Romans1:16-17 is said to be the
programmatic statement for the book of Romans. It provides the primary
direction for the rest of the letter.[1] Focusing on 1:17, this
paper discusses what Paul have in mind by the phrase translated in the NIV as
‘by faith from first to last’ and how is this ‘just as it is written’ in Habakkuk2:4.
There have been many
interpretations for ‘by faith from first to last’. Early church fathers such as
Tertullian[2],[3] see it as “from the
faith in the law to the faith in the gospel”. Origen and Theodoret[4] interpret it as “from
faith in the prophets to faith in the gospel”. Chrysostom and Quarles[5] think it is “faith of Old Testament
saints to the faith of New Testament believers”. Taylor and Kruse see it as
describing “the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes,
first to the Jew then to the Gentile.”[6] Augustine[7],[8] believes it is “faith
of the preacher and faith of the hearer”. Ambrosiaster, Barth and Dunn[9],[10] thinks the first
“faith” refers to God’s faithfulness, and the second is the faith of the
individual person, whereas Campbell[11] takes a Christocentric
interpretation to the first “faith”. Aquinas interprets it as “from present
faith to future faith” or “from faith in unseen realities to realities already
possessed”.[12]
Calvin, Sanday, Headlam, and
Lagrange[13],[14] believes it is a
reference to the growth of faith in the individual. Moo[15] takes it as an idiom of emphasis,
“by faith and faith alone”. Wardlaw[16] not only sees it as an
idiom of emphasis but also a growth in the intensity of the ideal believer’s
faith through habitual acts of faith. Lightfoot[17],[18] believes it is a
thrust against Judaism, being righteousness that is both received by faith and
has faith, not works, as its goal. Waetjen[19] interprets pistis as
“trust” rather than “faith” and see the verse as “being justified out of the
trust of Abraham, into the trust of Jesus Christ”.[20] I will focus on
interpretations that translate pistis as “faith” and not look at
interpretations that are incongruent with Paul’s normal usage of the word
“faith”.[21] Since
Romans1:16-17 serves as a programmatic statement and must fit with the key
themes in the epistle, I will not look at the interpretations that do not fit
the theme of Romans, such as Augustine and Aquinas.[22]
Campbell[23] sees two possible
readings of Romans1:17a: the traditional anthropocentric reading, and the
cosmic eschatological reading. In the anthropocentric reading, the saving
righteousness of God is being revealed to individuals as they grasp it by
faith. In the cosmic eschatological reading, the main point is the revelation
of God’s eschatological saving righteousness by the gospel.[24] Campbell[25] believes this event is
accomplished independently of the individual’s faith, and that to make the
eschatological disclosure of God’s saving power conditional upon the believer’s
faith would take the role of anthropocentric faith too far. On this basis, he rejects
the anthropocentric reading.[26] With the cosmic
eschatological reading, there is debate between a theocentric view versus a
Christocentric view. Furthermore, there is debate on whether pistis is
an objective (faith) or subjective (faithfulness) genitive.
Dunn[27] argues for a theocentric
reference, where there is a play on the ambiguity of the word
faith/faithfulness, in the sense “from God’s faithfulness to his covenant
promises to man’s response of faith.” This links the concept of God’s
righteousness with the quotation from Habakkuk. Furthermore, following a verb
“reveal”, ‘from A’ is more naturally understood as denoting the source of the
revelation, and ‘to A’ is that to which the revelation is directed. This
reading is also consistent with a major theme in Romans: the faithfulness of
God.[28] However, the biggest
weakness of this reading is that it disagrees with the meaning of the Habakkuk
verse. In the original Hebrew, Habakkuk2:4 is anthropocentric, as it instructs
the righteous person how to face the apparent contradictions between God’s
promises and what takes place in history.[29]
On the other hand, Moo and some
other scholars[30],[31] believe that Paul
appears to give the words of Habakkuk a different meaning because he Hebrew
text and LXX have different constructions: the Hebrew reads “but the righteous,
by his faith he will live”[32], while the LXX reads “the
righteous by my faith/faithfulness will live”[33]. Paul omits the pronoun
altogether in his quotation.[34],[35] While the
traditional reading of Romans1-5 emphasises the necessity for humanity to
believe in God and his Messiah for salvation[36], Käsemann[37] stirred the emphasis to
the vindication of God. Zorn[38] believes that this
emphasis on God means Paul is deliberately using the LXX of Habakkuk2:4 as
“messianic”. I think the ambiguity about whose faith/faithfulness may even be
Paul’s intention.
Campbell[39]
points out that if the v17 is read as a
parallelism, v17b would be talking about the faithfulness of God as well, and
he cannot see any reason why “the faithfulness of God” should be repeated so
many times. Campbell[40] believes a Christocentric
reading resolves the Habakkuk2:4 original meaning debate because Christ had
been fully human. He gives the following interpretation: “The eschatological
saving righteousness of God is being revealed in the gospel by means of the
faithfulness of Christ, with the goal of faithfulness in the Christian.” Campbell[41] suggests that Christ’s
faithfulness is similar to the type of faith displayed by Abraham, because they
both put their trust in God and displayed faithful, persevering allegiance to
him. I disagree with Campbell’s hyper-Calvinist
reading of the verse and believe an anthropocentric reading is still possible.
Helisto points out that “no pre-Pauline Jewish writing cites Habakkuk2:4 in
such a way that the citation can be understood messianically.”[42]
Furthermore, looking at the ‘from A
to A’ formula in the LXX, Quarles[43] observes that the
construction has a temporal sense and expresses duration, progression, or
repetition. Using some examples from the TLG, the LXX and NT, Taylor[44] demonstrates that the
first and second elements of the idiom denote the same thing. Therefore, Taylor
believes that the ‘from A to A’ formula denotes a progression in faith. The progression
is in the same faith so it is unlikely that the first reference is theological
or Christological and the second reference is anthropological. Indeed, most
commentators interpret the ek pisteōs as referring to the Christian
believers.[45] Quarles[46] believes Chrysostom’s
interpretation of is more accurate because it demonstrates a shift from one
point in space or time to another point in space or time, and fits the theme of
the book of Romans which emphasises the continuity of the old and New Testament
faith.[47]
Taylor and Kruse head along a similar
but slightly different path to Quarles. Taylor[48] looks at passages like
Psalm98:2 and Isaiah51:4-8, which speak of the revelation of God’s
righteousness for the salvation of Israel being witnessed by the nations, and thinks
this idiom is not talking about personal or individual growth in faith. He
believes that instead, it is referring to the mounting number of converts that
Paul has seen in his ministry. Therefore, Taylor and Kruse[49] interpret the verse as
“the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes, first to the
Jew then to the Gentile.” This interpretation fits well with the preceding
verse as Romans16 makes a reference to the salvation for Jew and Gentile. It
even fits well with Galatians as the Habakkuk2:4 quote in Galatians3:11 follows
the reference to Gentile justification in Galatian3:8.[50]
Moo and Wardlaw[51] steer the interpretation
in a different direction by placing rhetorical emphasis on salvation by faith
alone. In Habakkuk, faith is the key to one’s relationship to God. In Romans1:17,
faith refers to an intimate relationship with Christ, who is the object of
faith.[52] From start to finish,
from our conversion to our glorification, we experience God's saving
righteousness through trusting in Jesus and not through the works of the law.[53] This interpretation is
also consistent with the theme of Romans as Paul consistently links faith with
righteousness and shows how “life” is the product of that righteousness in Romans1-8.
However, Quarles observes that in Pauline literature, the ‘from A to A’ formula
suggests a progression from a previous state to a new state. It does not appear
to function as an idiom of emphasis.[54]
Wardlaw[55] is aware of Quarles’
position but believes one should not only look at the Greek but also the
classical Hebrew text. Wardlaw looks at the Semitic idiom Romans1:17 derives
from, and found a few verses in the Masoretic text using the same Semitic
idiom: Number30:15, Jeremiah9:2 and Psalm84:4. He also looked at how they were
translated into Aramaic and Greek, and found that these can also have a
habitual, sequential or iterative meaning. Therefore he believes there is
enough evidence to translate ‘from A to A’ as “by habitual acts of faith, the
ideal believer’s faith grows in intensity through time.”[56] However, I think Wardlaw
is stretching things too far, and as Quarles points out, “growing faith” does
not seem to fit the theme of Romans since the book does not stress the growth
of faith elsewhere.[57]
Most commentators seem to be able
to derive good evidence to back their interpretations as well as fit their
interpretations into a major theme in Romans. Paul might have left some room
for ambiguity intentionally by omitting the pronoun in his quotation of
Habakkuk2:7. However, I think Campbell and Wardlaw had to stretch quite far to
gather evidence for their arguments. I believe the interpretation “first to the
Jew then to the Gentile” meets the greatest number of ticks: it does not
distort the original meaning of Habakkuk2:4, it is consistent with the theme of
Romans, it fits the typical usage of the ‘from A to A’ formula in Pauline
literature, and acts as an evidence of coherence[58] in Pauline literature as
it agrees with both the verse preceding it as well as the content of Galatians3:8-11.
I believe the interpretation is: “first to the Jew then to the Gentile”. I believe this meaning is also consistent with the Abrahamic covenant in the Pentateuch, as I am in agreement with the scholars who believe that God’s principal desire is to bless all the families of the earth, and the promise of seed and land is subservient to this. In fact, the Sinaitic covenant tells us that the very reason why God is giving the promise of the seed and land is for Israel to serve as an example for/"light" to the nations so that all the nations can be blessed. For more details regarding the Pentateuch, see http://dryvonnewang.blogspot.com/2018/04/israel-and-nations.html
Bibliography:
Campbell, Douglas A. “Romans 1:17: A Crux Interpretum for
the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate.” JBL 113
(1994): 268-285.
Clendenen, E Ray. “Salvation by
faith or by faithfulness in the book of Habakkuk?” Bulletin for Biblical
Research, 24 (2014): 505-513.
Dunn, James D. G. Roman
1-8. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.
Hunn, Debbie. “Pistis Christou in Galatians: the connection
to Habakkuk 2:4.” Tyndale Bulletin, 63 (2012): 75-91.
Kruse, Colin G. Paul’s
Letter to the Romans. Apollos: Nottingham, 2012.
Moo, Douglas J. The
Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1996.
Robertson, O. Palmer. “'The justified (by faith) shall live
by his steadfast trust': Habakkuk 2:4.” Presbyterion, 9 (1983): 52-71.
Quarles, Charles L. “From Faith to Faith: A Fresh
Examination of the Prepositional Series in Romans 1.17.” NovT 45 (2003): 2-21.
Taylor, John W. “From Faith to Faith: Romans 1.17 in the
Light of Greek Idiom.” NTS 50 (2004):
337-348.
Wardlaw, Terrance Randall. “A reappraisal of 'from faith to
faith' (Romans 1:17).” European Journal of Theology, 21(2012): 107-119.
Waetjen, Herman C. “The trust of
Abraham and the trust of Jesus Christ: Romans 1:17.” Currents in Theology
and Mission, 30 (2003): 446-454.
Zorn, Walter D. “The
Messianic Use of Habbakuk 2:4a in Romans.” Stone-Campbell Journal, 1 (1998):
213-230
[1] James D. G. Dunn, Roman 1-8 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 46.
[2] Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Apollos:
Nottingham, 2012), 75.
[3] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 76.
[4] Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 76.
[5] Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 76.
[6] Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Apollos:
Nottingham, 2012), 78.
[7] Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 76.
[8] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 76.
[9] Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 76.
[10] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 76.
[11] Douglas A. Campbell,
“Romans 1:17: A Crux Interpretum for the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate,” JBL 113 (1994): 281.
[12] Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 76.
[13] Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 76.
[14] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 76.
[15] Terrance Randall Wardlaw,
“A reappraisal of 'from faith to faith' (Romans 1:17),” European Journal of
Theology, 21(2012): 115
[16] Wardlaw, “A reappraisal
of 'from faith to faith' (Romans 1:17),” 117.
[17] Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 76.
[18] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 76.
[19] Herman C. Waetjen, “The
trust of Abraham and the trust of Jesus Christ: Romans 1:17,” Currents in
Theology and Mission, 30 (2003): 450. The Greek term can mean “faith,”
“trust,” or “belief”. To complicate the matter, the Hebrew term can mean
“fidelity”.
[20] Waetjen, “The trust of
Abraham,” 454.
[21] Charles L. Quarles, “From
Faith to Faith: A Fresh Examination of the Prepositional Series in Romans
1.17,” NovT 45 (2003): 14-15. eg.
Tertullian: Paul did not use the term “faith” to speak of dependence upon the
Law for salvation. Paul expressed what Tertullian called “faith in the Law”
using the terms “reliance” “confidence” or “boasting” but never “faith”.
[22] Quarles, “From Faith to
Faith,” 13-14. Quarles describes Augustine and Aquinas’ interpretations as not
fitting the theme of Romans.
[23] Campbell, “Romans 1:17,”
271.
[24] Campbell, “Romans 1:17,”
272.
[25] Campbell, “Romans 1:17,”
273.
[26] Campbell, “Romans 1:17,”
276.
[27] Dunn, Roman 1-8, 48.
[28] Dunn, Roman 1-8, 44.
[29] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 77.
[30] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 77.
[31] E Ray Clendenen,
“Salvation by faith or by faithfulness in the book of Habakkuk?” Bulletin
for Biblical Research, 24 (2014): 505.
[32] O. Palmer Robertson,
“'The justified (by faith) shall live by his steadfast trust': Habakkuk 2:4.” Presbyterion,
9 (1983): 63.
[33] Robertson, “'The
justified (by faith) shall live by his steadfast trust',” 64.
[34] Robertson, “'The
justified (by faith) shall live by his steadfast trust',” 69.
[35] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 77.
[36] Walter D. Zorn, “The
Messianic Use of Habbakuk 2:4a in Romans,” Stone-Campbell Journal, 1
(1998): 217.
[37] Zorn, “The Messianic Use
of Habbakuk 2:4a in Romans,” 219.
[38] Zorn, “The Messianic Use
of Habbakuk 2:4a in Romans,” 230.
[39] Campbell, “Romans 1:17,”
280.
[40] Campbell, “Romans 1:17,”
281.
[41] Campbell, “Romans 1:17,”
280.
[42] Debbie Hunn, “Pistis
Christou in Galatians: the connection to Habakkuk 2:4,” Tyndale Bulletin,
63 (2012): 89.
[43] Quarles, “From Faith to
Faith,” 9.
[44] John W. Taylor, “From
Faith to Faith: Romans 1.17 in the Light of Greek Idiom,” NTS 50 (2004): 337-348.
[45] Zorn, “The Messianic Use
of Habbakuk 2:4a in Romans,” 214.
[46] Quarles, “From Faith to
Faith,” 18.
[47] Quarles, “From Faith to
Faith,” 19.
[48] Taylor, “From Faith to
Faith,” 337-348.
[49] Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 78.
[50] Hunn, “Pistis Christou in
Galatians,” 89.
[51] Wardlaw, “A reappraisal
of 'from faith to faith' (Romans 1:17),” 115
[52] Moo,
The Epistle to the Romans, 78.
[53] Wardlaw, “A reappraisal
of 'from faith to faith' (Romans 1:17),” 115
[54] Quarles, “From Faith to
Faith,” 13.
[55] Wardlaw, “A reappraisal
of 'from faith to faith' (Romans 1:17),” 114.
[56] Wardlaw, “A reappraisal
of 'from faith to faith' (Romans 1:17),” 117.
[57] Quarles, “From Faith to
Faith,” 13.
[58] Hunn, “Pistis Christou in
Galatians,” 78.
