Luther and the Righteousness of God: Luther’s Interpretation of “the Righteousness of God”

Luther translated “dikaiosuvnh ga˝r qeou:” as a genitive of source[1] causing him to interpret Paul’s phrase as the “righteousness from God.”[2] From this translation Luther was convinced that “the righteousness of God” in verse 17 had nothing to do with punishing sinners in his righteousness, but it was God granting sinners a righteous status. Therefore, Luther concluded, “the righteousness of God” is “the righteousness from God.” The believer receives a righteousness that is not of himself, but of a holy and perfect God.

One important concept crucial to Luther’s theology of Romans 1:17 is that “the righteousness of God” is “purely forensic,” a judicial standing/status. Luther wrote, “the righteousness of God is not to be understood as the righteousness by which one becomes righteous of himself, but that by which we are made righteous by Him; and that is done through faith in the Gospel.” To put simply, Luther did not advocate that this righteousness internally renewed or morally transformed the person.[3] Nygren puts it, “the meaning is not that, having had a divine gift infused into him, he now has it as a property or inner quality.”[4]

---

[1] Daniel Wallace defines genitive of source a “simple genitive being replaced by a prepositional phrase (in this instance, ejk + gen.) to indicate source.” Therefore instead of using the genitive keyword “of”, it is replaced with the phrase “out of,” “derived from,” “dependent on,” or “sourced in.” Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996). 109.

[2] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996). 71. Also Osborne page 42.

[3] “Luther viewed this righteousness as purely forensic – a matter of judicial standing, or status, and not of internal renewal or moral transformation.” Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996). 71. Along the lines of Moo, Grant R. Osborne defines it is a less grammatical way, “Of God can refer to source or orgin, giving the phrase a forensic or legal aspect referring to God’s judicial decision to “declare us righteous” on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for our sins. In this way God imparts a new status to believers, namely, that they are now the children of God. This was Luther’s view, and it has been highly influential in Protestantism.” Grant R. Osborne, Romans, The IVP New Testament Commentary 6. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2003). 42.

[4] Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1949). 75.

Luther and the Righteousness of God – Introduction

“For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” Romans 1:17

In 1512, at the University of Wittenberg, Martin Luther began to wrestle with Paul’s letter to the Romans.[1] In the preface to his Latin writings Luther wrote, “I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans…but a single word in Chapter 1 [:17], ‘In it the righteousness of God is revealed,’ that stood in my way.”[2] At “the righteousness of God,”[3] Luther stumbled; all he could understand was that God’s righteousness was his revelation of his punitive justice by which the unrighteous were justly punished.[4] After days of meditation, the light bulb turned on for Luther. He realized that Paul’s phrase “the righteousness of God” was not intended to reveal God’s punishment for the unjust but it was intended to reveal God’s salvation for the unjust. Luther realized that “the righteousness of God” was a status given by God to the unjust.[5] This text in Romans became the heart of Luther’s theology and became the traditional Protestant interpretation.[6]

We will analyze Luther’s translation and interpretation of “the righteousness of God.” After this has been accomplished, the systematic framework used to support Luther’s interpretation will be analyzed. This will be accomplished by analyzing four passages of Scripture used by commentators that support Luther’s interpretation of “the righteousness of God.”

---

[1] Jacob W. Heikinnen, “XIII. Luther’s Lectures on the Romans,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology (April 1953): 179.

[2] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works: Career of the Reformer IV, Volume 34. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955-1958). 336.

[3] Any time “the righteousness of God” is quotations, this is always referring to the words used in Romans 1:17 and how Luther understood the righteousness of God in the context of verse 17.

[4] Jacob W. Heikinnen, “XIII. Luther’s Lectures on the Romans,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology (April 1953): 178.

[5] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996). 71.

[6] Ibid.,

Romans 5:1-2: Peace with God: The First Fruit of Justification

With respect to verse one, it is “peace with God” that is seen as the first fruit of justification. This should be taken to mean that “peace with God” is only obtained after justification. Not all agree with this view. Cranfield openly disagrees and argues that reconciliation (or peace with God) is not a consequence of justification, yet the terms should be considered “distinguishable and inseparable.”[1] Cranfield is correct in emphasizing a distinction between justification and reconciliation, while maintaining that the two terms are linked, but is incorrect in maintaining that “peace with God” is not a result of justification.  Reconciliation cannot occur before God’s declarative action of justifying the sinner. The words of Paul naturally flow as justification bringing about having peace with God. In the act of justification God not only declares righteousness, but justification establishes peace with God.[2]

---

[1] In some ways Cranfield’s reasoning is counter productive and in reality his argument supports the idea that reconciliation is a consequence of justification. Cranfiled argues that “Whereas between a human judge and the person who appears before him there may be no really personal meeting at all, no personal hostility if the accused be found guilty, no establishment of friendship if the accused is acquitted, between God and the sinner there is a personal relationship, and God’s justification involves a real self-engagement to the sinner on His part. He does not confer the status of righteousness upon us without at the same time giving Himself and us…” C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans, 2 Vols. (Edinburgh, [Scotland]: T. & T. Clark, 1998, c1975). 258.

[2] John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007). 42.

Romans 5:1 – 2: Jesus Christ at the Heart of Justification

The first point to consider is Paul’s use of justification in verse one. He says, “having been justified.” This is significant, because it implies that the act justification already occurred. When was it accomplished? The moment the sinner believed. How was this accomplished? In the verses preceding chapter five Paul gives the answer. He says, “It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:24 – 25). Essentially, Paul points to Jesus Christ as the root of justification.

After explaining when and by whom justification is accomplished; he now explains what justification does. He says, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God” (Rom. 5:1). The need to be justified is important because latter in chapter five Paul calls men “enemies” of God (Rom. 5:10), and that no man can be justified in the sight of God (Rom. 3:20). Paul makes it clear – only through Jesus Christ can a sinner be justified in the eyes of God. Therefore, justification can be defined as the legal act where God sees Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinner, forgives the sinner, and declares the sinner righteous in his sight. By faith in Jesus Christ, the sinner is justified, and is no longer an enemy of God. Morris puts it best, “It is only because of Christ’s work of justification that peace and other blessings follow.”

Romans 5:1 – 2: Justification. Purpose

In the eyes of an infinitely holy, infinitely perfect God, the blemished man is an enemy of God. The Lord commands, “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2).  Man’s transgression to the commandment has put him under the wrath of the Holy God (Rom. 3:23). Martin Luther once said, “If I could believe that God was not angry with me, I would stand on my head for joy.”[1] It is in this spirit that Romans 5, was chosen for research. It is the great news of salvation for God’s fallen creation. It is the Gospel for the tormented soul. Romans 5:1 – 2 is the conscience relieving Gospel of Jesus Christ. It magnifies and glorifies Jesus Christ. It is the assurance of every believer. It is the sweet honey that leads to the Honeycomb.

This paper seeks to show that through Jesus Christ, a believer is justified through faith, and prove that there are consequences due to his newly justified status. During this exegetical study of Romans 5:1 – 2, the centrality of Jesus Christ in the act of justification and the doctrine of justification will be analyzed. The fruits of justification will be strongly emphasized.

This justification should be viewed as a two-sided coin. It acts as the judicial declarative statement that the sinner is righteous before God and it acts relationally by removing God’s wrath from the sinner. In this way justification remains distinct from reconciliation in definition, but inseparable in action. A serious study of these two verses is essential in properly understanding the power of justification in the Christian faith.

---

[1] Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil. (Yale University Press, 2006, c1989). 315.

 

Interpretation of the Gospel of John: The “I am” Sayings

The “I am” sayings are sprinkled throughout John’s Gospel; some are found in the “Book of Signs” section and others are found in the “Book of Glory” section. The most promi-nent “I am” statement found in John 8:58, this “I am” statement is a significant passage to war-rants a closer look. John 8:58 says, “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abra-ham was, I am.” The Greek of this passage is: “pri…n =Abraa˝m gene√sqai e∆gw˝ ei∆mi√.” Barrett sug-gests that the “e∆gw˝ ei∆mi√”, in its context would mean, “Before Abraham came into being, I eter-nally was, as now I am, and ever continue to be.” Westcott explains this well:
Abraham died: Christ was the Giver of life. Abraham was the father of the Jews: Christ was the centre of Abraham’s hope. Abraham came into being as a man: Christ essentially as God. The phrase (“I am”) marks a timeless existence. In this connexion “I was” would have expressed simple priority. Thus there is in the phrase the contrast between the cre-ated and the uncreated, and the temporal and the eternal.

Some have concluded that this “I am” statement is referring to Deut. 32:39; Is. 41:4; 43:10; 46:4; and 48:12. Bultmann argues that Jesus is not referring to Exodus 3:14, “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” Regardless, the following verse states, “So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.” The Pharisees understood that this statement made by Jesus was a claim to deity, thus inciting them to stone him.

Other significant “I Am” sayings are: the true vine (15:1); the way, and the truth, and the life (14:6); the door of the sheep; the bread of life (6:35); the light of the world (8:12); the resurrection and the life (11:25); and the good shepherd (10:11).

Interpretation of John: The Discourses

The Discourses

Part of John’s construction of his Gospel is to include a discourse directly after or be-fore Jesus performs a sign. Morris links the signs with the following discourses: water into wine with the new birth (3:1–21); healing the nobleman’s son with the water of life (4:1–42); healing the lame man with the divine Son (5:19–47); feeding the five thousand with the bread of life (6:22–65); walking on the water with the life-giving Spirit (7:1–52); sight to the man born blind with the light of the world (8:12–59); and the raising of Lazarus with the good shepherd (10:1–42). There is some disagreement on the paring of some discourses with signs, but overall these discourses solidify who Jesus is: the incarnate Word.
These discourses documented by John are another example of him continually ex-panding his theological statements. John masterfully connects these discourses into his beauti-fully constructed Gospel. Not only do the discourses reinforce everything John has previously said in his introduction, this is just more material building a stairway up to John 20:31. The dis-course between Jesus and Nicodemus will be used as an example of how John ties the discourse back to his prologue and Christological declaration in John 20:30–31.
The discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus occurs during 3:1–15 and serves an im-portance purpose. John documents this discourse to expand his theological statements made in chapter one, verses twelve and thirteen, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” Carson points out that ‘to become children of God’, to be ‘born of God’ (3:3), must mean the same thing as ‘to be born again’, by believing in the name of the incarnate Word. This spiritual regeneration, being ‘born again’, becoming a child of God happens only through John 20:31.

With All Your Might

“”That religion which God requires, and will accept, does not consist in weak, dull and lifeless wouldings, raising us but a little above a state of indifference: God, in his Word, greatly insists upon it, that we be in good earnest, fervent in spirit, and our hearts vigorously engaged in religion: Romans 12:11, ”Be ye fervent in spirit, serving the Lord.”Deuteronomy 10:12, ”And now Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul?” And ch. 6:4–5, “Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” ‘Tis such a fervent, vigorous engagedness of the heart in religion, that is the fruit of a real circumcision of the heart, or true regeneration, and that has the promises of life; Deuteronomy 30:6,”And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.”" – Jonathan Edwards

Interpretation of John: The Book of Signs

The Book of Signs

The Book of Signs takes up more than half of John’s entire Gospel. There is a total of seven signs performed before his Gospel transitions into Christ’s Passion. The seven signs performed are: the changing of water to wine (2:1–11); the healing of the official’s son (4:46–54); the healing of the sick man at the pool (5:2–15); the feeding of the five thousand (6:1–14); the walking on water (6:16–22); the restoration of the blind man’s sight (9:1–7); and the raising of Lazarus from the dead (11:1–44).

Smalley comments, “The principle which makes these signs what they are is announced in the introduction to the Fourth Gospel, John 1 (the whole chapter).”[1] John is affirming his Christological declarations made in chapter one by documenting these seven special signs performed by Jesus. Each sign reaffirms the first eighteen verses of John’s Gospel and persuades the reader to believe on Jesus as the Christ, the only Son of God, from which eternal life is given.

The first sign documented in John is performed at a wedding in Cana. The purpose of John including this sign is to show that this miracle was a manifestation of Christ’s glory (2:11). The second sign underlines the fact that Jesus is the only one that gives life. The third sign reaffirms in John’s Christology that Jesus is the Christ.[2] The fourth sign performed reaffirms that Jesus is the giver and sustainer of life. Köstenberger observes, “John does not content himself with narrating a mere miracle: what Jesus does is shown to reveal who he is… the giver of eternal life.”[3] The fifth sign, one that popular culture is quite fond of is Jesus walking on water, which affirms Christ’s authority over all creation (1:3). The sixth sign makes known that Jesus is the light of the world, “I am the light of the world” (9:3, 5).[4] The seventh sign also affirms that Jesus is the “resurrection and the life.”

Only the incarnated Word of God could perform miracles such as these. God took on human form and expressed himself by means of it.[5] John’s particular reasons for documenting these signs affirm everything he wrote in his prologue, but more importantly “have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

---

[1] Stephen S. Smalley, John: Evangelist & Interpreter. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 87.

[2] Jesus is lord over the Sabbath, putting Him above the law, after the sign, John writes in verse eighteen, “This was why the Jews were seeking to kill him… calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” The importance of this miracle is due to the fact that Jesus performed the miracle on the Sabbath.  The Sabbath is a holy day, used for rest.  It was forbidden by God that Israel performed work on that day. In verses 16 and 17, John writes, “And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.  But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”” With this statement, Jesus is declaring himself equal with God.  God, who declared no work to be done on the Sabbath, is the only one who is immune to His commandments.

[3] Andreas J. Köstenberger, John. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 196.

[4] This usage of “light” recalls John’s earlier statement in chapter one, verse five, “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”

[5] Stephen S. Smalley, John: Evangelist & Interpreter. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 87.

Interpretation of John: The Structure and Prologue

The Structure of John’s Gospel

It is widely agreed that the structure of John’s gospel can be broken down into four major sections: the prologue (John 1:1 – 18), “The Book of Signs” (1:19 – 12:50), “The Book of Glory” (13:1 – 20:31), and the Epilogue (21:1 – 25). These major sections and the material in-cluded in them – the signs performed by Christ, His discourses, the “I am” statements, His an-ticipated exaltation with the Father post crucifixion, burial, and resurrection – all funnel to the key interpretative verse, John 20:31.

The Prologue

Scholars consider the prologue as “the structural and intellectual centre of John’s Gospel,” a “closely knit composition.” It summarizes how the ‘Word’, which was God in the very beginning, entered into creation. The Author became a character in the story, supremely so that the glory and grace of God could be perfectly displayed. Beasley-Murray observed four natural divisions within the prologue, all building up to the crescendo in verse seventeen, “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”
The prologue can be described as an overture or microcosm of the major themes and theological framework that is presented throughout the Fourth Gospel. The pre-existence of the Logos or Son (1:1 – 21; 17:5), Christ being the light of the world (1:4; 8:12), Jesus as the one and only Son (1:14, 18; 3:16), seeing the glory of Jesus (1:14; 12:41), and the truth found in Je-sus Christ (1:17; 14:6). Also, many of the central and thematic words used in the Gospel are introduced first, in the prologue: life, light (1:4) , witness (1:7) , true (1:9) , world (1:10) , glory, truth (1:14). In describing the prologue, Carson concludes, “… The rest of the book is nothing other than an expansion of this theme [the prologue]”.
Not only does the prologue hint towards things to come in the Gospel is also reaf-firms 20:31. Jesus is the Son of God, the one and only Son. In a world full of darkness He is the bright light of truth; He is Truth. The Truth with set you free and gives you life.