Righteous God Who Justifies: A Study on the Relationship between the Demonstration of God’s Righteousness and the Justification of Sinners in Rom 3:24–26

God’s Demonstration of His Righteousness and His Overlooking of the Past Sins (εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ . . . ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ)

The prepositional phrase διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων, which is connected with εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, functions to explain in what ways God’s righteousness is demonstrated. The key word in this prepositional phrase, πάρεσις, is a hapax legomenon, used only once in the New Testament. This word is frequently understood as belonging to the same semantic category as ἄφεσις. ³ However, πάρεσις usually means “overlooking (or passing over) without paying attention,” and when used in relation to human crimes, it denotes “refraining from punishing or judging” (Xenophon, Hipparch. 7.10; Dionysius v. Halicarnass, Ant. Rom. 2.35.4; 7.37.2; Josephus, Ant. 15.48; Sir 23:2). ⁴ Considering these observations, πάρεσις, unlike ἄφεσις, indicates God’s particular act towards sinners.

When God overlooks and passes over past sins, this does not mean that God provides forgiveness as an ad hoc solution with temporary effectiveness. God’s act of overlooking and passing over the past sins of human beings implies that he does not count and judge their sins. When examining the use of πάρεσις in Rom 3:25, it is interesting that the verb παρέρχεσθαι, which is a cognate of πάρεσις, appears in Ex 12:23. This verb describes the angel of death passing over the houses of Israel without punishing them and is the key word that communicates deliverance from disaster. ⁵ It is significant that Paul, in Rom 3:25b, explains salvation through Jesus Christ by utilizing the word πάρεσις, a cognate of παρέρχεσθαι which points to the Passover event. In addition to πάρεσις, Paul’s use of ἀπολύτρωσις in describing salvation resulting from Christ’s death on the cross and his use of ἱλαστήριον in expressing Christ’s sacrificial death also evokes the Passover event and exodus tradition, when examining the meaning and usage of these two words.

Generally, ἀπολύτρωσις is used to denote the liberation of slaves, prisoners of war, and debtors through a ransom payment (Diodorus Siculus 13.59.1; 37.5.3; Plutarch, Pomp. 24.4; Ex 21.8; Ep Arist 12.20.33; Philo, Probus 114; Josephus, Bell. 2.223; Ant. 12.27). ἀπολύτρωσις is not attested in the Old Testament, but the λυτρ-words are frequently used to refer to the Exodus liberation from the life of slavery (Ex 6:6; 13:15; 15:13; Deut 7:8; 9:26; 13:6 15:15; 21:8; 24:18; 2 Sam 7:23; 1 Chron 17:21; Neh 1:10). ⁶ Israel’s deliverance from slavery in Egypt is frequently represented in Isaiah as God’s redemption of Israel and also connected with Israel’s future deliverance from Babylon (Isa 41:14; 43:1, 14; 44:22–24; 51:11; 52:3; 62:1–12; 63:9; see also Mic 6:4). Paul inherits this redemption motif but uses it to communicate redemption in Christ from sin and punishment rather than political liberation, as in deliverance from Egypt or salvation from Babylon. ⁷ This is clarified by the fact that Paul uses ἀπολύτρωσις along with the notion of justification (δικαιούμενοι), which denotes that a new identity was bestowed on the believers (cf. 1 Cor 1:30).

In previous research, ἱλαστήριον is understood in connection with the Day of Atonement in Lev 16, as the “place of atonement,” or “means of atonement,” ⁸ or in relation to various objects or epitaphs offered to Greek and Roman gods, as a dedicated object to appease wrath. ⁹ However, when the LXX, Jewish literature, and the archaeological evidence during the Greek and Roman periods are considered altogether, ἱλαστήριον is used in complex ways, and its meanings cannot simply be explained in such theological and sacrificial concepts as “atonement,” or “propitiation.” More importantly, if we draw attention to the instances of ἱλαστήριον in the LXX where it does not denote the cover of the Ark of the Covenant (Gen 6:16 (Symmachus); Eze 43:14, 17, 20; Amos 9:1), it becomes clear that the meaning of ἱλαστήριον has hitherto been misunderstood.

In Gen 6:16 (Symmachus), ἱλαστήριον refers to Noah’s ark in Eze 43:12, it denotes the base (עֲזָרָה‎) of the altar for burnt offerings; and in Amos 9:1, it refers to the head (כַּפְתּוֹר‎) of the pillar of the temple. These uses have usually been regarded by most scholars as the translator’s mistake or as incomprehensible. ¹⁰ However, when carefully considering the use of ἱλαστήριον in these passages, it appears that the word refers to something that covers and blocks something. ἱλαστήριον in Gen 6:16 denotes Noah’s ark, which protects Noah and his family from the flood; in Eze 43:12, 17, 20, it refers to the lower part that covers the bottom of the altar for burnt offerings; and in Amos 9:1 it refers to the highest part of the pillar to cover it. When ἱλαστήριον denotes the lid (כַּפֹּרֶת‎) of the ark of the covenant, which accounts for the highest number of its uses in LXX (Ex 25:17–22; 31:7; 35:12; 38:5, 7; Lev 16:2, 13–15; Num 7:89), the reason for that reference seems to be its function to cover the ark of the covenant. Based on these observations, it does more justice to the various uses of ἱλαστήριον to define its meaning as covering or blocking instead of atoning or propitiating wrath. Elsewhere in Greek and Roman contexts, various objects offered to prevent gods’ wrath expressed in disasters are named ἱλαστήριον. ¹¹ The reason for this can be understood in terms of their function to cover gods’ wrath and block disasters.

Therefore, when Paul mentions ἱλαστήριον along with faith in the blood of Christ (πίστις ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι). ¹² As such, Paul represents the blood of Christ as functioning to protect or cover sinners from God’s wrath. Paul’s understanding of the death of Christ as such evokes the Passover tradition. As examined above, πάρεσις corresponds to παρέρχεσθαι, their usage can be connected. We should also focus on σκεπάζειν in Exodus 12:13, 27. The word σκεπάζειν refers to God’s protection of the houses in Israel through the blood of the Passover lambs when God’s judgment fell on Egypt. This use of σκεπάζειν in the Passover tradition can resonate with ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25b, not only semantically but also contextually because both σκεπάζειν and ἱλαστήριον denote God’s protection of the sinner from judgment.

God’s act of overlooking human sins without punishment based on the sacrifice of Christ is emphasized by the phrase ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ. This expression explains how the God of justice can overlook human sins. ¹³ God prepared Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for the sake of sinners. God withdraws judgment from those who believe that Christ’s death is for themselves. Therefore, the meaning of the expression πάρεσις τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων is closely associated with the notion of justification of sinners conveyed in δικαιούμενοι in v. 24 and in δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ in v. 26b. That expression does not speak of God’s forgiveness provided (only to Israel) prior to Jesus Christ’s salvific event. ¹⁴ Rather, πάρεσις τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων can be understood as a way of signifying the event of justification from another angle.

In Rom 4:7–8 and 2 Cor 5:19–21, Paul explains the acts of justifying and not counting sin as in a complementary relationship. In Rom 4:7–8, Paul explains the act of justification in relation to Ps 31:2 (ἀφέθησαν αἱ ἀνομίαι, ἐπεκαλύφθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι, οὐ μὴ λογίσηται κύριος ἁμαρτίαν). The expressions in this quoted Psalm can be compared with Paul’s expression πάρεσις τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων in Rom 3:25. Justification, in the end, is the forgiveness of transgressions, the covering of sins, and not counting sins. In 2 Cor 5:19, Paul also explains salvation through faith in Christ in terms of God refraining from counting transgressions (μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν). Briefly thereafter, in 2 Cor 5:21, he refers to the same reality in terms of becoming the righteousness of God again (ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ). In light of these observations, we can understand πάρεσις τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων as referring to believers’ experience of God’s salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. For Paul, God’s righteousness is demonstrated when sinners have their sins covered and do not receive judgment.

Demonstration of God’s Righteousness and the Justification of Believers (πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ . . . δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ)

The second expression in Rom 3:26, namely ἔνδειξις τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ and following, basically recapitulates the main message of Rom 3:25b. However, it does not simply repeat the preceding verse because Paul provides new information not previously mentioned. First, Paul mentions the specific time when God’s salvation is revealed through Jesus Christ. The time is precisely “now,” that is, the time in which Paul proclaims the gospel of the cross as Apostle (Rom 3:21; 2 Cor 6:1–2). The word “now” denotes the time in which God’s special grace and salvation to all people are proclaimed, and it is distinguished from the previous time. God has revealed a new way toward righteousness and life through faith in Christ. Furthermore, Rom 3:26 provides new information, which is not provided in the preceding verse, through the infinitive construction led by εἰς τὸ εἶναι.

The infinitive construction εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον clarifies πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ and thus brings the theme of God’s righteousness again to center stage. What is important, is how to interpret the infinitive phrase εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον and the participial phrase δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ. Most interpreters treat them as two distinct expressions, one communicating God’s own righteousness and the other God’s justification of sinners. However, the participial phrase δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ is clearly connected to the subject of preceding infinitive construction, namely the objective pronoun αὐτόν (i.e., God). Given this syntactic relationship, the participial phrase δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ functions to explain how God’s righteousness is revealed. This participial phrase shows that God’s righteousness is revealed by God’s act of justifying those sinners who trust Christ. The unrighteousness of human beings does not demonstrate God’s righteousness as clarified in Rom 3:5. Rather, God’s righteousness is demonstrated when sinners are justified by God through their faith in Jesus Christ who died on the cross, that is, when human beings are restored to their pristine condition of having their original righteousness and glory. ¹⁵

Reconsidering the Meaning of δικαιοσύνη

Most scholars have long understood δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ in terms of God’s retributive justice. For these scholars, God’s righteousness is fulfilled by God’s substitutionary punishment of Christ. ¹⁶ This way of understanding the meaning of δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ in relation to Christ’s substitutionary death can be traced back to Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm argues that Christ suffered and died on the cross to appease God’s wrath and defend God’s righteousness and glory. ¹⁷ Thus, in Rom 3:24–25a, for Anselm, the death of Jesus is the ground for sinners’ redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις) from condemnation and punishment. However, his understanding of δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ is problematic because Paul clarifies in these verses that God’s righteousness is revealed, not through Jesus’ penal substitutionary atonement but through God’s act of refraining from punishing the sins of sinners and overlooking them (διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων) and also through his act of justifying sinners (δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ).

In addition to these syntactical problems, understanding δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ as God’s retributive justice is also semantically problematic, because it reduces the meaning of δικαιοσύνη to its negative connotation. ¹⁸ It is not difficult to find that according to the use of δικαιοσύνη in the ancient Greek and Roman sources, it conveys a wide range of meanings. Apart from the law court setting, δικαιοσύνη can have many different referential meanings in diverse contexts arising from the socio-economic situations of communities and individuals’ lifestyles and deeds. According to Plato’s and Aristotle’s in-depth analyses of the concept of δικαιοσύνη, it is concerned with the values to be upheld by nations or individuals, which go beyond the concept of judicial justice. For Plato, δικαιοσύνη, on a personal level, refers to the state of harmony reached when the tripartite component of the soul, intellect (λογισμός), physical desire (ἐπιθυμία), courage (θυμός), are properly combined (Resp 443d–444e). On a communal level, δικαιοσύνη denotes the state of affairs established when producers (χρηματιστικός), auxiliaries (ἐπικουρικός) and guardians (φυλακικός) do their work faithfully (Resp 434c). For Aristotle, δικαιοσύνη means acting in accordance with the law and pursuing equality (EN V 1129a 33–34). δικαιοσύνη is the most complete virtue that includes all the other virtues primarily because it promotes communal virtues and the benefits of others (EN 1129b 25ff). δικαιοσύνη is more than merely acting in conformity with the law. The act of restraining one’s rights, although they are lawful, can also belong to δικαιοσύνη in a broad sense (EN V 1137b 35–1138a 2). Apart from philosophical arguments, there are various instances of δικαιοσύνη in historical texts such as Herodotus’ Histories. In Herodotus’ Histories δικαιοσύνη often denotes a person’s righteous character or behavior (1.96; 6.86; 7.52; 7.164) and sometimes refers to justice in the law court (2.151). To indicate that δικαιοσύνη in the Greco-Roman literature means iustitia distributiva reflects a narrow view that is based only on a few supporting cases.

Some New Testament scholars seek to explain the positive meaning of δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ in Rom 3:25–26 by arguing that Paul’s use of δικαιοσύνη was influenced by the Hebrew concept of צדקה/צדק‎ rather than the notion of δικαιοσύνη found in Greek literature. For these scholars, δικαιοσύνη, for Paul, is not about God’s retributive justice but about God’s covenant faithfulness, mercy, or saving power. ¹⁹ However, it is hardly defensible to argue that Paul’s understanding of δικαιοσύνη, having been influenced by the concept of צדקה/צדק‎ in the Hebrew Bible, is distinct from the meaning found in Greek literature. ²⁰ The same argument is often made concerning the meaning of δικαιοσύνη in the LXX, namely that δικαιοσύνη came to have a distinct biblical meaning (covenantal, relational) as a result of the semantic influence by the concept of צדקה/צדק‎ in the Hebrew Bible. This is a misconception that arises from a failure to understand the mechanism of translation. In the process of translation, it is impossible that a word in the language from which to translate (Ausgangssprache) exerts semantic influence on the corresponding word in the language into which to translate (Zielsprache). Admittedly, Paul’s use of δικαιοσύνη shows many affinities with its use in the Old Testament and Jewish literature when it is concerned with the questions of God’s righteousness and human righteousness before God. However, semantically, Paul’s understanding of δικαιοσύνη cannot be distinct from the meaning of δικαιοσύνη in its general Greek usage.

Another problem with those who relate δικαιοσύνη to צדקה/צדק‎ in the Hebrew Bible is that they conceptualize and theologize the meaning of צדק/צדקה‎‎, using such terms as covenant or saving power. In most cases, צדקה/צדק‎ is used to refer to the character and acts of God (e.g., Isa 45:24; 46:13; 51:6, 8; Jer 11:20; Ps 7:18; 9:5, 9; 35:24, 28; 40:11) or human beings (e.g., Gen 18:19; Lev 19:15; Deut 16:18, 20; 2 Sam 8:15; 1 Kings 10:9). It denotes the core values of the law to be fulfilled by the community of Israel, when used in relation to human beings, which include social, economic, and juridical spheres (e.g., Lev 19:36; Deut 4:8; 25:15; 33:19; Isa 26:2; 58:2). In the Old Testament, צדקה/צדק‎ is generally translated into words such as rightness, righteousness, and uprightness. Semantically, then, צדקה/צדק‎ and δικαιοσύνη show more commonality than difference. The difference between them arises from their different contexts, which result in their different referential meanings. In this respect, it is an oversimplification to state that δικαιοσύνη in Greek literature is about judicial justice and צדקה/צדק‎ in the Hebrew Bible it concerns covenantal faithfulness, mercy and salvation, as if they had two distinct semantic ranges. It is also not right to rely on this assumption and argue that δικαιοσύνη, when used by Paul, was under the influence of the concept of צדקה/צדק‎ and thus came to mean covenantal faithfulness or mercy. ²¹ If we analyze the use of צדקה/צדק‎ in the Old Testament, in most cases it refers to what conforms to the law, and what is right, and only in a few cases does it relate to the covenant (ברית‎) between God and Israel. ²² Moreover, צדקה/צדק‎ is rarely related to the act of salvation, ²³ and in many cases, it is rather indicative of righteousness in judgment (Isa 45:24; 46:13; 51:6, 8; Jer 11:20; Ps 7:18; 9:5, 9; 35:24, 28: 40:11; 48:10; 50:6; 85:14; 88:13; 89:15; 96:13; 97:2; 98:2, 9; 103:17; 143:1).

The ways in which Paul uses δικαιοσύνη show that he has a broad semantic range in mind. Paul sometimes uses δικαιοσύνη in relation to a human being to communicate his legal status (Rom 1:17; 3:21–22; 9:30; 10:3–10; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:21). In other instances, Paul defines the orientation of life to be pursued by believers in terms of δικαιοσύνη (Rom 6:13, 18, 19, 20; 2 Cor 6:14). He also uses this word to refer to a specific righteous deed (e.g., charity) (2 Cor 9:9–10). When used in relation to God, δικαιοσύνη is concerned with God’s strict judgment of sin and unrighteousness as in Rom 3:5, but it also points to God’s saving act as in Rom 3:25–26. Therefore, δικαιοσύνη is not tied to God’s retributive justice as its primary meaning. As briefly noted above, the use of δικαιοσύνη in Greek literature reveals that the word δικαιοσύνη itself has a wide semantic range without having one primary meaning. This is true of Paul as well. When Paul uses δικαιοσύνη in reference to God’s character in a broad sense, it means that God is righteous, and he rules the world according to his righteousness.

Difference in Meaning between δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ and δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ

To clarify the connection between the manifestation of God’s righteousness and God’s justification of sinners without punishment and explain the theological significance of this connection, it is necessary first to answer the question of whether δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ and δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ have the same meaning, or not. Most recent scholars consider δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 3:21–22 and δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ in Rom 3:25–26 as showing no difference in meaning. Both possessive constructions speak of God’s character (faithfulness, mercy) and are understood as God’s own power. ²⁴ However, these two possessive constructions show two different forms. In the case of δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ, since αὐτοῦ here clearly refers to God, δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ should mean God’s own righteousness. δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is a special form constructed with θεοῦ to convey a particular meaning, and if we consider the context of its usage, it denotes, not God’s own righteousness but God’s declaration of sinners as righteous, or righteousness before God.

To understand the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, it is important to perceive how it relates to ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ in v. 20 and δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ in v. 24. ²⁵ Paul explains δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in v. 21 as being apart from the law (χωρὶς νόμου) and in the following verse as being through faith in Christ (διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). In light of these, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is something that is possible without doing the works of the law, and also something that is made possible by faith in Jesus Christ. This claim resonates with that in v. 20 that by works of the law no human being will be justified before him. In other words, Paul, having said in v. 20 that it is impossible through “works of the law” to be justified before God, goes on in v. 21 to talk about righteousness attained apart from works of the law. ²⁶ This interlocking logic running through vv. 20–22 makes it necessary to understand the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in light of δικαιωθήσεται . . . ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ in the preceding verse. If v. 21 looks back to v. 20, the claim of v. 22, namely that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is possible through faith in Jesus Christ, is explained in reference to δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ in v. 24. Therefore, the observation that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ corresponds to δικαιούμενοι is crucial in understanding the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, and this supports the need to interpret the meaning of δικαιοσύνη in δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as derived from δικαιούμενοι.

Second, understanding δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as righteousness acknowledged by God or righteousness before God coheres with Paul’s claim that it is witnessed by the law and prophets. The essence of Paul’s gospel, namely justification by faith, is something to which the law and prophets have already borne witness and is thus confirmed as the word of God. The reason Paul presents two different witnesses, namely the law and prophets, is to substantiate his message of justification by faith as God’s word seems to be based on Deut 19:15–20. ²⁷ Paul, as stated in Rom 3:21, draws on various verses from the law and prophets to defend the validity of his gospel. Among such verses, Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4 are important for justification by faith as Paul quotes them twice (Gen 15:6 cited in Rom 4:5 and Gal 3:6; Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17 and Gal 3:11). ²⁸ If δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is understood as God’s own righteousness or power, it is difficult to understand in which sense the law and prophets bore witness to it. Paul’s reference to Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4 makes more sense if we interpret δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as righteousness through faith or righteousness before God.

Third, that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ denotes righteousness declared by God rather than God’s own righteousness is further supported by Rom 1:17 and 10:3 where the same expression appears. Admittedly, many recent scholars interpret δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 1:17 as God’s own righteousness or God’s saving power, ²⁹ but this possessive construction, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, should be understood in relation to Hab 2:4 which Paul directly cites. ³⁰ We must not overlook that the ways in which δίκαιος and ἐκ πίστεως are combined in the Habakkuk text and directly related to δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ . . . ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. In interpreting δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 1:17, it is important to note that apart from Rom 1:17 δικαι-words (δίκαιος, δικαιοσύνη, δικαιοῦν) and πιστ-words (πίστις, πιστεύειν) frequently occur together in Paul’s letters. Whenever Paul combines these two word-groups, his concern is always how human beings can be righteous before God, and his solution is presented with πιστ-words, focusing on faith in Jesus Christ (Rom 3:26, 28, 30; 4:11, 13; 5:1; 9:30; 10:4, 6, 10; Gal 2:16; 3:6, 8, 24; Phil 3:9). In Gal 3:11, where Paul cites Hab 2:4, provides an important key to understanding δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 1:17. In this passage, Paul uses the verbal phrase, δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, and this proves that in Rom 1:17 also, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ expresses the concern of being righteous before God. ³¹

If, as argued thus far, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ can be understood as righteousness acknowledged by God or righteousness before God, the expression δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ that appears twice consecutively in Rom 3:25–26 means God’s own righteousness. This denotes God’s character, namely his being righteous and ruling the world righteously. In the possessive construction διαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ, αὐτοῦ refers to God, and because of this clear reference to God himself, it is impossible to interpret δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ as righteousness declared to human beings. ³² In the second instance of δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ in v. 26, it is connected with the prepositional phrase εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον supports our claim that δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ refers to God’s own righteousness. Some scholars argue that although the same expression δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ appears consecutively in v. 25 and 26, it carries two different meanings, one as covenantal faithfulness to Israel, and the other in the universal sense of encompassing the Gentiles. This view, however, is not persuasive. ³³ As reflected above, πάρεσις τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων does not indicate what happened exclusively to the ethnic Israel prior to the salvation through Jesus Christ but rather describes God’s salvation for the whole of humanity, as is evident in the expression δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ.

Exodus Tradition

If we examine the texts of Exodus, what is frequently mentioned in God’s words to Moses and Moses’ words to Israel is the goal which God seeks to achieve through his stringent judgment on Egypt. The goal is to reveal that YHWH alone is the creator and the ruler of the world (Ex 6:6–7; 7:5, 17; 8:10; 9:14, 16; 10:2; 14:4, 18, 31). God’s power of salvation and glory are revealed to the world when he punishes Egypt for oppressing Israel and when Israel is redeemed from slavery to Egypt (Ex 13:3, 16; 14:4. 17–18; 15:6. 21).

For our purpose of interpreting δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ in Rom 3:25–26, we focus on two passages that mention God’s righteousness, namely Ex 9:27 and Ex 15:13. According to Ex 9:27, Pharaoh, prior to the seventh plague, speaks of Moses’ God as ὁ κύριος δίκαιος. This implies that God’s judgment on Egypt executed by Moses and Israel’s salvation through that judgment demonstrate God’s righteousness. This shows also that the Exodus tradition speaks of God’s righteousness demonstrated in his salvation not only to the people of Israel but also in the sight of the Gentiles. God’s righteousness is also mentioned in Ex 15:13 where the people of Israel, having crossed the Red sea by God’s help, praise him for his work of saving them: ὡδήγησας τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου τὸν λαόν σου τοῦτον. According to this passage, YHWH, in his righteousness, redeems his people and leads them to the land promised to their forefathers so that they may become the people who serve God only (Ex 7:16; 8:1, 8, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:26; cf. 12:31).

The two texts we have observed so far speak of God’s revelation of righteousness—even to the Gentiles—as the clear purpose of God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt. The fact that human salvation is directly related to the revelation of God’s righteousness is very similar to the theological thought of Rom 3:24–26. The connection between Romans 3:24–26 and the Exodus tradition is also evidenced by the fact that Paul describes salvation through Jesus Christ with expressions such as ἀπολύτρωσις πάρεσις, and ἱλαστήριον, as we have seen above. Moreover, the Exodus motif, which captures the process by which the people of Israel are delivered from oppressive slavery and led to become the people who serve God only, is congruent with Paul’s description of how people are delivered through Christ and led to have a new status of righteousness. ³⁴ In Rom 6, the emphasis on the life of Christians to be lived as a slave of God rather than a slave to sin is likely to have the Exodus tradition as its theological background. This similarly highlights the change from the life of serving the Gentile gods to the life of serving God.

Isaianic Texts

In addition to the Exodus tradition, Isa 45–66, where God’s punishment of the Gentiles and his deliverance and restoration of Israel are prophesied, are very important to understand Paul’s explanation of God’s salvation through Christ. To begin with, God’s righteousness is very frequently mentioned in Isa 45–66, and God’s acts performed in his righteousness are directly relevant to Israel’s salvation. This is best shown in Isa 45:24–25; 51:5–8; 56:1–8; 62:1–5. ³⁵

Isa 45:24–25 mention God’s righteousness while also providing a prophesy about Israel’s regaining of righteousness and glory: ἀπὸ Κυρίου δικαιωθήσονται καὶ ἐν τῷ Θεῷ ἐνδοξασθήσονται πᾶν τὸ σπέρμα τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ισραήλ. This passage is important because, as is the case in Paul, it describes God’s salvation using the terms, righteousness (δικαιωθήσονται) and glory (ἐνδοξασθήσονται), and understands God’s salvation ultimately as the restoration of righteousness and glory to the people of Israel. This passage in Isaiah, with its mention of Israel’s righteousness and glory, provides important clues as to the meaning of Rom 3:24–26. ³⁶ Although ἐνδοξάζειν is not present in Rom 3:24–26, and only δικαιοῦν appears twice, there is an expression in Rom 3:23 that corresponds to ἐνδοξάζειν, namely that God’s glory was lost (ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ). ³⁷ This combination of righteousness and glory present in both passages of Isaiah and Romans is important, and it is also noteworthy that Paul, as in the Isaiah passages, uses δικαι-words in Rom 3 as the main term to describe the transformed identity of believers (Rom 3:24, 26, 28, 30). ³⁸ The consummation of salvation declared by Isaiah consists in Israel’s restoration to the righteous people who completely obey God’s law, the goal of salvation heralded by Paul also consists in the transformation of identity from sinner to righteous person.

The text in Isaiah relates to Paul’s description of God’s salvation in Rom 3:24–26 not only in their common mention of God’s righteousness but also concerning the death of Jesus and one’s faith in it. As acknowledged by the majority of scholars, in the fourth Servant Song in Isa 53, its description of the servant’s suffering, death and its salvific effects on many is similar to Paul’s description of the death of Jesus. In particular, the declaration of righteousness, reconciliation, and life through the death and resurrection of Christ in such passages as Rom 4:25; 5:1–11; 18–19 and 2 Cor 5:18–21 is similar to Isaiah 53 in expression and idea. ³⁹ Furthermore, Paul’s emphasis on faith in Christ or the gospel grew out of Isa 28:16; 52:7; 53:1 (cf. Rom 9:33; 10:15–16). The immediate basis of Paul’s idea of justification by faith is Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4. However, Paul’s explanations of the sacrifice of Christ and the salvation of sinners through faith in Christ are associated with various Isaiah passages that Paul quote or allude to.

Similar to the Exodus tradition, the text of Isaiah also shows that God’s work of salvation consists of manifesting God’s righteousness and restoring righteousness and glory to the people of Israel, and that this salvific process involves substitutionary sacrifice. This Isaianic eschatological vision in which the demonstration of God’s righteousness and substitutionary death are central is congruent with the picture of Rom 3:24–26 in which God’s righteousness is demonstrated by the redemption and the restoration of righteousness and glory through Christ. To be sure, this does not mean that there is no difference between the Exodus tradition along with the Isaianic passages examined above, and Paul’s thinking. God’s salvation proclaimed in Rom 3:24–26 is not a mere repetition of the Exodus tradition and the Isaianic vision. Paul’s proclamation of the salvation of sinners through the redemption of Christ rests on the universal perception that all human beings, whether Jews or the Gentiles, are under sin. In Paul’s thinking God’s judgment and salvation universally encompass all human beings, and also eschatologically broadens its horizon beyond the current world. Through this new hermeneutical task on the death of Jesus, Paul proclaims it as the path of salvation that reveals God’s righteousness to the whole of humanity under sin and judgment.