#85. Romans 3:22 – The Righteousness through Jesus Christ’s Faith (Justification Series, Part VIII)

Part III: Our Justification, Confirmed

Yet now, apart from law, a righteousness of God is manifest (being attested by the law and the prophets), yet a righteousness of God through Jesus Christ’s faith…

Romans is a book founded upon faith. Aside from this verse, it has only appeared seven times; in reference to the obedience of faith derived from Paul’s grace and apostleship (1:5,) the faith of the Roman ecclesia (1:8,) the consolation brought to each other in faith (1:12,) the transferal of the righteousness of God from His faith to our faith (1:17,) the effectual life the one who obtains faith now has (1:17,) and the faith of God Himself (3:3.)

All of this changes, beginning now. From now, until Romans 5:2, the word faith appears 18 more times. This is the channel through which justification is brought. These passages must first establish the faith itself, and how God uses it. At the outset, faith must be shown through the great Mediator between Righteousness and unrighteousness, or God and man; Jesus Christ Himself.

This demonstration of faith is the Antitype, from which all the attestations of the Old Testament were building toward (as we have briefly considered.) This has been the point Paul has sought to explain, and he began doing so back in Romans 1:17, when he said that the righteousness of God is revealed “out of faith, into faith.” He was interrupted by the necessary premises of human error (Rom. 1:18-3:20, a passage which is not the evangel, cf. 2:16.)

Yet now, with our faults fully laid on the table, and our silence forced, Paul can begin to complete his thought. The premise given in Romans 3:21-23 does not inherently speak to our “salvation.” Our salvation is given us in 3:24-28, and elaborated on in the following passages. Thus it is the essential bridge from which the rest of the letter stems; it stands parallel to 1:17 by proclaiming the faith through which the evangel reveals God. It stands in contrast to 3:19-20 by relying solely on the action of God and His Christ. Where Paul wrote of the just verdict of God, here he speaks of the righteousness of God, without which no just verdict could be given. And it is essential to 3:21-28; whereas no one can be justified by works of law in God’s sight, one is justified to faith alone.

Yet

Paul repeats the phrase “a righteousness of God” twice. We have been spending much time on this portion of Romans, and I believe that the rare repetition of this phrase is more than enough to justify our doing so. God is hardly ever repetitious, especially in argumentative writing, which makes this second appearance all the more noticeable. At this point, the salvation of the individual is still not discussed. The righteousness of God has been related both to testimonies in the law and the prophets, and manifest through the faith of Jesus Christ. These declarations, while grand, do not immediately “prove” the salvation of the sinner; this is not intimated until the next two clauses (“for all,” “and on all who are believing,”) and explained fully in Romans 3:24-25.

The righteousness in discussion has not dismissed everything which came before. That God is just does not change that all are previously charged to be under sin, and are all unjust (Rom. 3:9-10.) The law has done its job in revealing our lacking righteous ethics (Rom. 3:20.) Yet our failure to keep the law, with Christ’s ability to fulfill the law, had only made available to God an avenue of salvation, possible apart from law. Now that our unrighteousness is clear (Rom. 1:18-23,) God’s operations to deal with the sin and justify the sinner are able to be made known.

Since the premise for this is God’s righteousness, it is only fitting that God attests to His righteousness via the Hebrew texts, and points out its manifestation via Jesus Christ’s faith. It is imperative that this plot twist can be understood when revisiting any “Old Testament” text, as well as recognized going forward into any Pauline epistle.

The Basics

It is Jesus Christ, in giving Himself a Correspondent Ransom for all, Who carries out the purpose for which He entered into the world: to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15, 2:5-6.) By means of His death for sinners, Jesus has established a just premise for the justification, deliverance, and life of the individual (Rom. 3:24-26, 5:1-5, 21.) Yet it is not solely the sinner who is blessed by this act, but the God and Father of Jesus Christ, Whose righteousness is specified and glorified through His faith.

It is almost comical that, in stark contrast to religious dogma, which proclaims that the righteousness of God is displayed through flaying and abandonment, God attests, even in His Hebrew texts, that salvation is an integral part of His righteousness. Yet this salvific act of Jesus Christ is what brings forth – not in part, or in incomplete fashion – a manifestation of the righteousness of God.

And just like that, the admittedly abstract quality of the righteousness of God becomes a practical, tangible, visible illustration for us to appreciate. We must appreciate this demonstration before we can begin to appreciate how it impacts us in any way. It must be understood that, at most, we served as the catalyst for this demonstration. Yet righteousness, when provoked, does not merely judge, but saves. Both are incomplete without the other (Rom. 2:16,) if true righteousness is the source of each.

The righteousness of God, then, as manifest in the evangel, must lead to both a judgment and a salvation! The judgment, when one believes, is “justified,” and the salvation, when one believes, is “delivered.” This evangel demands that salvation be brought to the recipients of the message. And who are the recipients, but all sinners?

The Faith of…?

If you look at almost any translation of the New Testament, you will find a critical difference between it and the Concordant Version. Here are a handful of examples from the most popular Bible translations:

-       ESV: “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ…”

-       NIV: “This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ…”

-       NKJV: “even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ…”

-       NLT: “We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ…”

-       NRS: “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ…”

-       ASV: “even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ…”

Such revisionist history is startling. You can see why so few have been able to understand Romans by looking through the popular translation! In fact, excluding the Concordant Version (which itself is a bit interpretive, but we’ll get to that,) the only not-literal version I’ve read that nails the Greek in this verse is the King James Version! Go figure!

I was under the same delusion during my brief commitments to the Baptist church. I believed that we must put our faith in Jesus Christ if we are to be saved. Yet when studying the concordant version for the first time during a Pre-Calculus class, the reality struck me harder than Cher’s direct hit in Moonstruck:

This passage is not talking about my faith.

Indeed, I am nowhere to be found in this claim. The faith of me could never convey the righteousness of God. God said all He needed to say about my efforts back in Romans 3:10. If we are considering my actions in their totality, in no way do I convey any characteristic of God; especially not the righteousness which I lack, and certainly not through a faith which Christ conveyed far better than I ever did. To leave me, with my imperfect faith under unjust premises, to somehow convey the righteousness of God? It’s inconceivable!

Unfortunately, to many, it is somehow conceivable that their faith demands a measure of the righteousness of God. They agree with the secondary premise – that mankind is unjust – while their conclusion disregards it entirely. At first, I believed that a series of logical debates were necessary to show the fallacy in such reasoning. Yet I see now that such reasoning is so clearly fallacious, that to believe it indicates that debate is not possible among its proponents (for, if this somehow qualifies as logic, then I am hard-pressed to believe any logical rebuttal would be met with assent.)

Only mildly more concerning are the grammatical claims; that, when understood “in context,” it will be clear that “faith in Jesus Christ” is what we are “clearly” meant to understand. In fact, most common/popular commentaries on the Bible are generally unified on this claim. Ellicott tells us that this is our faith, the “faith which has Christ for its object, ‘faith in Christ.’” Meyer’s commentary twists this as well, claiming “The genitive contains the object of faith.” Cambridge Bible’s commentary boldly lies, saying “Faith in Jesus Christ is certainly the meaning.”

On its surface, these appear to be inscrutable claims. Yet again, we have a secret on this blog: we take words as they are, not as they may or may not be implied. It may be my job, as the student, to interpret something unclear, but this hardly qualifies as “unclear.” The translator’s job is to translate, not interpret. There must be a uniform way to convey the “genitive” case to an English audience without overstepping Holy Writ. While the commentators above could not use a concordant version, we can, and we shall.

The Grammar

It is far easier than debating an irrational opponent to simply appreciate the text, as it is plainly written. The debates about “grammar” in this verse are veiled criticisms against the notion of uniformity in the Greek text, and are far more concerned with English versions for the sake of ambiguity. If any leeway is given (as is often the case with multiple translations,) an opponent will often cross-examine on a false or unproven definition of a term, assuming that their version admits their personal ideology, and in some Ace-Theo corners of the YouTube sphere, will proceed to call you names without proving you wrong.

Thus the “grammar” debate is far less about the Greek, and more about the English. Yet the few that do retain a knowledge of the Greek will argue in favor of the “faith in Jesus Christ” rendering! Let us discuss why.

The phrase pisteos Iesou Christou is written in the genitive case. As we have seen many times hitherto, the genitive case in Greek answers the question, “from whence?” From whence did something come? That is, most often, what is its source? If we were to argue that it is our faith toward Jesus, then Paul would not have been writing in the genitive case. Indeed, there is another case which suites the question, “where to?” This is the dative case. Since the dative case is nowhere to be found in verse 22 at all, it is clear that no request for belief, nor any contingency is being placed upon us. 

Moreover, there is a word for “in” in Greek, the term en. It appears most specifically when identifying one thing with another thing. If this verse were meant to convey what Christendom claims, then en should be front and center in the verse, and they would have every reason to point brazenly at it! Yet it is nowhere to be found, and instead the church is revealed, yet again, to be operating on a house of cards.

In the meantime, let us review a few uses of the genitive case in Romans, for kicks and giggles.

We see, in 1:1, that Paul is a “slave of Christ Jesus.” This may well be translated “Christ Jesus’ slave.”

1:6 calls those in Rome “the called of Jesus Christ.” This may also say “Jesus Christ’s called ones.”

1:7 tells us “grace and peace from God… and Jesus Christ.” This need not be translated any differently, since we see from whence the grace and peace stems.

1:8 tells us that Paul is “thanking… through Jesus Christ.” This too needs no different translation, since we see from whence Paul’s thanks stems.

2:16 tells us “God will be judging… through Jesus Christ.” Here we clearly read of God’s base of operations when judging.

These examples are extremely telling, folks. It should hardly take a grammarian to point this out to you, let alone the likes of me. The slaves and called ones are denoted by an of, but we see, typically, that objects are given another connective in Greek, such as dia or apo.

Why would we alter this pattern when we arrive at Romans 3:22? Did Paul just forget? Shoot, did God just forget? We have the same connective, dia, followed by the genitive phrase “faith of-Jesus.” Jesus is His personal name, hence the CLV translates in the possessive case, “Jesus Christ’s faith.”

The kicker to all of this is that most translations know that something is wrong with in. They force the interpretation into their final drafts, and then typically add in the margins (such as ASV or Rotherham) that “of” is indeed a more proper translation of the verse! So they even note that something is off about their opinion, yet do not have the integrity, on one of the most important passages in the New Testament, to translate uniformly and leave the task of interpretation up to the reader. The absolute nerve!

Yeah, yeah, Rebuttals

There are two major objections to everything we have discussed. There is an irrational argument made from the Trinitarian, and a grammatical argument made from the modern tax-free church institutions.

The Trinitarian’s claim may be swiftly dealt with. It is said that “Christ didn’t actually have faith,” but that this is just a metaphor for some third of god. This claim is yet unproven, and directly contradicted by the four accounts (cf. Matt. 27:43,) and the Hebraist writer, who presents Jesus as the greatest example of the faithful (Heb. 12:1-2.) And, if the grammatical facts are straightened out, then it becomes clear that both here and elsewhere (Rom. 3:26, Gal. 2:16, 3:22, etc.) Jesus is plainly said to have faith. This would make the Trinitarian insubordinate to the word of God, denying the very premise on which one can be saved (which leaves one to ask; are they yet saved if this premise is denied?)

The grammatical claim requires a tad more depth, though not much. The grand excuse that your average expositor will give to excuse translating the genitive completely out of uniformity is that it is an “objective genitive.” Or, in other words, they interpret this as a faith which has Christ for its object. To prove this point, there are examples brought to our attention such as Mark 11:22–

Jesus said to [Peter,] “If you have faith of God, verily, I am saying to you that whosoever may be saying to this mountain, ‘Be picked up and cast into the sea,’ and may not be doubting in his heart, but should be believing that what he is speaking is occurring, it shall be his, whatsoever he may be saying.”

…I know, I know. If you’re hearing this excuse for the first time, you may be thinking, “Whaaaaaaaat?” And, if you do feel this way… you’re not alone. Not only is this reason not enough to divorce Romans 3:22 from its context concerning God and His action, and further not enough to insert your own faith into the passage, but it is far weirder when the Mark passage is cited as some proof text! It is quite easy to treat an “of-God faith” as that faith which is His own, gifted to you, without losing the basic statement Jesus is making. It is a divine faith which gets things done – not your own faith. In this sense, you would be an instrument, not the musician.

What’s worse? You certainly cannot point at some passage in Mark and say, “Well, it may possibly work there, so it should magically work here, too!” This is a logical fallacy known as the “false analogy.” Even if one granted, for the sake of argument, that “faith of God” in Mark 11:22 were an “objective genitive,” it would not follow that every other occurrence of a similar construction must be interpreted exactly the same way. If we were to admit such fallacious grounds, then anything can mean anything.

The question is not even “whether” an objective genitive can exist, but whether Paul intended one in Romans 3:22. To establish that, one must demonstrate it from the immediate context, Paul's argument, and his usage—not by importing a disputed interpretation from an entirely different author, writing in a different context, concerning a different subject. Context with a pattern of sound words determines meaning. And, sure enough, when you focus on Romans 3:22 itself, following from the complete decimation of human action not two verses prior, there is little to argue that “faith of Jesus” means “man’s faith in Jesus.”

I know, I know. To the “faith in Christ” fanatic, this logical argumentation means little. Truly, what’s a false analogy or two when discussing the word of God? And who cares if there’s a weak basis for the claim, yeah? We’re human. I’m sure God understands, and wants us to make interpretive claims for funsies! So, even for the sake of argument, let’s pretend for the moment that the genitive in 3:22 is objective.

What happens? For starters, you still can’t claim that this is man’s faith in Christ. Again, the basic context hitherto has silenced the human race from proposing human action. If it were an “objective genitive,” then, it would be referring to God, not to man, having faith in His own Son. It is His faith that was previously discussed positively (Rom. 3:3,) with a view to justification (Rom. 3:4.) He is the subject of the immediate context, of which we are a product, not a premise.

This would have to be the rational interpretation of the matter, to accord with the evangel itself, the revelation that justification is gratuitous, and is given in grace (Rom. 3:24,) through deliverance which is in Christ Jesus (3:24, 26.) The evangel is said to be God’s power into salvation (Rom. 1:16,) not contingent upon our acceptance of any matter, but upon His ability to draw even the most unwilling into life (our apostle being the primary example of this, Acts 9:1-5.)

The most ironic part of this argument, perhaps, is that you can look at every use of “faith” which is followed by a genitive (aside from those “Jesus Christ” disputes,) and find that these are all undeniably subjective, not objective. In almost every case (Matt. 9:2, 22, 29, Mk. 2:5, 5:34, Lk. 8:25, 48, Rom. 3:3, 4:5, 1 Cor. 2:5, to list a few examples,) the faith of believers is expressly being discussed! The Greek will say something like, “faith of-you,” or “of-them.” What are these verses supposed to mean, if they were objective, if not that you would be the object of faith??

In other words, even the false analogy given does not track with the entirety of the text! To be clear, I am not arguing that the 20+ examples you could find via the previous paragraph are some “proof” for or against an objective genitive in 3:22, since the context alone disproves such an idea. But if we are, for whatever reason, admitting false analogies, then boy, are those examples a doozy, or what?

But Why?

Well, isn’t it obvious? In their attempts to make the faith about themselves, and use the “genitive” jargon, the religious maintain that their own faith is what saves them. This idea only benefits the ego, not God, and in fact admits that God could not save those who do not immediately accept Him (from <insert scary penalty here, known only by your local church>.)

By pre-supposing that it is your faith that saves you, your favorite religion then argues that the genitive here is objective.

This is called “circular reasoning.”

It doesn’t work. It’s circular.

Meanwhile, all that the Greek literally says can be relayed in one sentence: “RIGHTEOUSness YET OF-God THRU BELIEF OF-JESUS ANOINTed.”

The preposition en is nowhere to be found.

Thus the argument from these institutions is founded on sand. It is not a translation; it is an interpretation. And, if it is not clear enough already, we will find rather that it is a mistaken interpretation.

In Sum…

The necessity for a clear translation is yet again shown, for there is monumental difference between Jesus Christ’s faith, and our faith in Jesus Christ. As said before, this is the premise for our justification, so we must know which is supposed to be true; the plain use of the genitive as we have seen used with our own eyes many times now, or the completely opposed assertions of our religious institutions?

The question on the table, now: is the Concordant Version that clear translation of this verse which we so desperately need?

Well… sort of. Like I said before, the KJV nailed it by remaining impartial on this critical verse. As I see it, “faith of Christ” is indeed the best translation of the text. For the Concordant Version to translate the verse to say “Jesus Christ’s faith” is also to claim that the genitive here is subjective. One could argue that this is just as interpretive as the other versions which claim that the Greek says “in Jesus.”

Both, either subjective or objective interpretation, are construing the text in some way. I like the CLV, but I will not deny that this interpretive translation does bother me a bit. I would much prefer the CLV remain neutral on this front, and serve its own purpose as a concordant translation, leaving the interpreting to the student.

That being said, once again, I stress that context is king. Thus, while it is not the best translation of the verse, it is the proper way to read the verse, given the facts we have considered until now. With the subjective rendering in a questionable state, and the objective rendering certainly out of commission, we must ask: how should “faith of Jesus Christ” be understood in the verse? This will be the subject of the next chapter.

- GerudoKing