, to faith: for as our faith makes progress, and as it advances in knowledge, so the righteousness of God increases in us at the same time, and the possession of it is in a manner confirmed. When at first we taste the gospel, we indeed see God’s smiling countenance turned towards us, but at a distance: the more the knowledge of true religion grows in us, by coming as it were nearer, we behold God’s favour more clearly and more familiarly.” Romans, 65. We must not misunderstand Calvin at this point. On the preceding page he has defined “the righteousness of God” as “that which is approved before his tribunal.” Ibid., 64. When he now says, “as our faith makes progress,. .. so the righteousness of God increases in us at the same time,” if we take “the righteousness of God” in the way he has just defined it, can we legitimately think of it as having degrees which increase in time along with the increase of our faith? Does our justification then reach perfection only when our faith reaches perfection, i.e., at our glorification? That Calvin plainly does not teach this is clear from his remarks on Rom. 3:22 and 5:17. Ibid., 138, 210. In his remarks on 1:17, Calvin is speaking of an increase of the believer’s assurance (that he possesses the justifying righteousness of God) which corresponds to the growth of knowledge and faith in his experience.
38. In the only other place that Paul uses a similar expression, i.e., 2 Cor. 2:16, ἐκ θανάτου εἰς θάνατον and ἐκ ζωῆς εἰς ζωήν (“from death unto death” and “from life unto life”), arguably a similar type of distribution of ideas may be in play. Paul is speaking in way that alludes to a rabbinical metaphor, in which the Law was said to be “an aroma vitae to the good, but an aroma mortis to the evil.” J.H. Bernard, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 3:51. Paul substitutes Christ (and the preaching of Christ) for Law in the metaphor, much in the same way that he substitutes Christ for Law in the Palestinian Targum rendering of Deut. 30:12–14 that he reworks at Rom. 10:6–8. In both phrases (ἐκ θανάτου εἰς θάνατον and ἐκ ζωῆς εἰς ζωήν), depending on what one does with Christ and the gospel, Paul may be speaking of an experience which ranges from one’s entrance into the state designated (whether death or life) unto the ongoing, even consummate, realization of that condition.
39. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (reprint ed., Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.), 6:368. Italics his. Harrison says, “Perhaps what it [εἰς πίστιν] conveys is the necessity of issuing a reminder to the believer that justifying faith is only the beginning of Christian life. The same attitude must govern him in his continuing experience as a child of God.” Everett F. Harrison, Romans, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 10:20. Also H.C.G. Moule, Studies in Romans (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1977), 58.
40. Christopher Wordsworth, The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the Original Greek, with Introduction and Notes (London: Rivingtons, 1862), 2:208.
41. See David McCalman Turpie, The New Testament View of the Old: A Contribution to Biblical Introduction and Exegesis (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1872), 31. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “The Gospel that Paul Preached,” Bibliotheca Sacra 128 (October-December 1971), 327.
42. Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Original Scriptures, ed., Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976, s.v., פּוּג.
43. O. Palmer Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, in The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 140. Italics his.
44. Ibid., 136-37.
45. Ibid., 141. Interestingly, Paul quotes Hab. 1:5 in order to warn the Jews of his day to beware their own hardness against the gospel (cf., Acts 13:40-41). This shows that Hab. 2:4 is not the only part of this prophecy with gospel application.
46. Ibid., 167.
47. Cf., Gesenius, s.v., יָשַׁר.
48. Feinberg, 211.
49. For a helpful survey of the various extant witnesses for the (Hebrew and Greek) text of Hab. 2:4, see Moo, Romans, 76–77, n. 65. Paul’s quotation at Rom. 1:17 and Gal. 3:11 differs slightly from the Greek versions. At Heb. 10:38 the text follows LXX-A and LXX-C.
50. Robertson, 175.
51. Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965), 260. Morris says, “The Hebrew concept is not grasped by making a facile equation with the Greek δικαιοσύνη or the English ‘righteousness’; it is not an ethical term, but a religious. It takes its origin in the forensic sphere and makes its home in the law of God.” See also Morris’ helpful observations about the forensic terminology used in the Book of Job. Ibid, 260-61.
52. Cf., Psa. 32:2 and Rom. 4:8.
53. C.F. Keil, Minor Prophets, vol. 10 in Commentary on the Old Testament, ed., C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch (reprint ed., William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), 2:73.
54. Robertson, 178. Ellis says, “It is virtually certain that the story of Abraham forms the foundation for the ‘righteousness by faith’ motif in Pauline thought and that the verse from the ‘Prophets’ is adduced as an interpretation and application of the principle laid down in Genesis.” Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 119–20.
55. Robertson, 178. The same observation is true of Noah (cf., Heb. 11:7).
56. The phrase is John Murray’s. Murray, Romans, 1:130.
57. See Cranfield, 1:229.
58. John Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969), 232–33. Eadie adds: “The promise included Him whose day Abraham rejoiced to see, and whatever was included in the promise was grasped by his faith.” See also Murray, Romans, 1:358–59.
59. As used in the Scriptures, the word אַשְׁי (and its Greek translation μακάριος) denotes the blessedness which comes to those who are under the favor or blessing of Jehovah. Where the term is used in beatitudes, there usually is a statement of the circumstances (e.g., of faith, or obedience, etc.) under which God’s blessing or favor is enjoyed, so that it is possible to view the blessedness of those favored by God in terms of the fulfilling of certain conditions; however, the term is monergistic in its chief signification, in that it speaks of a status or condition conveyed by God’s sovereign grace. In no case can the blessed man (who is blessed far beyond any conceivable merit of his trusting or doing) say that he receives what he deserves. The godly man understands intimately Jesus’ words: “So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do” (Luke 17:10). Psalm 32:1–2, of course, is preeminently monergistic, in that David speaks of a blessing given by God wholly apart from and even contrary to man’s deserving. This is one of the factors which makes this text so useful, as Paul shows us in Romans 4, in the interpretation of Gen. 15:6. These texts, along with Hab. 2:4, are cut from the same cloth.
60. Confirmed by Isa. 53:11, which speaks of Messiah justifying many by bearing their sins.
61. Dodd says, “The righteous would preserve his life, in the troubles surrounding him, by sheer character-by honesty, integrity, trustworthiness.” C.H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, in The Moffatt New Testament Commentary, ed. James Moffatt (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1932), 14. Garrison argues that the reference is to faithfulness in keeping the commandments. J.A. Garrison, “Certain Aspects of the Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1970), 19.
62. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. “Faith, Faithfulness,” by E.C. Blackman. Blackman argues, “Faith is the indispensable preliminary without which true religious experience cannot develop.”
63. Patrick Fairbairn, Hermeneutic Manual: Introduction to the Exegetical Study of the Scriptures of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co., 1859), 496; Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:73; John Agar Beet, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1900), 51; J.B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan and Co., 1880), 154–55.
64. J.A. Sanders, “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament,” in The Journal of Religion 39 (October 1959): 234.
65. Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:73–74.
66. So Cranfield, Romans, 1:102; Nygren, 88; A. Feuillet, “La Citation d’Habacuc II.4 et les Huit Premiers Chapitres de l’Epitre aux Romains,” in New Testament Studies 6 (October 1959), 52; C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, in Harper's New Testament Commentaries, ed. Henry Chadwick (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957), 31.
67. So James Denney, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, in The Expositor's Greek Testament (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 591; Barmby, 9; Sanday and Headlam, 28; Hendriksen, 1:64–65; Murray, Romans, 1:32–33.
68. Cranfield, while he thinks that Habakkuk meant one thing (i.e., live by faith), argues that we should understand Paul as meaning something else (i.e., righteous by faith). He excuses Paul by saying, “Paul could quote the OT with considerable freedom” (1:102), which, though true in one sense, is not the case in the way that Cranfield implies, i.e., with disregard for the original context. Moo makes the same mistake, saying, “In both the meaning of the terms and their connections, then, Paul’s quotation differs from the meaning of the original. But the differences should not be magnified.” Moo, Romans, 78. See also Sanday and Headlam, 28. Shall we ascribe to an inspired apostle a method of proceeding, i.e., the ignoring of the original meaning of his text, which would be condemned in even a beginning student of biblical hermeneutics?
69. Dunn suggests that on the basis of the principles of rabbinical exegesis current in Paul’s day, we should consider the possibility that Paul is expecting us to see a “fuller meaning” in Hab. 2:4, in such a way as “would include the possibility of taking the ἐκ πίστεως with both ὁ δίκαιος and ζήσεται. .. . Here too the continuing sharp division between translators and commentators who insist on ‘either-or exegesis’ underlines its unreality.” Dunn, 45–46. There may be considerable merit in this suggestion.
70. Wordsworth, 2:208. If this is so, then Paul offers Hab. 2:4 chiefly in support of that part of his statement at 1:17 to which it has the closest grammatical proximity (ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, καθὼς γέγραπται, κτλ).