PAUL’S USE OF HABAKKUK 2:4 IN ROMANS 1:17 AND GALATIANS 3:11

by

Aaron Keith Tresham

Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements

for the degree of Master of Theology in
New Testament
The Master’s Seminary
Sun Valley, California
May, 2008
Title: PAUL’S USE OF HABAKKUK 2:4 IN ROMANS 1:17 AND
GALATIANS 3:11
Author: Aaron Keith Tresham
Degree: Master of Theology
Date: May, 2008
Adviser: Robert L. Thomas

The New Testament use of the Old Testament is an important issue in

hermeneutics. While some claim that the New Testament always uses the Old Testament
according to its grammatical-historical meaning, most admit that the New Testament
occasionally violates the literal meaning of the Old. One’s decision regarding this issue
should not be based on philosophy or theology alone; instead, the exegetical data from
both the Old and New Testaments should be primary. To that end, this thesis examines
Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4b in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11.
Habakkuk wrote when many in Judah were being unfaithful to their God. God
told Habakkuk that He would send Babylon to discipline Judah. Habakkuk was startled
by this, since Babylon was even more wicked than Judah. God informed the prophet that
Babylon would indeed face judgment. The Babylonians were proud, self-reliant, and
immoral, but God would deal with them in due time. Until then, the righteous men and
women of Judah needed to remain faithful to their God, no matter what was happening
around them. God promised life to the faithful, even as the nation crumbled around them.
The apostle Paul wrote an exposition of the gospel to the church at Rome. The
central theme of the gospel is salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The
believer has righteousness imputed to him by God on the basis of faith. For Paul, this was
not an entirely new revelation. Paul read Habakkuk 2:4 and found there the divine
intention to justify sinners, Jew and Gentile alike, on the basis of faith in the risen Lord.
Paul also wrote a letter to the churches of Galatia to defend the gospel’s message
of justification by faith from the false gospel promulgated by Judaizers, who demanded
that Gentile Christians become Jews. Paul defended the gospel using the Scriptures,
citing Abraham as the prime example of justification by faith. Blessing would come to
those who shared the faith of Abraham, but there would be no blessing for those who
depended on the Law for their status before God. The Law brings only a curse, since
none fulfill its requirements completely. Again Paul quoted Habakkuk 2:4 to demonstrate
the connection between righteousness and faith. However, the Law is not based on faith.
By trying to combine faith and works, the Judaizers excluded themselves from the
blessing of God.
Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 does not conform to the meaning of Habakkuk in its
original context. There are many proposed solutions to this apparent problem. Some
scholars violate the principle of single meaning, while others read the New Testament
into the Old. To be faithful to the exegetical data and to sound hermeneutics, the best
solution is “inspired sensus plenior application.” Romans and Galatians provide a new
meaning for Habakkuk 2:4, but the authority for this new meaning rests on the inspired
text of the New Testament, not the Old. The coming of the church age required additional
revelation regarding God’s intention for Habakkuk’s message.
Accepted by the Faculty of The Master’s Seminary

in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree

Master of Theology

______________________________
Adviser

______________________________
Adviser
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Procedure for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Assumptions of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

CHAPTER TWO: EXEGESIS OF HABAKKUK 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Historical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Message of Habakkuk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Context of Habakkuk 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Habakkuk 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
God’s Characterization of the Wicked. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Emendation of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Insertion of a subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Emendation of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Referring all of verse 4 to the righteous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Insertion of a verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Accepting the Masoretic Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
The meaning of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
The meaning of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
God’s Promise to the Righteous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
The meaning of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
The meaning of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Textual issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Syntactical issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Lexical issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
The meaning of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

CHAPTER THREE: EXEGESIS OF ROMANS 1:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Historical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Context of Romans 1–3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
 vi

Romans 1:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Romans 1:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
The Righteousness of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
God’s righteousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
Righteousness valid before God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
God-righteousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Saving activity of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Arguments from the Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
Arguments from the context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Righteousness from God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Arguments from the context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Arguments from parallel passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
Arguments from verse 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Arguments against this view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Combination view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
Righteousness Revealed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
Views that understand in different ways. . . . . . . . . . .65
Views that understand a reference to God or Christ . . . . . . . . . . .66
View that faith is the ground and goal of righteousness . . . . . . . .68
View that understands as “to believers” . . . . . . . . . . . .69
View that understands a rhetorical formulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
As It Is Written . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Connecting with the verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Connecting with the noun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Combination view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
The Purpose of the Quotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

CHAPTER FOUR: EXEGESIS OF GALATIANS 3:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
Galatians 3:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
Unsatisfactory Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
The curse is upon Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
Jewish distinctives excluding Gentiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
Potential curse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
A curse on Christians who submit to the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
The Legalist Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
Why Legalists Are Cursed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
The judgment of the Law differs from the judgment of God . . . .92
Legalism equals bribery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
 vii

An implied premise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

Supporting Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
Opposing Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
Galatians 3:11–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
The Law Does Not Justify . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
Live by faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Righteous by faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
The Law Is Not of Faith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107

CHAPTER FIVE: HABAKKUK 2:4 IN ROMANS AND GALATIANS . . . . . . . . . . .109

Comparison of the New Testament Verses with Habakkuk 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

Survey of Modern Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
Full Human Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
Walter Kaiser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112
Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Divine Intent–Human Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
James I. Packer and S. Lewis Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
Elliot E. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
Historical Progress of Revelation and Jewish Hermeneutic . . . . . . . . . .120
James Sanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
Richard Longenecker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121
Midrash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
Pesher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124
Joseph Fitzmyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124
Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125
Canonical Approach and New Testament Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
Bruce Waltke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
Douglas Oss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128
Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
Eclectic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
The Preferred Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138

CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139

Summary of Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139

Habakkuk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139
Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140
 viii

Galatians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
Insufficient Explanations for Paul’s Use of Habakkuk 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . .142
Preferred Explanation for Paul’s Use of Habakkuk 2:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . .143

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

One cannot hope to do accurate biblical exegesis without a sound hermeneutical

foundation. Important issues in hermeneutics are raised by the New Testament authors’

use of the Old Testament.

Statement of the Problem

The New Testament authors often used the Old Testament according to its

original, grammatical-historical meaning.1 However, there are times when the New

Testament usage does not seem to conform to the original meaning of the Old Testament

text in its context.2 While some scholars claim that the New Testament authors always

were faithful to the original meaning, others have suggested that the New Testament

authors occasionally used allegorical interpretation, typological interpretation, references

plenior, sensus plenior, or some other approach.3 Some of these scholars suggest that the

church today can utilize the same non-literal methods of interpretation as the New

1
Consider, for example, Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 11:1 in Acts 13:23,
Isaiah 40:3–5 in Luke 3:4–6, Isaiah 53:1 in John 12:37–38, and Isaiah 53:9 in 1 Peter
2:22. These and additional examples are suggested by Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical
Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2002), 243–46.
2
A number of examples are provided by Thomas (ibid., 247–51).
3
For a summary of approaches, see Darrell L. Bock, “Evangelicals and the Use of
the Old Testament in the New, Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 142/567 (July 1985): 209–20,
as well as chapter five of this thesis.
 2

Testament authors, while others argue that inspiration makes these approaches non-

normative. There is no reason to assume a priori that every citation was used in the same

way. Thus, each citation must be examined on a case-by-case basis.

This thesis will examine Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4b in Romans 1:17 and

Galatians 3:11. This statement is particularly relevant because, as commonly understood,

it is very near the heart of Christian theology. In Romans it often is seen as the theme in

Paul’s explanation of justification by faith.4 Paul also uses it in Galatians when he argues

about the distinction between faith and the Law in the context of justification.5 Thus, the

proper interpretation of these verses is critical.

Before the New Testament uses can be understood, it is necessary to interpret

Habakkuk 2:4b correctly. There are a number of issues to be discussed.6 How should

be translated in this verse: “faith” or “faithfulness”? The proper understanding of

(often translated “just” or “righteous”) is also disputed. There is also the question

of whether modifies “will live” or “just/righteous.” Moreover, a textual issue

must be resolved. The Masoretic Text has “his” , while the Septuagint has “my”

4
See, e.g., C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1975–79), 1:87.
5
See, e.g., Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, New International
Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988), 141–46.
6
A useful overview of these issues can be found in George J. Zemek,
“Interpretive Challenges Relating to Habakkuk 2:4b,” Grace Theological Journal 1/1
(Spring 1980): 43–69.
 3

(referring to God). In both Romans and Galatians Paul omits the pronoun entirely.

There are also challenges in Habakkuk 2:4a, such as the proper understanding of .

Interpretive challenges are not limited to the Old Testament. The Greek term

, used in the Septuagint and the New Testament to represent in Habakkuk

2:4, can mean “faith” or “faithfulness,” just like its Hebrew counterpart. As in the

Hebrew, the syntactical relationship between the prepositional phrase and the

rest of the sentence is uncertain in the Greek. There are also contextual challenges.

Before the citation of Habakkuk 2:4b in Romans 1:17b, Paul mentions

and . Both phrases have been understood in various ways.7 Paul’s

argument in Galatians 3:10–12 has been difficult for interpreters to follow. The

relationships between Paul’s assertions and the Old Testament scriptures he uses to

support those assertions are not always immediately clear. Some premises necessary to

understand his argument may be only implied.8

Once Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17, and Galatians 3:11 have been properly

interpreted according to their own contexts, it will be possible to decide whether the New

Testament citations of Habakkuk mean the same as in the Old Testament context. If so,

there is no hermeneutical problem. If not, it must be determined how Paul has used

Habakkuk and what hermeneutical implications this might have.

7
A good overview of the interpretive problems in Romans 1:17 is provided by
Cranfield (Romans, 1:91–102).
8
See, e.g., Fung, Galatians, 141–46.
 4

Need for the Study

Bible scholars need a comprehensive picture of the New Testament use of the Old

Testament.9 There are many competing theories that claim to provide such a picture.

However, these theories have not been carefully tested for every Old Testament citation

found in the New Testament. This important hermeneutical issue should not be decided

based on theology or philosophy; instead, exegesis of both the Old Testament passages

and their New Testament counterparts should be primary in this discussion. Rather than

molding all citations to a proposed theory, the proper approach is to examine each

passage and then construct a theory that conforms to the exegetical data.

Commentaries on Habakkuk, Romans, and Galatians usually discuss Paul’s use of

Habakkuk. However, the purpose of a commentary is not to answer the types of questions

being posed here. Often the commentator will try to harmonize the New Testament

passage with the Old Testament citation without considering the hermeneutical issues

involved. Thus, a study dedicated solely to understanding Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17,

and Galatians 3:11 will be able to dig deeper into each of these verses, as well as their

relationships to one another and the hermeneutical issues raised by these relationships.

Once these three verses are understood in their own contexts, the various theories

can be tested. Some of the theories will have to be rejected for this particular case. Other

theories may work quite well for these verses but fail in other passages. The

9
Evidence for the importance of this issue is provided by the recent publication of
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A.
Carson (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007), a work of well over a thousand pages.
 5

comprehensive picture scholars desire will not be complete until every citation is

considered. This thesis will aim to place one piece of the puzzle.

Procedure for the Study

After this introductory chapter, this thesis is divided into four chapters. Chapter 2

is dedicated to an exegesis of Habakkuk 2:4. The grammatical-historical method will be

applied in order to determine the original meaning of God as He spoke through the

prophet Habakkuk. This exegesis will be done without considering the New Testament.

There are several interpretive problems that must be solved. Many of these are in verse

4a, even though Paul quotes only verse 4b. Several textual emendations have been

proposed, and each of these must be considered as well.

The third chapter will examine Romans 1:17. Although the original meaning of

Habakkuk 2:4 will have been determined, this meaning will not simply be imported into

the New Testament. The context of Romans will be the driving factor as the exegesis

proceeds. Of particular importance are the interpretive challenges surrounding

and . This chapter will not try to compare Paul’s

use of Habakkuk in Romans with the original meaning of Habakkuk.

Chapter 4 will be dedicated to Galatians 3:11. Once again, the New Testament

context will be the primary concern. Interpretive decisions will be made based on the

context of Galatians; neither Habakkuk nor Romans will be allowed to trump this

context. It will be particularly important to understand the flow of Paul’s argument in

verses 10–12. A comparison between Paul’s use of Habakkuk in Galatians and the

original meaning of Habakkuk will not be made at this point.

 6

The fifth chapter will consider all the exegetical data from the previous chapters

and will compare the original meaning of Habakkuk 2:4 with Paul’s use of this verse in

Romans and Galatians. If Paul’s usage conforms to the grammatical-historical

interpretation of Habakkuk, then there is no hermeneutical problem and no need for

further discussion. On the other hand, if Paul did not use Habakkuk in conformity with its

original meaning, then the various approaches of modern scholars regarding the New

Testament use of the Old Testament will be considered. Inadequate theories will be

rejected, and the most suitable theory will be commended.

Limitations of the Study

No one person could interact with all the scholarly material available today

regarding any verse of the Bible, let alone three verses and their contexts. The following

exegesis will focus on the best commentaries10 and the more detailed studies found in

theological journals. Evangelical scholarship will receive particular attention. The

purpose of this thesis is not to defend against theologically liberal or historical-critical

theories, so some opinions may be discussed only briefly or not at all.

The literature regarding the New Testament use of the Old Testament is also

immense. No attempt to be completely comprehensive will be made. The focus will be on

the primary theories as they relate to Habakkuk 2:4.

10
For selection of commentaries, the present writer depended on James Rosscup,
Commentaries for Biblical Expositors, rev. and enlarged ed. (Sun Valley, Calif.: Grace
Books International, 2004).
 7

Assumptions of the Study

The original autographs of the Bible were inspired by God and thus are inerrant.

God intended to communicate clearly through the words of Scripture. Therefore,

Scripture should be interpreted using grammatical-historical principles. The importance

of context and the single-meaning principle are particularly important for this thesis.11

11
On the importance of the single-meaning principle, see Thomas, Evangelical
Hermeneutics, 141–64.
 CHAPTER TWO

EXEGESIS OF HABAKKUK 2:4

Before one can understand the use of Habakkuk 2:4b in the New Testament, he

must have the correct interpretation of this verse in its Old Testament context. The

historical context of the prophecy of Habakkuk will be briefly reviewed. Then an

overview of Habakkuk’s message will be given. Next, the near context will be explored

to determine how Habakkuk 2:4 relates to it. Finally, an exegetical analysis of Habakkuk

2:4 will examine the verse’s textual and interpretive difficulties in detail, and a final

conclusion regarding the original meaning of this verse in context will be presented.

Historical Context

Habakkuk does not explicitly provide the historical setting of his prophecy.

However, historical references allow the exegete to infer the most likely historical

context. One notices that Habakkuk opens with a complaint about the violence and

iniquity surrounding him (Hab 1:2–3). The reference in verse 4 to the Law being ignored

indicates that internal strife within Israel or Judah is being referred to. God’s response to

Habakkuk’s complaint (vv. 5–11) indicates that God would send the Chaldeans1 against

the land. This must refer to the Babylonian invasion of the southern kingdom of Judah.

1
Hebrew !. This term always refers to the Chaldeans, or Babylonians, in
the Old Testament. See O. Palmer Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and
Zephaniah, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1990), 34.
 9

Thus it may be inferred that Habakkuk ministered to Judah before the Babylonian

invasion, during a time when Judah was not being faithful to their God.

When God introduces His plan to send the Chaldeans in verse 5, He indicates that

the rise of Babylon will be a cause for wonder and surprise for Habakkuk. On the other

hand, verses 6–7 indicate that the Babylonians already have begun to conquer other

nations, so that they already are feared. Thus, Habakkuk must have received his vision at

a time when Babylon was not yet threatening Judah but had begun to assert itself. Thus

Habakkuk probably received his oracle after the ascension of Nabopolassar in 626 BC,

when the Babylonian empire began its ascent, and before the battle of Carchemish in 605

BC, when Nebuchadnezzar won a decisive victory over the Assyrians and their Egyptian

allies, ending the Assyrian empire and making Babylon the dominate force in the region.

The wickedness of Judah referred to in verses 2–4 does not fit into the reforming

reign of Josiah, so this places Habakkuk after the death of Josiah in 609 BC. This, taken

with the above dates, places the prophecy of Habakkuk fits into the period between 609

and 605 BC.2 This makes Habakkuk a contemporary of Nahum and Zephaniah. These

2
Some scholars would favor slightly different dates, but most would place
Habakkuk around the end of the seventh century BC. “The majority of OT scholars would
probably date a large portion of the book of Habakkuk in the period between 612 and 587
B.C.” (Ralph L. Smith, Micah–Malachi, Word Biblical Commentary [Waco, Tex.: Word,
1984], 94). For example, a date between 609 and 597 is given by Mária Eszenyei Széles,
Wrath and Mercy: A Commentary on the Books of Habakkuk and Zephaniah, trans.
George A. F. Knight, International Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1987), 3–5, and a date between 605 and 603 is suggested by Robert D. Haak,
Habakkuk, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 44 (Leiden, Neth.: E. J. Brill, 1992), 133.
 10

three prophets affirm the sovereignty of Yahweh over the nations, the ultimate judgment

of the wicked, and the deliverance of the righteous.3

The Message of Habakkuk

Habakkuk divides easily into three units. The first is a complaint by the prophet,

along with God’s answer (1:1–11). The next unit is a second complaint, again followed

by God’s response (1:12–2:20). The final unit is a psalm of praise by Habakkuk (3:1–19).

After the opening superscription (1:1), the prophet brings his first complaint before God

(vv. 2–4). Habakkuk sees wickedness reigning in the land of Judah, and he asks God how

long He will tolerate the situation before He does something about it. God responds in

verses 5–11. His plan is to punish unrighteous Judah by bringing in the Chaldeans. To

Habakkuk, God’s solution is worse than the original problem. In his second complaint

(1:12–2:1), he questions the justice of God’s plan. Although Judah was not keeping the

Law, surely the Chaldeans were even worse. How could a just God use the wicked

Chaldeans to punish the relatively more righteous Judah (1:13)? God assures Habakkuk

that the Chaldeans will indeed be punished for their wickedness, and God’s justice will

be vindicated in the end (2:2–20). Until then, God’s people must simply wait (v. 3).

God’s statement in verse 4b characterizes the waiting righteous. Thus, this

statement forms the core of Habakkuk’s prophecy. This statement alone applies directly

to Habakkuk and the other righteous persons in Judah. The righteous can take comfort in

God’s just punishment of the wicked, but they can be even more encouraged by God’s

3
Smith, Micah–Malachi, 93.
 11

promise that they “will live.” To understand Habakkuk’s application for the believing

reader, one must correctly interpret this verse.

The prophet himself must have understood the message. After God’s second

response, Habakkuk had no more questions or complaints. Instead, he responded with a

declaration of praise for and trust in God. Although the circumstances of life may call the

justice of God into question, the child of God has confidence in God’s character, so that

he is assured that God’s justice will be vindicated in the end. Thus, he is able not only to

endure whatever trials come his way, but also to come through the trials with songs of

praise. Habakkuk underwent a dramatic change of outlook between the complaints of

chapter 1 and the psalm of chapter 3. He recognized that God’s ways are right, even when

he could not understand how they could be so. The message of Habakkuk is that this

same transformation is available to all those who have steadfast trust in God.4

Context of Habakkuk 2:4

Habakkuk 2:4 comes in the midst of God’s response to Habakkuk’s second

complaint. In 2:2 God announces a vision. This vision was not intended only to answer

Habakkuk’s complaint, for Habakkuk is instructed to write it on tablets so that

messengers might run and spread the vision to the public at large (v. 2). According to

verse 3, this vision would not be fulfilled for some time, but its fulfillment was certain

and Habakkuk should wait for it. After this introductory explanation of the vision, verse 4

begins with . This particle should be understood as introducing the content of the

4
Ernst Wendland, “‘The Righteous Live by Their Faith’ in a Holy God:
Complementary Compositional Forces and Habakkuk’s Dialogue with the Lord,” Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 42/4 (December 1999): 611.
 12

vision itself.5 This term is often used as a “poetic introductory formula,” implying that a

new thought is beginning. Thus verse 4 is connected more closely with what follows than

with what precedes.6 Verses 4 and 5 contrast the righteous and the wicked. The precise

nature of this contrast will be explored in the following exegesis of verse 4. Verses 6–20

announce five woes against the Chaldean oppressors. The wicked nation Babylon will be

used as God’s instrument to punish Judah, but the Babylonians will not escape

punishment themselves. God will demonstrate His justice against the Chaldeans, and He

will reign supreme.

This understanding of the context is not universal. Indeed, a number of textual

problems and interpretive difficulties have led many scholars to suggest textual

emendations and alternative interpretations. For example, J. J. M. Roberts disagrees with

the assertion that the vision begins in verse 4. He sees a contrast between two different

responses to the vision beginning in verse 4, while the vision itself is recorded in 3:3–15.7

This section of chapter 3 may seem like the type of vision one would expect, but

Roberts’s understanding does violence to the context of Habakkuk, for 3:1 explicitly

states that what follows is “a prayer of Habakkuk,” not a revelation from God.

5
Robertson, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 174.
6
Richard D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Wycliffe Exegetical
Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 214.
7
J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary, Old
Testament Library (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), 81, 111.
 13

Gerald Janzen emends " (“still, yet”) in verse 3 to " # (“witness”).8 He does

this to parallel $# , which he understands as a noun meaning “witness, testifier.” This

term has traditionally been understood as a verb meaning “pants,” or, figuratively,

“hastens” (NASB). Janzen’s understanding is based on the word $ found in Proverbs

6:19; 14:5, 25; 19:5, 9; 12:17.9 However, it is not certain that this word is a noun in these

verses, nor is it certain that Habakkuk used the same noun, if it is indeed a noun. Janzen

translates 2:3 as “The vision is a witness to an appointed time, a testifier to the end—it

does not lie.”10 This translation need not greatly change one’s understanding of verse 4;

however, Janzen’s perspective results in a collocation of four key words also used in

Proverbs, three in verse 3 (" ,# $# , %&' )( and one in verse 4 ( ). Janzen asserts

that this collocation implies that in verse 4 refers to the vision, not to the

righteous ( ).11 If verse 4 focuses on the vision, this changes how one understands

the passage.

Patterson responds to Janzen, “Only one of the key terms of Hab. 2:4 is actually

used in these citations in Proverbs. . . . Janzen’s three key terms of v. 3 never occur with

8
J. Gerald Janzen, “Habakkuk 2:2–4 in the Light of Recent Philological
Advances,” Harvard Theological Review 73/1–2 (January–April 1980): 55–56.

9
In Proverbs 14:25 it is spelled $.
10
Janzen, “Habakkuk 2:2–4,” 57.
11
Ibid., 61.
 14

. Thus in the six passages in Proverbs all four terms necessary to Janzen’s theory

occur in some form only once.”12 Moreover, there is no manuscript support for Janzen’s

emendation of " to " ,# and the method of pattern recognition Janzen uses to support

his emendation (i.e., parallels in Proverbs) is questionable.13 Thus, there is no need to

connect verse 4 to verses 2–3 as Janzen does.

Rikki Watts also sees a connection between verses 2–3 and verse 4, but he does

not use Janzen’s arguments. Watts notes that verse 4a relates to verses 5–20, and so he

suggests that verse 4 is “an inverted hinge, A-b'-a'-B, where 2:4a (b') anticipates the fate

of the arrogant in 2:5ff. (B) while 2:4b (a')—and this is the important point—looks back

to the vision of 2:2–3 (A).”14 He uses this hinge structure to argue that verse 4b refers to

the reliability of the vision.15 His reasoning seems circular; the presence of the hinge

depends on the connection between verses 2–3 and verse 4b, while the connection

between these verses is supported by the hinge structure. Verses 5–20 are connected to

verse 4 by means of !)* +(, but at the beginning of verse 4 seems to separate

verses 2–3 from verse 4. Thus, the presence of the hinge structure is not certain.

12
Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 213.
13
Walter E. Rast, “Habakkuk and Justification by Faith,” Currents in Theology
and Mission 10/3 (June 1983): 172 n. 10.
14
Rikki E. Watts, “‘For I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel’: Romans 1:16–17 and
Habakkuk 2:4,” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on
the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, 3–25 (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 11.
15
Ibid., 13.
 15

Habakkuk 2:4

Not surprisingly, scholarly debate regarding this verse has been very lively.

Referring to Habakkuk 2:1–5, Ralph Smith writes, “There is no more important passage

in Habakkuk than this one, and few in the OT more significant because of the later use of

it by the apostle Paul and Martin Luther.”16 Almost every word in Habakkuk 2:4 is

disputed. Some suggest textual emendations, while others propose novel interpretations

of the text as it stands. For convenience, the Hebrew text is provided below:

) ) +() ) $ ), - . ) ) )

God’s Characterization of the Wicked

The first problem is the second word of the verse: . As it stands in the

Masoretic Text, this term is a pual, perfect, third-person, feminine, singular verb. The

only other occurrence of this verb root is in Numbers 14:44, where the hiphil is used, so

Habakkuk 2:4 would have the only occurrence of the pual of this verb. Furthermore, the

only noun in the clause is $ ,, which is the subject of the verb . If this noun is the

subject of both verbs, then this verse does not explicitly define the referent of the third-

person, masculine, singular suffix on $ ., Thus, it appears that the main character in
verse 4a is not identified. This lack of a subject has led scholars to a variety of theories.17

16
Smith, Micah–Malachi, 105.
17
As will be seen below, this is not really a problem. The contrast between verses
4a and 4b defines the antecedent of the pronominal suffix in 4a as the opposite of "
in 4b. In this context, 4a is referring to the Chaldeans. Note the comments of Marvin
 16

Emendation of

The first word of this verse ( ) has been discussed above. It is a common

introductory particle. However, some scholars believe the subject of the clause should be

found here. P. J. M. Southwell suggests that should be re-pointed as /. (cf. Ezek

7:11) or perhaps the hypothetical form / ., either one from the root /+ .18 There is
slight evidence for this root in Hebrew, and there is a related Arabic root meaning “be

high.” So Southwell conjectures that this is the subject and translates “the eminent

man.”19 However, the lack of definitive lexical evidence and the complete lack of

manuscript support make Southwell’s theory untenable.

Insertion of a subject

Smith also believes that “the text has probably suffered some corruption in

transmission across the years.” He suggests, “The easiest solution (which is not

Sweeney: “The 3rd person singular verbs and pronoun suffixes in v. 4a do not require an
antecedent in this verse. A similar case appears in i 12b where pronouns lacking an
immediate antecedent are used to refer to Chaldea. Furthermore, i 13 associates Chaldea
with the wicked in contrast to the righteous, which has obvious implications for
understanding the contrast of the arrogant figure of v. 4a with the righteous figure of v.
4b” (Marvin A. Sweeney, “Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk,” Vetus
Testamentum 41/1 [January 1991]: 75–76).
18
P. J. M. Southwell, “A Note on Habakkuk ii.4,” Journal of Theological Studies,
n.s., 19/2 (October 1968): 616.
19
Ibid., 617.
 17

necessarily the best) is to insert ‘the evildoer’ as the subject.”20 William Brownlee

also sees a missing subject in Habakkuk 2:4a, because of metrical concerns. The current

text of verse 4 has 2 beats, 3 beats, and 3 beats, but if there were a subject in the first part,

it would have 3/3/3.21 If “the wicked,” “the unjust,” or something similar should be

inserted as the subject, then why is the first verb of feminine gender? It seems preferable

to take $ , as the subject of both verbs. Moreover, changing the consonantal text
(inserting a whole word, in this case) is a very subjective exercise. If the exegete can

make sense of the Masoretic Text, this text should be accepted.

Emendation of

J. A. Emerton suggests other changes. He expects a statement about the

punishment of the eminent man, in order to contrast with the promise of life for the

righteous man in verse 4b. This lack of contrast with the destiny of the righteous leads

Emerton to reject all those theories that find a word for a blameworthy person in the

leading verb .22 There are a variety of theories that look for a reference to the

downfall of the wicked in this verb. Some transpose two characters to get the verb root

* (“to faint”). One might translate verse 4a: “Behold, he whose soul in not upright in

20
Smith, Micah–Malachi, 106.
21
William H. Brownlee, “The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk,” Journal of
Biblical Literature 82 (1963): 322.
22
J. A. Emerton, “The Textual and Linguistic Problems of Habakkuk II. 4–5,”
Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., 28/1 (April 1977): 14.
 18

him shall fail.”23 Roberts notes that verse 3 commands one to wait for the fulfillment of

the vision, so he expects verse 4 to express something about a failure to wait. He suggests

the roots * , * , or * , “all of which imply exhaustion, weariness, or fainting away.

Based on the idiom in Jer. 4:31, one could read the qal masculine singular participle of

‘yp and obtain an appropriate sense without changing the consonantal text: hinn h ‘ p

l h, ‘Now the one who faints before it. . . .’”24 This approach finds support in some Greek

versions, including the Septuagint, Aquila, and the Palestinian recension.25 However,

Carl Armerding noted, “The MT remains the preferable reading here. The difficulty of its

rare verbal form and the lack of clear parallelism with v. 4b explain the variants, whose

renderings are suggested by the interchange of a single root consonant.”26

Emerton still believes something like this would be the best solution, although he

suggests the root * (“to fly”) with the word division and pointing )0 * , first the qal

active participle of * , where “fly” is used in the sense of “perish” (cf. Ps 90:10), and

second “a preposition with the third person masculine singular pronominal suffix, written

23
Ibid., 15.
24
Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 106–7.
25
William H. Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from
Qumran, Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 11 (Philadelphia: Society of
Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1959), 43.
26
Carl E. Armerding, “Habakkuk,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12
vols., ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, 7:491–534 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1976–92),
7:514.
 19

in an archaic way with he instead of waw and serving as an ethic dative.”27 This theory

lacks the support of both the Hebrew manuscripts and the versions.

Referring all of verse 4 to the righteous

A. S. van der Woude has an interesting approach to verses 4–5. The !)* +( at
the beginning of verse 5 is traditionally understood as continuing the statement in verse 4

in the sense of “furthermore” (NASB) or “moreover” (ESV). Van der Woude interprets

this as introducing the conclusion of an argument from the lesser to the greater.28 If this is

the case, then verse 4 must refer only to the righteous, while verse 5 picks up the

godless.29 After receiving feedback on his 1966 article, in 1970 van der Woude wrote

another article in which he interpreted verse 4 as a rhetorical question: “Wenn

leichtsinnig, nicht recht seine Seele in ihn ist, wird dann der Gerechte durch seine Treue

leben?”30 The answer, of course, is “no” (cf. Ezek 33:12). Former faithfulness will not

save the righteous man if he sins. According to van der Woude, verse 5 goes on to say,

27
Emerton, “Habakkuk II. 4–5,” 16.
28
A. S. van der Woude, “Der Gerecht wird durch seine Treue leben: Erwagungen
zu Habakuk 2:4–5,” in Studia Biblica et Semitica: Theodore Christiano Vriezen dedicate,
ed. W. C. van Unnik and A. S. van der Woude, 367–75 (Wageningen, Neth.: H. Veenman
en Zonen, 1966), 367.
29
Ibid., 368.
30
A. S. van der Woude, “Habakuk 2 4,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 82 (1970): 282. The question could be translated, “If his soul is careless, not
right in him, will then the righteous live by his faithfulness?” The translation of
leichtsinnig as “careless” probably is too weak in this context. Careless in the sense of
“heedless,” or perhaps even “foolish,” probably is intended. However one translates it,
van der Woude sees verse 4a as a reference to unrighteousness.
 20

“How much less for the unfaithful.” He then makes one emendation, changing 1 2,

(“wine”) in verse 5 to a form of the verb 1+ , which he sees as synonymous with $

(cf. Deut 1:41 with Num 14:44).31

Emerton rejects van der Woude’s theory. On the positive side, van der Woude

does not change the Masoretic Text of verse 4, and he makes only a small change to verse

5 to make sense of the passage.32 However, this makes verses 4–5 a weak argument that

does not really answer Habakkuk’s complaint. Also, why should the sin of being

“leichtsinnig” be singled out?33 It is also noteworthy that !)* in such an argument in

the Old Testament means “how much more” after a positive clause or “how much less”

after a negative clause.34 Van der Woude wants these terms to mean “how much less”

after a positive clause.

Insertion of a verb

James Scott also sees 2:4–5a as an argument from the lesser to the greater. He

argues that is the masculine noun $ 3 with the local termination, referring to a

place: Ophel, the hill of Jerusalem. He lists two problems with this interpretation: “that -â

31
Van der Woude, “Der Gerecht wird durch seine Treue leben,” 372 n. 1.
32
Emerton, “Habakkuk II. 4–5,” 12.
33
Ibid., 13.
34
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner et al., eds., The Hebrew and Aramaic
Lexicon of the Old Testament, 5 vols. (Leiden, Neth.: E. J. Brill, 1994–2000), 1:76, s.v.
* . Hereafter, HALOT.
 21

locale is only rarely tonic (GKC 90 c, i) and that the daghesh forte is unaccounted

for.”35 If Scott is correct, then verse 4 is missing a verb, and so he thinks it has elided (as

part of the argument from the lesser to the greater). He picks up the verb from verse 5:

+ ( , which he understands as “to be laid waste, destroyed,” based on a possible

Babylonian cognate.36 His translation is: “If indeed Ophel [will be laid waste], unless its

people are upright in it—now the righteous (nation) will live (with divine prosperity in

the land) by means of its trustworthiness—how much more will the wine deal

treacherously, and will not (the) haughty man be destroyed?”37 This is a novel approach,

but Scott provides his own critique; it is not likely that is a reference to Ophel.

Moreover, none of the ancient versions or commentators seem to have understood it in

this way.

Accepting the Masoretic Text

These examples of the various theories of emendation demonstrate the subjective

nature of this approach. Instead, it is better to follow the Masoretic Text. Patterson

provides three reasons for this: (1) The canon of textual criticism to “prefer the more

difficult reading” favors the Masoretic Text. (2) The reading of the commentary on

35
James M. Scott, “A New Approach to Habakkuk II 4–5A,” Vetus Testamentum
35/3 (July 1985): 331.
36
Ibid., 332–33.
37
Ibid., 340. Note that Scott sees Ophel as a reference to Judah (ibid., 334) and
“wine” as a reference to the Chaldeans (ibid., 338).
 22

Habakkuk from Qumran (1QpHab) supports the Masoretic Text.38 (3) “The traditional

text, though obscure, can be explained.”39

The meaning of

Although is the only occurrence of the pual of this verb, its meaning can

be inferred from cognate terms. The noun $ 3 is used for a swelling of tissue, such as a
boil or tumor, in Deuteronomy 28:27; 1 Samuel 5:6, 9, 12; 6:4–5. The term is also used

for a hill, which is like a swelling of the earth. It is also a proper name for a hill in

Jerusalem.40 Robertson understands the term as a reference to the proud, who “are

‘puffed up,’ ‘bloated,’ or even ‘tumorous.’”41 However, this term is a verb, and one

should not interpret it as a noun unless necessary.

Patterson understands as a predicate adjective before a relative clause with

omitted particle: “Arrogant is the one whose desires are not upright.” The syntax would

be similar to that of Isaiah 41:24. Patterson says, “On the whole this seems the easiest

38
See also Brownlee, Text of Habakkuk, 43: “ $+ at vii.14 [in 1QpHab]
confirms both text and vocalization of MT 2:4 $ .”

39
Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 216. The Masoretic Text is also
supported by Waldemar N. Neufeld, “An Exegetical and Theological Study of Habakkuk
2:4–5” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1990, text-fiche), 15–29.
40
HALOT, 2:861.
41
Robertson, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 174.
 23

solution and has OT literary precedent.”42 Once again, however, it is better to understand

this form as a verb.

Another scholar agrees with the meaning “puffed up” or “proud” and notes, “Such

characterization fits perfectly with the conceited persons about whom the prophet had

something to say at 1:7, 11, 13.”43 Indeed, this term seems to refer to the opposite of the

in the second half of the verse. Thus it should mean something like “heedless,”

“puffed up,” or “presumptuous.”44 With this meaning in mind, makes sense as a

feminine verb with the feminine noun (with suffix) $ , as the subject.45 The reference
of the pronominal suffix is not mentioned in verse 4a, but C. F. Keil notes his identity

“may be inferred from the prophet’s question in ch. 1:12–17. The Chaldaean is meant.

His soul is puffed up.”46

42
Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 217.
43
Széles, Wrath and Mercy, 30–31.
44
Donald E. Gowan, The Triumph of Faith in Habakkuk (Atlanta: John Knox,
1976), 42.

45
$ ), is also the subject of. “It is unusual to have two verbs with a
common (delayed) subject, although it sometimes happens with coordinated verbs”
(Francis I. Andersen, Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary,
Anchor Bible [New York: Doubleday, 2001], 209).
46
C. F. Keil, “Habakkuk,” in Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols., by C.
F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, trans. James Martin, 385–429 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–
91; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 10:401. Similarly, “The suffix ‘his’
evidently refers to the Babylonians in continuity with 1:2–2:1” (Armerding, “Habakkuk,”
7:512).
 24

Francis Andersen suggests that usually has the “function of drawing

attention to something actually present.” In this case, the person with a “puffed up” $
“should be identifiable as a participant in the situation. We probably have here an

instance of delayed identification of the participant.” He notes that “the nearest eligible

noun” is "4 in verse 5.47 However, this participle expresses the verbal idea of its

clause, the subject being ) %5 (“proud man”). In the context, verses 5–20 certainly
refer to the Chaldeans, so Andersen’s observations amount to the same thing as Keil’s.

The meaning of

An additional statement is made about the $ of the proud Chaldean: it is not

. This verb refers to something that is straight or smooth. It is commonly

understood in an ethical sense. For example, the one version translates the clause as “His

soul is not right within him.”48 Janzen objects to this understanding: “For all its

familiarity and its apparent idiomatic naturalness, the customary rendering ‘his soul is not

upright in him’ is really quite unnatural in Hebrew; indeed, it is so unlikely as to be an

impossible or at least an outlandish rendering.” He offers two reasons: (1) There is no

analogy for a stative use of this verb to describe someone’s $ . Nominal and adjectival
forms of this root can mean “upright,” but the verb indicates locomotion along a path or

47
Andersen, Habakkuk, 209–10.
48
Unless otherwise noted, English translations will be from the New American
Standard Bible, updated edition (Anaheim, Calif.: Foundation Publications, 1995).
 25

making a path straight (literally or figuratively). (2) “Nonverbal forms of the root yšr

elsewhere never qualify the noun nepeš is an ethical-religious sense.”49 If Habakkuk had

meant this, one would expect % # or %% ,# not $ .50 Janzen’s solution is to emend

to # (“sluggard”).51 He translates 2:4a: “As for the sluggard, his soul does not

go straight on in it” (“it” refering to the “vision” of verse 3).52 Roberts accepts Janzen’s

arguments and has a similar translation.53 He claims that the construction “is used to

express consistent, unwavering movement along a certain path.” He concludes,

“Habakkuk’s meaning is that the fainthearted individual will turn aside from a manner of

life consistent with the message of the vision; he or she will not continue to walk straight

and unwaveringly in its light.”54 However, as argued above, neither textual emendation

nor the connection of the “vision” with verse 4 are commendable.

Haak suggests that no moral judgment is being made, but the nuance of the verb is

“free of obstacles, straight.”55 He understands $ as having the literal meaning “throat,

gullet” here; indeed, this is the way it is used in the next verse. “The oracle ends by

49
Janzen, “Habakkuk 2:2–4,” 63.
50
Ibid., 64.
51
Ibid., 67.
52
Ibid., 68.
53
Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 105, 107.
54
Ibid., 111.
55
Haak, Habakkuk, 58.
 26

stating that the ‘throat,’ which Habakkuk has depicted as insatiable (1:13–17), will be

swollen (shut) and will not be ‘free of obstacles.’”56 L. Alonso-Sch kel understands this

verse to say that “his neck is distended and stretched not by nature but because he has

tried to swallow too much . . . in our case his throat or appetite will be unsuccessful (as v.

5a states); this stands in contrast to the life that is promised the righteous. In other words,

the glutton will choke on his intemperance.”57 However, it is not clear how this provides

a contrast with “the righteous will live” (v. 4b), and verse 5 states that the proud man will

eat and not be satisfied because his appetite is so large, not because his throat is swollen

shut. Thus the “furthermore” at the beginning of verse 5 would not make sense; it should

be something like “nevertheless, for the time being.”

Andersen also suggests that $ means the same thing in verses 4 and 5, but he

thinks that both parts of verse 4 refer to the vision: “his throat is twisted against it [the

vision],” but “the righteous man will live by means of its reliability.”58 Besides the fact

that it is unlikely that the pronominal suffixes of verse 4 refer to the vision of verse 3, it is

not entirely clear what twisting one’s throat against a vision means.

56
Ibid., 59.

57
L. Alonso-Sch kel and H. Ringgren, “ ,” in Theological Dictionary of the
Old Testament, 15 vols., ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef
Fabry, trans. John T. Willis et al., 6:463–72 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974–
2006), 6:471.
58
Andersen, Habakkuk, 208.
 27

Gowan believes that should be the opposite of “will live” in verse 4b, so he

translates “his life is unstable.”59 However, this does not seem to be the sense in which

this term was used. Moreover, it is not necessary to have exact parallels between 4a and

4b. The fact that the righteous “will live” implies that the unrighteous will not, even if

this is not explicitly stated. The fate of the unrighteous will be made clear in the “woe

oracles” of verses 6–20. Robertson notes that the proud person “cannot be upright in

himself,” and his pride means he will not look for “a righteousness outside himself.”60

Since the proud cannot be upright, “neither can they live. They must experience

condemnation and judgment. . . . The fact that their soul is not upright in them should be

an adequate indicator of their ultimate judgment.”61

Speaking of , Brownlee states, “The root idea in this figurative word is

‘level,’ not ‘vertical’—although the well-nigh universal English translation ‘upright’

would seem to suggest the latter. The verb is used for the leveling of hills and valleys in

Isa 40 3. In Hab 2 4, where levelness is antithetical to ‘puffed up,’ it is clear that the word

means humility.”62 He translates verse 4a, “Behold, the naughty is haughty; his soul is

not humble within him.”63 He summarizes verse 4: “Habakkuk’s ‘revelation’ represents

timeless truth: ‘Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.’ To see that this is
59
Gowan, Triumph of Faith, 43.
60
Robertson, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 174–75.
61
Ibid., 175.
62
Brownlee, “Placarded Revelation,” 325.
63
Ibid., 324.
 28

really true, Habakkuk was counseled to be patient and wait.”64 This is similar to Keil’s

assertion that “his soul is not straight” further explains .65

While it may be unparalleled for to be used with $ instead of % ,# the

similarity between the two terms in the moral realm would not make this usage

impossible. It is true that )is not used exclusively in a moral sense, but that is often

the case.66 In connection with the pride implied by and in contrast with the

in verse 4b, the translation “upright” fits the context.

Even if the precise nuance of verse 4a is debatable, the general meaning is plain.

The Chaldeans stand in sharp contrast with the righteous. They were proud and not

upright. They were self-confident and self-reliant; they had no regard for Yahweh. This is

the context of verse 4b, which must now be explored.

God’s Promise to the Righteous

Habakkuk 2:4b is the most famous and influential portion of this prophecy, and

yet it is only three words in Hebrew. This clause is disjunctive, which indicates contrast

in this case. The subject is (“the righteous one”).

64
Ibid., 325.
65
Keil, “Habakkuk,” 10:401.
66
Széles, Wrath and Mercy, 31.
 29

The meaning of

In the Old Testament, “righteousness” sometimes has the idea of judicial

standing. For example, Isaiah 5:23 pronounces a woe on those who “declare the wicked

righteous” ( ) # ). “Therefore, in its OT context righteousness should be

regarded first of all as a religious rather than an ethical term.”67 Gowan notes, “The just,

the righteous one, is the one who has been vindicated, whom God has declared to be

right. There is a legal background to this word; it denotes the winner in a case at law in

some of its Old Testament uses.”68

In Habakkuk 1:4, 13, the righteous are contrasted with the “wicked” ( ).

Patterson observes, “The righteous man . . . is the one who makes God’s righteous

standards his own and lives in accordance with them.”69 Deuteronomy 32:4 uses ,

, and in reference to God. Patterson claims, “Habakkuk’s bringing together of

these words is doubtless not accidental.”70 The righteous person will have the same

upright character as God, so righteousness in Habakkuk is less a legal standing and more

a way of life. Standing in contrast with the proud Chaldeans, the righteous referred to

here are pious Jews, who had not abandoned their God or His covenant, even as the rest

of the nation was ignoring God’s Law (Hab 1:4). Although Israel faced devastation at the

67
Robertson, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 175.
68
Gowan, Triumph of Faith, 41.
69
Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 219.
70
Ibid.
 30

hand of Babylon, God had a special plan for those who were right before Him. The rest

of Habakkuk 2:4b provides a promise to encourage the righteous during the coming

disaster.

The meaning of

The next word in verse 4 ( ) is the crux of the entire verse, especially as it

relates to the New Testament. There are three problems to be solved regarding this term:

textual, syntactical, and lexical.

Textual issue

The text of the Septuagint, Aquila, and the Old Latin imply a first-person,

singular, pronominal suffix (i.e., ) against the third-person of the Masoretic

Text. The word is no longer extant in 1QpHab, but “in the script of the scroll + and

could not have been distinguished.” However, the third-person suffix is confirmed by the

scroll’s interpretation “their faith” at viii.2. The Targum also supports the third person

(although plural), and the Palestinian recension agrees with the Masoretic Text against

the Septuagint.71 Thus, it seems that the Masoretic Text is preferable.

Syntactical issue

Regarding the syntax, one must decide if belongs with what precedes or

with what follows. The preposition should be understood as instrumental, indicating “by

71
Brownlee, Text of Habakkuk, 44.
 31

means of.”72 Thus, should the clause read, “The righteous-by-his- will live,” or

should it be, “The righteous will live-by-his- ”? Roberts, Haak, and Andersen

believe that the pronominal suffix refers to the vision of verse 3, in which case

clearly belongs with “will live.”73 However, the nearest antecedent for the suffix is ,

and there seems to be no reason to skip back to verse 3 to find the antecedent.74

Nevertheless, many scholars who understand the suffix as “his,” referring to the righteous

one, agree that should be connected with the verb.75 The Masoretic accents also

support this connection. Andersen notes, “The person destined to live is not made

righteous (right with God) by his trustful attitude. His righteousness, as least as far as the

book of Habakkuk is concerned, is a matter already established vis-à-vis the wicked (1:4)

and is the ground of the appeal to God for salvation—vindication.”76

According to Robertson, “This analysis is confirmed by the common pattern of

the compound sentence in Hebrew. In this structure, a subject appears first, preceding the

72
“The preposition % attached to is obviously instrumental” (George J.
Zemek, “Interpretive Challenges Relating to Habakkuk 2:4b,” Grace Theological Journal
1/1 [Spring 1980]: 54).
73
Roberts, Habakkuk, 107; Haak, Habakkuk, 59; Andersen, Habakkuk, 211.
74
Armerding asserts that the “righteous” is “the only plausible antecedent of
‘his’” (“Habakkuk,” 7:513).
75
Zemek, “Interpretive Challenges,” 54; Keil, “Habakkuk,” 10:402; Robertson,
Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 176–77.
76
Andersen, Habakkuk, 215.
 32

verbal clause (in contrast to the normal pattern in Hebrew). The subject is then followed

by an independent clause which often includes a retrospective suffix.”77 The “compound

sentence” terminology is that of Gesenius’s Hebrew grammar. Such a sentence consists

of the subject (which always precedes) and either an independent noun-clause or verbal-

clause.78 This construction is relatively common in the Old Testament, but is not

absolute in its clause; it makes perfect sense as the subject of the verb .79 However,

Robertson’s conclusion that modifies the verb instead of the noun

is correct, even if his reason is faulty.

77
Robertson, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 177.
78
Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2d ed., ed. and
enlarged E. Kautzsch, trans. and rev. A. E. Cowley (Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University
Press, 1910), 143. They also refer to this as “casus pendens” (ibid., 143.c–d), the
terminology used by Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2 vols., Subsidia
Biblica 14, trans. and rev. T. Muraoka (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991), 156.
This construction is called a “nominative absolute” by Bruce K. Waltke and M.
O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
1990), 4.7. They note, “The absolute may be associated as possessor with the subject of
the clause. . . . The absolute may also be associated as possessor with the direct object of
the clause. . . . The absolute may refer to the direct object of the clause or the object of a
prepositional phrase in the clause” (ibid., 4.7c). They do not note examples in which the
absolute is associated as possessor with the object of a prepositional phrase, as would be
the case in Habakkuk 2:4b. In fact, none of these three grammars cites examples with the
same construction as Habakkuk 2:4b.
79
Robertson finds support for a nominative absolute in verse 4b by seeing a
nominative absolute in the parallel clause of verse 4a as well (Robertson, Nahum,
Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 177). However, it has been argued above that (which
Robertson understands as a noun) should be understood as a verb, the subject of which is
$ ., Hence, the parallel breaks down.
 33

Lexical issue

The third problem regarding is lexical. The Hebrew word refers

to steadfastness, faithfulness, or honesty.80 However, many English translations render

this by “faith” in Habakkuk 2:4.81 The Hebrew verb based on the same root (1 ) is used

in the Old Testament in the niphal to denote “be faithful,” while in the hiphil this root

means “believe.” James Barr claims, “There is no word in the OT in Hebrew meaning

‘faith’ or ‘belief’; that is to say, there is no noun form representing nominally the act

indicated by [the hiphil of 1 ]—a fact that is widely known and acknowledged.”82

However, Barr notes, “Some would wish to make an exception of ’emûn h in the famous

place Hab. 2:4.”83

Barr acknowledges that did come to mean “faith, trust” in later Judaism,

and he cites 1QpHab as a possibility. He favors the translation “faith” in 1QpHab because

of the % preposition (which was used with the verb in the hiphil to signify “believe in”),

though he admits that “faithfulness” is possible.84 Brownlee translates the pesher on

Habakkuk 2:4b from 1QpHab in the following way: “Its prophetic meaning concerns all

80
HALOT, 1:62, s.v.) .

81
E.g., NASB, ESV, KJV, NIV, NKJV, NRSV.
82
James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, Eng.: Oxford
University Press, 1961), 173.
83
Ibid., 173 n. 1.
84
Ibid., 202.
 34

the doers of the Law in the house of Judah whom God will deliver from the house of

damnation, because of their patient suffering and their steadfast faith in the Teacher of

Right. [ "6 ) ) +].”85 He notes, “Because both faith and faithfulness are
required for the endurance of persecution, I have translated ‘because of their steadfast

faith.’”86 Fitzmyer, however, argues that) should be translated “faithfulness” in

this pesher, “not only because of the context which speaks of ‘the observers of the Law,’

but also because ’mntm is set in juxtaposition to ‘mlm, ‘their struggle,’ suggesting that the

former must have some meaning like ‘fidelity’ or ‘loyalty’ to the Teacher of

Righteousness.”87 Fitzmyer appears to be more faithful to the context.

Of course, the context of Habakkuk is much more important than the

understanding of Qumran. The classic defense of the translation “faith” in Habakkuk 2:4b

85
William H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, Society of Biblical
Literature Monograph Series 24 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979), 125.
86
Ibid., 128; emphasis original. Brownlee continues, “That the idea of faith is not
to be excluded from the passage is reinforced by the Targum which seems to represent a
stage of interpretation behind 1QpHab: ‘Behold, the wicked say in their heart all these
things are not [to be]; but the righteous, because of their truth, shall survive.’ Since the
‘truth’ of the righteous stands in antithesis to the denial of the prophetic message on the
part of the wicked, it seems probable that the Targum interprets ’emûn h as an
affirmation of the prophetic message. The next development beyond faith in the prophets
would be faith in the inspired interpreter of the prophets. This is the stage of
understanding reached by 1QpHab. After this, the next development in the evolution of
interpretation would be faith in the one who fulfils all prophecy. This last stage is
represented by the New Testament” (ibid., 129). His hypothesis of evolution is
questionable.
87
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Habakkuk 2:3–4 and the New Testament,” in De la Tôrah
au Messie: Mélanges Henri Cazelles, ed. Joseph Doré, Pierre Grelot, and Maurice Carrez
(Paris: Desclée, 1981), 452–53.
 35

was provided by B. B. Warfield. He admits, “No hiphilate noun from this root [1 ]

occurs in the Old Testament,” but he observes that this need not be significant, since the

concepts of “faith” and “faithfulness” are similar; in fact, in some languages the same

term is used for both (the Greek , for example). 88 Warfield continues, “As a matter

of fact, however, ‘faith,’ in its active sense, can barely be accounted an Old Testament

term. . . . It would seem to be really demanded in no passage but Hab. ii. 4.”89 The term

appears 49 times in the Old Testament, and Warfield argues that it means “faith”

only once. One would need some very strong contextual reasons to support this

conclusion. Warfield notes the sharp contrast in Habakkuk 2:4 between “arrogant self-

sufficiency and faithful dependence on God.” He argues that the broader context supports

this understanding: “Throughout this prophecy the Chaldæan is ever exhibited as the type

of insolent self-assertion (i. 7, 11, 16), in contrast with which the righteous appear,

certainly not as men of integrity and steadfast faithfulness, but as men who look in faith

to God and trustingly depend upon His arm.” He believes the “obvious” allusion to

Genesis 15:6 supports this assertion as well.90 The only other use of the 1 root in

Habakkuk is the hiphil verb in 1:5, meaning “believe,” so the idea of belief is in the

broader context.

88
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “Faith,” in Biblical and Theological Studies,
ed. Samuel G. Craig, 404–44 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1952),
430.
89
Ibid., 431.
90
Ibid.
 36

As Warfield mentions, Genesis 15:6 has a number of parallels with Habakkuk

2:4b. The text of Genesis 15:6 states: " ) 7) % 2,+), + )1 +( (“and he

believed in Yahweh, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness”). Two of the three roots

used in Habakkuk 2:4b are found in Genesis 15:6— " and 1 , so Habakkuk may

have remembered this verse when God said ) ) +(.91

Habakkuk may also have been reminded of a prophecy from decades earlier found

in Isaiah 7:9. Ahaz, king of Judah, was facing invasion by the kings of Aram and Israel,

so God sent Isaiah to assure him that they would not succeed. At the end of this assurance

(which is similar to the assurance that Habakkuk was seeking), God made the interesting

comment # )# . ) !) 8 ) . ) (“If you will not believe [hiphil of 1 ], you

will certainly not endure [niphal of 1 ]”). Isaiah is essentially telling Ahaz, “You will

live if you believe.”

91
A complete discussion of Genesis 15:6 is beyond the scope of this thesis.
However, it should be noted that using this verse to interpret Habakkuk 2:4 requires one
to assume that the roots " and 1 mean essentially the same thing in both passages.
However, as is noted above, " can denote either a legal standing or a way of life, and
the 1 word group can refer to believing or reliability. Moreover, one must understand
Genesis 15:6 in the Pauline sense in order to use it to interpret Habakkuk 2:4 in the
Pauline sense. In the context of this thesis, it is inappropriate to assume that Paul provides
the grammatical-historical interpretation of either verse when he cites them in his epistles
to Rome and Galatia. In fact, one may wonder whether the connection between Genesis
15:6 and Habakkuk 2:4 is “obvious” only to those who have seen them closely related by
Paul in these two letters. For an introduction to the interpretive issues related to Genesis
15:6, see David J. Reimer, “ " ,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament
Theology and Exegesis, 5 vols., ed. Willem A. VanGemeren, 3:744–69 (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Zondervan, 1997), 3:753–54.
 37

Rast also supports this understanding of Habakkuk 2:4b. In verse 3, Habakkuk

was told to wait for the vision’s fulfillment. The righteous one needed to hold on before

the oppressor was dealt with. Rast comments, “This holding on would be the most

genuine expression of the righteous one’s life. In this sense ’ mûnâh is not adequately

translated by ‘faithfulness’ alone, which would stress that the future possibilities would

pivot around the saddîq himself.” Rast admits that faithfulness is also implied, especially

when one remembers 1:4, which says that the Law was being ignored. Rast continues,

“But the thrust of the second oracle is toward an anticipated outcome, delayed for the

moment but assuredly to come about, when God would act anew. Living toward that

promised action seems to be the strength of the word ’ mûnâh here.”92

Keil argues that in the noun the primary meanings of both the niphal and

hiphil of the verb 1 are combined. He notes Nehemiah 9:8, where Abraham is

described with the niphal participle in reference to what is affirmed of him in Genesis

15:6 using the hiphil perfect. He also sees an allusion to Genesis 15:6 in Habakkuk 2:4.

He claims that the context of Habakkuk supports his understanding. Habakkuk was to

wait for the oracle to be fulfilled, and so he needed a “faith which adheres faithfully to

God.” Also, is contrasted with the pride of the Chaldeans (i.e., self-sufficiency),

so it should indicate reliance on God, not just integrity. Keil believes that the Greek

(found in the Septuagint, for example) is a good rendering.93

92
Rast, “Habakkuk,” 173.
93
Keil, “Habakkuk,” 10:402.
 38

Robertson also argues for the translation “faith.” He believes that the term

does not refer to steadfast deeds/works in this context—it must be steadfast faith.

“Continuation in trust alone can assure continued possession of the gift of life.”94 He

adds, “Too quickly, it seems, have exegetes been ready to identify the meaning of this

term exclusively with ‘faithfulness.’ But a careful consideration of the OT contexts in

which the term occurs indicates that ‘trust’ or ‘faith’ may well explain its usage at several

points.”95 He concludes, “In the context of Habakkuk, when considered in the light of

Gen. 15:6, it is ‘steadfast trust’ in God that is the way the gift of life must be received.

This way contrasts with all arrogance and boastfulness.”96

Széles agrees with this understanding: “The term ’emunah is used here for ‘faith.’

In the OT the meaning of the verb ’aman from which it derives defines its

significance.”97 She continues, “The verb thus brings together both the passive and the

active aspects of human behavior toward God—confidence, steadfastness, resoluteness,

trust, obedience, peace of mind, assurance, knowing that one is being looked after. So

’emunah means all these things.”98

94
Robertson, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 179.
95
Ibid., 180. Robertson suggests Psalm 119:29–30 and Proverbs 12:17 (both of
these having contrasts with “falsehood”); Proverbs 28:20; Psalm 31:24; 37:3 as places
where “faith” may be an appropriate rendering.
96
Ibid., 181.
97
Széles, Wrath and Mercy, 31.
98
Ibid., 32.
 39

How did Habakkuk himself understand God’s pronouncement in Habakkuk 2:4b?

Chapter 3 records Habakkuk’s response. Does his psalm reflect faithfulness or faith? In

verse 2 Habakkuk gives his response to hearing the report about Yahweh: (“I

fear”). In verses 3–15 Habakkuk exalts the Lord’s person and works, but there is no

mention of God’s Word, Law, or covenant. When in verses 16–17 Habakkuk

acknowledges the distress to come upon Judah, his response is not, “Thus I will be

faithful to God, as he told me.” Instead, he responds, “Yet I will exult in the LORD, I will

rejoice in the God of my salvation” (v. 18). Commenting on chapter 3 Wendland

remarks, “Habakkuk provides in these words his own, faith-based resolution for the

problematic theological issue that he raised at the very beginning of the book (1:2–4).”99

Habakkuk responded to the vision of chapter 2 with faith.

However, given the lexical evidence from the rest of the Old Testament regarding

, one wonders why anyone would ever think to argue that it means “faith” in

Habakkuk 2:4. Of course, the idea of faith is generally understood in Paul’s uses of this

verse in the New Testament, but if Paul had never quoted Habakkuk 2:4, it is doubtful

that any of the arguments cited above would ever have been made. The exegete is in

danger of reading the New Testament into the Old Testament, an invalid hermeneutical

principle.100 If God did say, “The righteous will live by his faithfulness,” Habakkuk

99
Wendland, “‘The Righteous Live by Their Faith,’” 609.
100
Mark Seirid remarks, “Modern translations regularly read Paul’s usage into the
Hebrew text, so that ’ mûnâ is translated as ‘faith’ in Hab. 2:4 (e.g., NRSV, NIV, NASB,
ESV). But this rendering is illegitimate, as ’ mûnâ signifies fidelity, reliability, or
faithfulness” (Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of
 40

would not have been surprised. This type of statement is thoroughly consistent with the

Old Testament context in which Habakkuk lived.

Indeed, many scholars argue for the translation “faithfulness” in Habakkuk 2:4b.

Neufeld notes a connection between verses 4 and 5. Since verse 5 emphasizes conduct,

this suggests that conduct is referred to in verse 4 as well. Thus, “faithfulness” is a better

translation than “faith.”101 Smith also translates: “but the righteous shall live by his

faithfulness.”102 He comments, “Habakkuk was to wait in faith for God to act. . . . But

Habakkuk was not to wait with folded hands and bated breath for all this to happen. He

was to live a life of faithfulness (v 4). The evil one is puffed up with pride and he will fall

(vv 4, 5), but the righteous will live by being faithful to his covenant with God.”103

Moberly states emphatically, “In an OT context, however, ‘his faithfulness’ is

clearly preferable.”104 The term often is associated with the character of Yahweh

in the Old Testament. Since God requires imitation, His people must be faithful, too.

Similarly, Armerding remarks, “The clause is thus expressing the Lord’s demand for a

righteousness that is pursued steadfastly from the heart, without vacillation,

the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 607–94 [Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Academic, 2007], 609).
101
Neufeld, “Habakkuk 2:4–5,” 35.
102
Smith, Micah–Malachi, 105.
103
Ibid., 107.
104
R. W. L. Moberly, “1 ,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament
Theology and Exegesis, 5 vols., ed. Willem A. VanGemeren, 1:427–33 (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Zondervan, 1997), 1:430.
 41

doublemindedness, or hypocrisy—its outcome being life. Such a meaning is conveyed

more precisely by the noun ‘faithfulness.’”105

Commenting on Habakkuk 2:4, Alfred Jepsen asserts that “is that conduct

which is in accordance with ’emeth, which includes sincerity, faithfulness, reliability, and

stability. Such ’emunah is peculiar to the tsaddiq and brings him to life. Of course, this

sentence should not be isolated from its context. 2:4 is the antecedent of v. 5, and does

not refer to the faith of the prophet.”106 Furthermore, Marvin Sweeney argues that

“reliability” or “steadfastness” provides the needed contrast between the stability of the

righteous in verse 4b and the instability of the arrogant man in verse 4a.107

An important question to consider is whether “faith in” and “faithfulness to” are

really very different in the biblical perspective. Armerding writes, “The discrepancy

between ‘faith’ and ‘faithfulness’ is more apparent than real, however. For man to be

faithful in righteousness entails dependent trust in relation to God; such an attitude is

clearly demanded in the present context of waiting for deliverance (2:3; 3:16–19). And

‘faith’ implies obedient commitment no less than trust.”108 Patterson notes a similar

105
Armerding, “Habakkuk,” 7:513.

106
Alfred Jepsen, “1 ,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 15
vols., ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. John
T. Willis et al., 1:292–323 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974–2006), 1:318.
107
Sweeney, “Structure, Genre, and Intent in Habakkuk,” 76. Note also how verse
5a reinforces the image of instability for the wicked with references to 1 ,, "4%, and +
(ibid.).
108
Armerding, “Habakkuk,” 7:513. Similarly, Gowan claims that the concepts of
“faith” and “faithfulness” cannot be separated (Triumph of Faith, 43).
 42

overlap between faith and faithfulness: “The LXX translators and the Hebrew author

have the same perspective: faith and faithfulness can be viewed as aspects of a living

reality—he who has faith will be faithful.”109 Because of the connection with Genesis

15:6, “the force of the words accordingly becomes all the stronger: a genuinely righteous

man will live out his faith in faithful activity.”110 James 2:14–26 emphatically states that

living faith is faithful faith. While a translation such as “steadfast faith” for in

Habakkuk 2:4b puts too much emphasis on faith, the faithfulness implied by the term is

surely a “faith-full faithfulness.” Nevertheless, the term places more emphasis on

faithfulness.

The meaning of

The verb in this verse is (“will live”). There are various ways to understand

this verb in this context. Does it mean that the righteous will survive the devastation to be

wrought by the Chaldeans? Does it mean that the righteous will “really live,” as opposed

to the mere existence of the wicked? Does it mean that the righteous will experience

eternal life? Mere survival may well have been on Habakkuk’s mind. That certainly

would have been a concern when God announced that Babylon would attack Judah.

Robertson writes, “Standing in sharpest contradiction to the ‘proud’ who are ‘not upright’

in themselves and therefore must die, the one who trusts God’s grace for his existence

109
Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 221.
110
Ibid., 222.
 43

every moment shall live. He shall survive the devastations of God’s judgment.”111

Similarly, Moberly states, “Yahweh . . . indicates that the only way for those committed

to him to survive the coming disaster is to maintain personal integrity or

‘faithfulness.’”112 However, Habakkuk’s complaint in chapter 1 was not about his own

survival; he was concerned about the vindication of God’s justice. God’s justice is not

always evident in the short term, and so this vindication comes from a long-term

perspective.113

Gowan observes that living was more than mere existence to the ancient Hebrews.

“One is not really alive when sick, weak, in danger or with a damaged reputation. To be

alive is to have vigor, security and honor. So this verse does not merely tell us how we

can barely hang on to some feeble thread of existence in times such as Habakkuk

111
Robertson, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 178.

112
Moberly, “1 ,” 1:430.

113
Furthermore, the final fulfillment of God’s judgment against Babylon did not
take place until several decades after Habakkuk 2:4 was written. By this time, many of
the righteous of Habakkuk’s day would have died a natural death, even if they had
survived the Babylonian invasion. If Habakkuk 2:4 provided hope only for this life, then
many righteous passed away before they saw God’s judgment of the wicked. Moreover,
one may wonder whether all the righteous of Judah really did survive the Babylonian
invasion. Certainly many did (such as Daniel, who was taken from the land, and
Jeremiah, who remained in the land). However, is it necessary to believe that no
righteous person perished during this time? On the other hand, Jeremiah 21:9; 38:2, 17
promises survival to anyone in Jerusalem who would go out to the Chaldeans (using the
same verb, , used in Hab 2:4). In this case, if a righteous person heard Jeremiah and
faithfully listened to him, then he could escape with his life. The same offer of life may
have been available to other faithful Israelites outside of Jerusalem.
 44

describes; no, it speaks of being richly and fully alive.”114 Gowan finds support for this

perspective in Habakkuk 3:17–19, where Habakkuk says that even when things get very

bad (v. 17), he still will praise the Lord (v. 18), since “the Lord GOD is my strength, and

He has made my feet like hinds’ feet, and makes me walk on my high places” (v. 19).

Habakkuk was looking not for mere survival, but for “abundant life.” Of course, what

Habakkuk may have wanted and what God promised in 2:4 may be different. Indeed,

3:17 implies that Habakkuk expected devastation, not abundant life.

Could God have meant more than temporal life when He promised Habakkuk that

the righteous would live? Wendland notes that Habakkuk did not explicitly state a belief

in life after death. However, “it seems to be definitely implied within the universal,

cosmic, and everlasting framework of divine justice that is so poetically expressed in

chaps. 2–3, for example, in passages such as 2:3, 2:14, and 3:17–18.”115 Wendland

believes it was typical of the prophets to convey the notion of an afterlife in “concrete,

down-to-earth imagery.” He finds many examples in the prophet Isaiah (2:1–5; 9:6–7;

11:1–16; 25:1–12; 27:1–13; 42:1–9; 49:1–7; 54–56; 60–62; 65:17–25). Wendland

continues, “The ‘good news’ of Habakkuk was undoubtedly based upon and presupposed

the more elaborate message of his prophetic predecessor.”116

114
Gowan, Triumph of Faith, 42–43. On the other hand, one should again
compare Jeremiah 21:9; 38:2, 17, in which “live” appears to mean merely “survive the
invasion.” See the previous footnote.
115
Wendland, “‘The Righteous Live by Their Faith,’” 611 n. 38.
116
Ibid.
 45

David Reimer, however, asserts that Habakkuk 2:4 should be read along with

Ezekiel 33:10–16. He comments, “While the language of these passages is amenable to

notions of a future judgment, in their present contexts they assert that maintenance of sdq

affirms life in this world.”117 Reimer continues, “The saddiq, who maintains a faithful or

trustworthy lifestyle, is assured of divine approval and support. The woe oracles of Hab

2:6–19 make the opposite case.”118 However, when one reads Habakkuk 2:6–19, he notes

verse 14: “For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the

waters cover the sea.” Surely this is an eschatological outlook.

Certainly God has an eschatological plan, but must 2:4 reflect this? The

immediate context deals with the temporal judgment of the Chaldeans, and Habakkuk’s

concern seems to be for the temporal vindication of God’s justice. The prophet is not

looking to heaven for all his problems to be resolved. It may be helpful to review Psalm

37 (for example) at this point. This psalm by David may well have been on Habakkuk’s

mind, as it addresses many of the same issues Habakkuk was facing. David encourages

his readers to trust in the Lord despite the apparent prosperity of the wicked. David

writes, “Those who wait for the LORD, they will inherit the land” (v. 9; cf. vv. 11, 22, 29,

34). The psalm includes a long-term perspective (see the references to “forever” in vv.

18, 28, 29), but eternal life is not the primary thrust. The context of Habakkuk calls for a

117
Reimer, “ " ,” 3:764; emphasis original. For detailed arguments that Ezekiel
33:12–19 refers to temporal life, see William D. Barrick, “Ezekiel 33:12–19 and Eternal
Security” (unpublished paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society Far West
Region Annual Meeting, The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley, Calif., April 20, 2007).
118
Ibid., 3:765.
 46

similar outlook. While God’s plan includes eschatological life for the righteous, His

promise to Habakkuk addresses the righteous man’s survival of the Babylonian invasion.

Conclusion

After a careful consideration of a variety of approaches, the Masoretic Text of

Habakkuk 2:4 has been accepted. As the text stands, verse 4a refers to the Chaldeans

when it states, “His soul is puffed up, not upright, within him.” The wicked Chaldeans

would invade Judah, but they would not escape the judgment of the holy God, which is

made clear in the remaining verses of chapter 2. In sharp contrast to this, the Israelite who

stood righteous before God would survive the invasion by staying faithful to God.
 CHAPTER THREE

EXEGESIS OF ROMANS 1:17

Now that the original meaning of Habakkuk 2:4 has been explored, the New

Testament quotations of this verse may be examined. Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk in

Romans 1:17 will be considered first.

Historical Context

The historical indicators in the Epistle to the Romans imply that the letter was

written by Paul sometime during (or just before) his journey from Greece to Jerusalem

recorded in Acts 20–21. Paul had collected funds from Macedonia and Achaia for poor

believers in Jerusalem. He planned to take the funds to Jerusalem, and then he would set

out on a missionary trip to Spain. On his way, he wanted to pass through Rome (Rom

15:24, 28). It is likely that Paul wrote to the church in Rome during the three months he

spent in Greece (Acts 20:2–3), probably from Corinth.1 This would have occurred

sometime between late AD 54 and early 59. A precise date is difficult to determine, but

Cranfield suggests that late 55/early 56 or late 56/early 57 is the most likely.2

1
C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975–
79), 1:12.
2
Ibid., 1:16.
 48

A church apparently had been established in Rome some years before. Perhaps

those believers in the center of the Gentile world wondered why the Apostle to the

Gentiles had never visited them. At any rate, Paul had completed his missionary work in

the east, and he now looked west to Spain. The church at Rome would be a good place to

find spiritual refreshment and financial support for his journey. It would be perfectly

natural for Paul to write to Rome to tell them of his plans as he took an extended detour

through Jerusalem.3

While Paul knew several of the believers in Rome (see Rom 16:3–15), there

probably were others he did not know personally; thus, it was appropriate for him to

introduce himself to them, especially since he sought their support for his future

missionary endeavors. Moreover, Paul would go to Rome as the Apostle to the Gentiles,

whose life’s work was the propagation of the gospel. Thus, the appropriate way to

introduce himself would be to offer an orderly summary of the gospel. Several factors

may have led him to pen a somewhat lengthy account, but it seems reasonable that Paul

allowed the inner logic of the gospel to drive the structure and content of the letter for the

most part.4

Context of Romans 1–3

After introducing himself in the first 15 verses of the epistle, Paul stated his

central theme: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for

salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the

3
Ibid., 1:23.
4
Ibid., 2:817–18.
 49

righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘But the righteous

man shall live by faith’” (Rom 1:16–17). Paul was writing about the righteousness of

God, which is available only in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In verse 18 Paul began to explain why this gospel message was necessary: Men

are subject to the wrath of God. This is because men reject the true God in favor of a god

of their own making. As a result God, gives men over to impurity, homosexuality, and a

depraved mind, resulting in all kinds of wickedness (vv. 24–32).

After proving that God’s wrath against the pagans is just, Paul proceeded to

condemn the Jews in chapter 2. Finally, he summarized, “Both Jews and Greeks are all

under sin” (3:9). The verdict of the divine Judge is that all are accountable to God, and no

man will be justified by works (vv. 19–20). Beginning with 3:21, Paul provided the

solution to this grave problem. What men need is “the righteousness of God through faith

in Jesus Christ” (v. 23). Paul had now returned to his great theme.

Romans 1:16

Paul indicated his desire to go to Rome in Romans 1:10–15. Of all the things that

had prevented him from traveling to that city, being ashamed of the gospel was not one of

them. In verse 16, he explained why he had confidence in the gospel: “It is the power of

God for salvation.” The gospel may appear foolish to men (1 Cor 1:18), but God Himself

works through the gospel to redeem fallen men and women. His power is at work in

“everyone who believes.” Faith is fundamental to the gospel, and this message of

salvation and faith is available to both Jews and Gentiles. In the purposes of God, the
 50

Jews had received the gospel message first, but God graciously extended the offer of

salvation to the Gentiles as well.

Romans 1:17

Verse 17 opens with an explanatory . This verse explains why the gospel is

God’s saving power to all believers.5 The reason is that in the gospel6 “the righteousness

of God is revealed.”

The Righteousness of God

Commentators have understood the phrase “righteousness of God” (

) in various ways, based upon the precise meaning of the genitive inflectional form

of .

God’s righteousness

Many in the early church understood this as a possessive genitive, so that the

“righteousness of God” referred to God’s attribute of righteousness.7 Support for this

view was found in the references to the “righteousness of God” in Romans 3:5, 25–26. In

5
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on
the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), 69; Thomas R. Schreiner,
Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker, 1998), 62.
6
The Greek usually is understood as referring to the gospel; indeed, the
gospel is the central idea of verses 15 and 16. One scholar suggests that it does not refer
to the gospel but to . “Im Gläubigen wird die Gerechtigkeit Gottes offenbar”
(Otto Glombitza, “Von der Scham des Gläubigen: Erwägungen zu Rom. I 14–17,”
Novum Testamentum 4 [1960]: 79). The context, however, favors a reference to the
gospel.
7
Moo, Romans, 70.
 51

modern times, Sam Williams has argued that this was the understanding of the phrase in

the Septuagint. He does not see the “righteousness of God” as parallel to God’s saving

activity (as will be the case for other commentators; see below); instead, Williams argues

from Psalms and Isaiah that God’s righteousness is the basis for His saving activity.8 This

understanding of the Old Testament may be correct, but the context of Romans must be

the deciding factor. Godet provides two reasons to reject the view that God’s attribute of

righteousness is intended in Romans 1:17: “Before the gospel this perfection was already

distinctly revealed by the law; and the prophetic words which Paul immediately quotes:

‘The just shall live by faith,’ prove that in his view this justice of God is a condition of

man, not a divine attribute.”9

Righteousness valid before God

Francis Watson understands the “righteousness of God” as “righteousness valid

before God.” He interprets verse 17a as an interpretive gloss on Habakkuk 2:4b, so the

righteousness Paul speaks of is approved by God because it is found in the prophetic

text.10 Whatever the “righteousness of God” means in Romans 1:17, this righteousness is

certainly approved by God. However, the genitive (or ablative) suggests a more

precise interpretation.

8
Sam K. Williams, “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” Journal of Biblical
Literature 99/2 (June 1980): 260–62.
9
F. Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., trans. A.
Cusin (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.), 1:154.
10
Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 2004), 48–49.
 52

God-righteousness

John Murray speaks of “God-righteousness,” not just righteousness of God as

opposed to human unrighteousness, but righteousness of God as opposed to righteousness

of man.11 He says that “righteousness which proceeds from God,” “righteousness which

God approves,” “righteousness that avails with God,” etc., all are true, but do not capture

the right focus.12 Instead, this righteousness is “characterized by the perfection belonging

to all that God is and does."13 Murray does not classify the grammatical purpose of ;

perhaps he intends a genitive of quality. One does not want to force Paul into a modern

grammatical mold, but one should be able to make sense of the syntax. As with Watson’s

interpretation, the form of should be understood more precisely than Murray

indicates.

Saving activity of God

Most modern commentators discuss two main views. Many understand as a

subjective genitive, so that the “righteousness of God” is an activity of God (hereafter

referred to as “View 1”).14 Others see as an ablative of source, so that the

11
John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., New International
Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1959; reprinted in
1 vol., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1968), 1:31.
12
Ibid., 1:30.
13
Ibid., 1:31.
14
For example, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 257; G.
N. Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4, Journal for the
Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 39 (Sheffield, Eng.: JSOT Press, 1990),
 53

“righteousness of God” refers to man’s righteous status resulting from God’s act of

justifying (hereafter referred to as “View 2”).15 Finally, some suggest that a combination

of these two views is correct.16 First, consider the arguments for and against View 1.

Arguments from the Old Testament

Moo asserts that View 1 has the strongest Old Testament support.17 Indeed, the

Septuagint translations of Psalms and Isaiah have “many places . . . where God’s

‘righteousness’ refers to his salvific intervention on behalf of his people.”18 However, C.

K. Barrett cautions, “The importance of these passages should not be exaggerated. In

them, God vindicates those who deserve to be vindicated; in Paul, he justifies—the

36–37; Douglas A. Campbell, “Romans 1:17—A Crux Interpretum for the

Debate,” Journal of Biblical Literature 113/2 (Summer 1994): 270.
15
For example, S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “The Gospel That Paul Preached,”
Bibliotheca Sacra 128/512 (October 1971): 333 n. 11; Godet, Romans, 1:159; Mark A.
Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme,
Supplements to Novum Testamentum 68 (Leiden, Neth.: E. J. Brill, 1992), 216; Anders
Nygren, Commentary on Romans, trans. Carl C. Rasmussen (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg
Press, 1949), 74–75.
16
For example, Moo, Romans, 74; William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed., International
Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 25.
17
Moo, Romans, 72–73.
18
Ibid., 71. However, recall the assertion of Williams, mentioned above, that
God’s righteousness is the basis of His saving activity, rather than an equivalent to it.
Also note that the exact phrase “righteousness of God” does not occur in the Old
Testament, but 48 times, mainly in Psalms and Isaiah, the Septuagint has “righteousness”
with a personal pronoun referring to God (ibid.).
 54

ungodly.”19 One should also note Psalm 97 (LXX), where verses 2–3 speak of

righteousness in connection with salvation and faithfulness (to Israel), but then verse 9

speaks of judging the world “in righteousness.” Also, Isaiah 51:4–8 connects salvation

and righteousness, but then it has a contrast with the inhabitants of the earth who will

perish. Thus, “divine righteousness is not universally and unequivocally salvific in these

texts.”20 Furthermore, Paul did not cite Psalms or Isaiah; he cited Habakkuk. If View 1 is

correct, then “Paul’s actual citation of Habakkuk 2:4 is a wasted opportunity to make

clear what he meant by ‘the righteousness of God.’”21

In a similar vein, Dunn sees “righteousness” as equal to “covenant faithfulness.”

He claims that in Psalms and Isaiah “the logic of covenant grace is followed through with

the result that righteousness and salvation become virtually synonymous: the

righteousness of God as God’s act to restore his own and to sustain them within the

covenant.”22 However, Schreiner observes that the arguments for this view are not strong.

He notes that “righteousness” and “covenant” rarely occur together in the Old Testament,

and he concludes that they are related but not equal.23 Moreover, “the interpretation of

as a reference to God’s covenant faithfulness alone [in Rom 1:17] . . . is

19
C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, rev. ed., Black’s New Testament
Commentary (London: A & C Black, 1991), 30 n. 1.
20
Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 217.
21
Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 50.
22
James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word
Books, 1988), 41.
23
Schreiner, Romans, 69.
 55

insufficient, since it fails to explain the clear anthropological moment, expressed by !

" .”24

Arguments from the context

Commentators also claim that View 1 makes better sense with the use of “reveal”

in this verse.25 Schreiner writes, “It is more natural to speak of a divine action being

revealed than it is to speak of a new status being disclosed.”26 Similarly, D. H. van

Daalen asserts, “Surely, revelation as Paul understood it, is not a matter of the disclosure

of certain truths: revelation is this that God reveals himself.”27

This view might also make a better parallel with the revelation of God’s wrath

( ! , where is an activity of God and is a subjective genitive) spoken of

in verse 18.28 However, Williams claims, “It would be impossible to show that the object

24
Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 214–15.
25
Moo, Romans, 73.
26
Schreiner, Romans, 65. It is interesting that Schreiner finds support for this
view in Romans 3:21 (“the righteousness of God has been manifested”), but Morris cites
this same verse as an argument for View 2 (Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans,
Pillar New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988], 103).
27
D. H. Van Daalen, “The Revelation of God’s Righteousness in Romans 1:17,”
in Studia Biblica 1978, vol. 3, Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors, ed. E.
A. Livingstone, 383–89, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 3
(Sheffield, Eng.: JSOT Press, 1980), 386.
28
Moo, Romans, 73; Schreiner, Romans, 65; Fitzmyer, Romans, 262. Ladd,
however, argues that View 2 makes a better contrast with verse 18: “Wrath expresses the
way God views sinners. Men in their natural state are ‘children of wrath’ (Eph. 2:3). By
way of contrast, the ‘righteousness of God’ is the way God views the man of faith. He is
no longer a child of wrath; he is a child of love. Righteousness then is that status which
God reveals, which comes from God, which is to be apprehended by faith, which God
 56

of the verb apokalyptein in other Pauline texts is ever activity.”29 Verse 16 describes the

gospel as the saving power of God. Schreiner says, “Since the power of God that leads to

salvation is a description of his activity, it is likely that should be

interpreted similarly.”30 While View 1 does provide nice parallels between verses 16, 17,

and 18, this is not a conclusive argument.31 Moreover, View 1 makes a close connection

with verse 16, while ignoring the closer connection with 17b. According to Watson, the

“righteousness of God” is connected not with the “power of God,” but with “salvation” in

verse 16.32

The next time a similar phrase occurs in Romans ( in 3:5),

must be a subjective genitive.33 However, a phrase does not always have to mean the

same thing in Paul, so this argument is also inconclusive.34 Moreover, Seifrid notes that a

subjective genitive must modify a noun of action, “but is not derived directly

can accept” (George Eldon Ladd, “Righteousness in Romans,” Southwestern Journal of

Theology 19/1 [Fall 1976]: 10).
29
Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 258 (emphasis original).
30
Schreiner, Romans, 66; similarly, Fitzmyer, Romans, 262.
31
Cranfield, Romans, 1:97.
32
Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 50.
33
Cranfield, Romans, 1:96.
34
Ibid., 1:97.
 57

from a verb: it denotes the abstract quality or state of being .”35 Thus, Seifrid

implies that it would be unusual for to occur with a subjective genitive.

Finally, according to View 1, the “righteousness of God” is essentially the same

as “the power of God unto salvation” (v. 16). Thus, Paul is not ashamed of the gospel

because it is God’s power to salvation, for God’s saving activity is revealed in it. This

seems like a tautology, unless perhaps one puts the emphasis on faith (“the gospel is

God’s salvific power to everyone who believes, for in it God’s saving activity is revealed

by faith to faith”). While faith certainly is emphasized in this context, Paul does not seem

to be saying that he is not ashamed of the gospel because the gospel is based on faith.

Instead, he seems to be saying that he is not ashamed of the gospel because God is in the

gospel.

Righteousness from God

View 2 (which reads as an ablative of source) also has many arguments in its

favor. This view will prove preferable in the end.

Arguments from the context

First, imputation is in the context of Romans. In particular, Paul discusses

justification in detail in 3:21–31, and then in chapter 4 he provides the example of

Abraham, who was also justified by faith. Romans 5:17 speaks of the “gift of

righteousness” ( ). Moo notes, “‘Righteousness’ is used most

often in Romans to denote the ‘gift of righteousness’ (5:17)—a righteous status that God

35
Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 215.
 58

bestows on the one who believes.”36 View 2 also fits the immediate context. “The

following reference to faith seems to show that the righteousness that God gives is

primarily in mind, as does the quotation from Habakkuk.”37

Moreover, the “righteousness of God” is said to be “revealed” in the gospel.

Morris asserts, “It is something new, not simply a repetition of Old Testament truth.”38

Morris believes this favors View 2. However, justification by faith was certainly not a

new revelation of the gospel, as the case of Abraham demonstrates. Davies claims, “What

is new, however, is the righteousness of God in his saving activity. Previously promised

through the prophets (1.2), God’s gospel of righteousness has now been manifested in the

person of Jesus (cf. 3.21).”39 However, it is not clear that Paul intended the revelation of

the “righteousness of God” to be understood as new revelation. In fact, his citation of

Habakkuk would seem to imply the opposite. Paul did not say that the righteousness of

God had not been revealed previously. He did say that in the age of Christ it is revealed

in the gospel.

Arguments from parallel passages

A firmer foundation for View 2 is provided by a comparison with other passages.

Philippians 3:9 has the phrase ! , which makes the source idea

36
Moo, Romans, 73; cf. Cranfield, 1:98, who notes that is an
objective genitive in Romans 5:17.
37
Morris, Romans, 69; similarly, Moo, Romans, 73; Cranfield, Romans, 1:98.
38
Morris, Romans, 69.
39
Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans, 43.
 59

explicit by including the preposition.40 Of course, Paul did not include the preposition

in Romans 1:17. Perhaps he wanted to avoid two different uses of in the same clause,

one indicating source (“from God”) and the other indicating means (“by faith”; see

further on below), although he might have used instead. However, 2

Corinthians 5:21 uses the phrase (without a preposition) in a context in

which man’s status of imputed righteousness is surely in view. Thus, Paul did not feel

that a preposition was necessary to convey the source idea.41

Arguments from verse 17

The best argument for View 2 is the connection between Romans 1:17a and 17b.

Watson carefully examines the introductory phrase “as it is written” ( ! ).

He concludes:

The relation of this scriptural citation to its antecedent (the statement about the
righteousness of God) is often misunderstood. Far from being a secondary
confirmation of a freestanding dogmatic assertion, the citation from Habakkuk 2.4
actually generates its antecedent. This prophetic text is the matrix from which
Paul’s own assertion derives. Conversely, the antecedent amplifies the citation: it
is commentary, an expository gloss on the prophetic text. The exegetical problems
posed by the antecedent should not be treated in abstraction from the citation;
antecedent and citation are interdependent.42

40
One should also compare 1 Corinthians 1:30, which speaks of righteousness
! .
41
A. T. Robertson notes that the ablative is “rare with substantives”; in fact, he
says regarding as an ablative of source in Romans 1:17 is “not probably correct” (A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed.
[Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934], 514). He understands the “righteousness of God”
here as “the righteousness which God has and wishes to bestow on us” (ibid., 499).
42
Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 43, emphasis original.
 60

One need not accept all of Watson’s claims, but the connection between the righteousness

of God in 17a and the righteous one in 17b is plain. In fact, Watson notes an “unusually

close” connection between the quotation and its antecedent in verse 17. “Nowhere else in

Romans are lexical connections between antecedent and citation as significant as they are

here.”43 Since refers to a person who has been pronounced legally righteous

before God, the should be understood in this light. Although Watson

himself interprets this connection in a different way, it seems to be an equally strong

argument for View 2.

Arguments against this view

Cranfield notes three arguments against View 2.44 First, it is alleged that View 2

isolates the gift from the giver. This is simply not the case. Second, View 2 is seen to

provide an anthropocentric rather than a theocentric view of the gospel. However, Paul

could have a theocentric gospel and still refer to man’s status of righteousness. Third,

View 2 is said to be individualistic. This objection seems to arise from presupposed

theology rather than exegesis. The individual certainly is in the context: “to everyone

[singular] who believes” (v. 16), “to the Jew [singular]” (v. 16), “to the Greek [singular]”

(v. 16), and “the righteous [singular]” (v. 17).

43
Ibid., 48.
44
Cranfield, Romans, 1:99.
 61

Combination view

Finally, some scholars combine Views 1 and 2. Moo defines the “righteousness of

God” as “the act by which God brings people into right relationship with himself.”45

Barrett says it is impossible to keep Views 1 and 2 separate: “God’s saving action

consists precisely in conferring on man a state of righteousness (that is, in justifying

him).”46 Sanday and Headlam say, “The very cogency of the arguments on both sides is

enough to show that the two views which we have set over against each other are not

mutually exclusive but rather inclusive.”47 Moo supports this position with three

arguments: (1) “It is built on the most frequent meaning of the phrase in the OT,” (2) “It

does justice to the nuances of both divine activity and human receptivity that occur in the

text,” and (3) “It enables us to relate the phrase to Paul’s broader use of ‘righteousness,’

where he frequently highlights the end result of the process of justification in the

believer’s status of righteousness.”48 On the other hand, this compromise position seems

to violate the single-meaning principle. Cranfield asserts, “It is surely more likely that

Paul meant to focus attention either on the one or on the other, though it is of course true

that a direct reference to either carries with it an indirect reference to the other.”49

45
Moo, Romans, 74.
46
Barrett, Romans, 31.
47
Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 25.
48
Moo, Romans, 75.
49
Cranfield, Romans, 1:98 n. 1. Cranfield does not explain why “it is surely more
likely.”
 62

Conclusion

The phrase might refer to God’s saving activity or man’s status

of righteousness. Both are consistent with Pauline theology, and both are important

aspects of the gospel. In fact, there is no reason to assume that the phrase always means

the same thing, even within Romans. Thus, the near context must decide between Views

1 and 2. The decision comes down to this: if one sees the similar constructions in verses

16, 17, and 18 as parallel, then he should choose View 1, but if one wishes to connect

verse 17a with verse 17b, then he should choose View 2. Rather than assuming parallels

that Paul may not have intended, it seems better to allow verse 17b to inform one’s

interpretation of 17a. Since Paul introduces the quotation with “as it is written,” he must

intend a close connection with what has gone before. Therefore, View 2 is more likely;

is an ablative of source, and the “righteousness of God” refers to righteousness from

God.

Therefore, in the gospel God reveals that man can be righteous before Him. While

some claim that one is actually made righteous, Paul was referring primarily to the God’s

forensic declaration of one as righteous. Morris notes, “Among the Hebrews

righteousness was first and foremost a legal standing. The righteous were those who

secured the verdict when they stood before God.”50 Johnson observes, “The apostle,

therefore, by the term ‘the righteousness of God’ refers to an imputed righteousness. It is

the work of God in Christ, that which the Mediator did and suffered to satisfy the

50
Morris, Romans, 101.
 63

demands of divine justice (cf. 3:24–25).”51 However, God’s declaration is not in vain. As

Schreiner puts it, the righteousness of God is “both forensic and transformative.”52 In

other words, sanctification is the natural result of justification. Paul made this clear as he

developed his arguments in Romans.

Righteousness Revealed

Paul stated that the righteousness from God is “revealed” in the gospel. Morris

remarks, “It is not something that people know naturally or can find out for themselves.

Unless God makes it known they will never discover it.”53 Moo observes that this

revelation can be understood in one of two ways: (1) “cognitive, . . . an ‘uncovering’ to

the intellect of various truths relating to God’s purposes,” or (2) “historical, . . . the

‘uncovering’ of God’s redemptive plan as it unfolds on the plane of human history.”54

Moo prefers the “historical” view, since “this is the most frequent meaning of the verb in

Paul, and it matches the most likely meaning of ‘reveal’ in 1:18 and the related statement

in 3:21.”55

The present-tense verb # indicates that the revelation of the

righteousness from God is ongoing as the gospel is preached. Johnson suggests, “The

present tense is frequentive in force. The righteousness is revealed as a saving power at

51
Johnson, “The Gospel,” 334.
52
Schreiner, Romans, 66.
53
Morris, Romans, 69–70.
54
Moo, Romans, 69.
55
Ibid.
 64

every occurrence of faith.”56 However, it is noteworthy that this verb “is an

eschatological term in Paul (Rom. 1:18; 8:18; 1 Cor. 3:13; Gal. 3:23; 2 Thess. 2:3, 6, 8),

denoting an eschatological event that has invaded history.”57 Moreover, this “invasion” is

efficacious. According to Murray, Paul “means that in the gospel the righteousness of

God is actively and dynamically brought to bear upon man’s sinful situation.”58

Paul wrote that the righteousness from God is revealed .

There are two problems regarding this phrase. First, should it be connected with the noun

, or should it be connected with the verb # ? Second, what

exactly does it mean? Regarding the syntactical issue, some believe Paul was referring to

“righteousness by faith.” The parallels with Romans 3:21–22 support this position. There,

Paul wrote “righteousness from God has been manifested . . . the righteousness of God

through faith [ ! ].” He used a different preposition ( instead of ), but he

repeated “righteousness” to make it clear that “through faith” modifies “righteousness”

and not the verb “has been manifested.” Some scholars believe that the same connection

between the noun and the prepositional phrase is found in the Habakkuk quotation of

Romans 1:17.59 However, this connection is also disputed (see below). Moo finds

56
Johnson, “The Gospel,” 335 n. 21.
57
Schreiner, Romans, 62.
58
Murray, Romans, 1:29.
59
For example, Moo, Romans, 75; Cranfield, Romans, 1:100.
 65

additional support in “Paul’s persistent linking of righteousness words with faith

throughout Rom. 1–4.”60

Those who favor the connection “revealed ” can find support in the

word order.61 Other arguments depend on one’s understanding of the meaning of the

phrase . The parallel with 3:21–22 is important, but more important

is the parallel with 1:17b. Below it will be argued that modifies the verb in

the Habakkuk quotation, and thus it likely does the same in verse 17a.

What exactly did Paul mean by ? There are at least 11

suggested interpretations, but many can be rather easily rejected by noting that

should be understood in the same sense in verse 17a as in 17b.

Views that understand in different ways

Douglas Campbell notes that Paul used the phrase 21 times in Romans

and Galatians, the very letters in which he quoted Habakkuk 2:4 (where the phrase

appears), but Paul used this phrase in no other letters. Campbell does not think this is a

coincidence; instead, he believes that the use in Habakkuk motivated the other uses.62

This observation refutes the following views:63 (1) “from the faith of the OT to the faith

60
Moo, Romans, 75.
61
Morris, Romans, 70; Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 218.
62
Campbell, “Romans 1:17,” 268.
63
The statements of these views are taken from Cranfield, Romans, 1:99–100,
although not in order. Most of these views find little support today.
 66

of the NT” or “from the faith of the law to the faith of the gospel,”64 (2) “from the faith of

the preachers to the faith of the hearers,” (3) “from faith in one article to faith in another,”

(4) “from present faith to future,” (5) “from the faith of words (whereby we now believe

what we do not see) to the faith of the things, that is, realities (whereby we shall hereafter

possess what we now believe in,” and (6) it refers to growing faith.65 Schreiner also notes

that these views attempt to “squeeze more meaning out of the phrase than is warranted”;

instead, “the interpretation that adds the least to the meaning of the passage should be

preferred.”66

Views that understand a reference to God or Christ

Another approach understands the phrase to mean “from God’s faithfulness to

man’s faith” or “from Christ’s faithfulness to man’s faith.” These views understand the

word in two different ways in the same phrase, but Dunn notes that it is a

characteristic of good style to play on the double meaning of a word that has such a

double meaning. He also asserts, “Following a verb like ‘reveal’ the is more naturally

to be understood as denoting the source of the revelation and the as denoting that to

which the revelation is directed.” Dunn observes that the next reference to in

64
Moreover, the context does not compare the old and new dispensations (Godet,
Romans, 1:160). One modern scholar argues for this position; see Charles L. Quarles,
“From Faith to Faith: A Fresh Examination of the Prepositional Series in Romans 1:17,”
Novum Testamentum 45/1 (2003): 1–21.
65
Sanday and Headlam (Romans, 28) say this refers both to deepening faith in the
individual and to the spread of faith in the world. Both Johnson (“The Gospel,” 336) and
Godet (Romans, 1:160) note that the idea of growing faith does not fit the context.
66
Schreiner, Romans, 72.
 67

Romans (3:3) is to God’s faithfulness, and the faithfulness of God is a theme of

Romans.67 Davies argues, “It is not human faith that reveals God’s righteousness, but

God’s faithfulness in the fulfillment of his salvific purposes for Jew and Gentile alike.”68

To make this view fit the Habakkuk quotation, some understand a reference to

God’s faithfulness there as well. Dunn claims that Paul intended the in the

Habakkuk 2:4 quotation to be ambiguous, so that it involves both God’s faithfulness and

man’s faith.69 Wilbur Wallis follows the Septuagint and sees a reference to God’s

faithfulness in Habakkuk itself.70 However, the Masoretic Text, which refers to the

faithfulness of the righteous man, was preferred above. Moreover, if Paul wished to

follow the Septuagint, he would not have omitted the pronoun $ , which makes the

reference to God’s faithfulness explicit. Paul’s inclusion of , which is superfluous in the

context of Romans, implies that he was quoting the Septuagint. His omission of $

would support the view that he did not see a reference to God’s faithfulness in Habakkuk.

Furthermore, a reference to God’s faithfulness is “out of harmony with the context. God’s

faithfulness is a genuine truth, and it is surely involved in man’s justification, but the

stress of the passage rests upon man’s faith, not His faithfulness.”71

67
Dunn, Romans 1–8, 44. Dunn’s equation “righteousness of God” = “God’s
covenant faithfulness” also would support his view, but this equation was rejected above.
68
Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans, 43.
69
Dunn, Romans, 44.
70
Wilber B. Wallis, “The Translation of Romans 1:17: A Basic Motif in
Paulinism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 16/1 (Winter 1973): 21.
71
Johnson, “The Gospel,” 336.
 68

Campbell argues for the meaning “from Christ’s faithfulness to man’s faith.”72

According to Campbell, this makes verse 17 theocentric without having the contextual

problems of the above view, which sees a reference to God’s faithfulness.73 However, his

view requires a messianic interpretation of Habakkuk 2:4 (at least by Paul). Thus,

Campbell argues that “the righteous” is a title for Christ.74 In addition to violating the

context of Habakkuk (which, in the context of this thesis, cannot be ruled out a priori),

Campbell’s understanding does not work with Paul’s own use of Habakkuk 2:4 in

Galatians 3:11 (see chapter 4 below). Moreover, “There is no evidence that Paul

employed the term as a messianic title.”75 Christ’s faithfulness is a part of the

gospel, but after speaking of “everyone who believes [ ],” it is natural to

understand “faith” [ ] as referring to this same belief.76

View that faith is the ground and goal of righteousness

Sam Williams has more contextual support for the view that the phrase

indicates that the righteousness from God has faith both as its ground

and as its goal. This view understands in the same way as in the Habakkuk

quotation, and it understands in the same way as in Romans 1:5 and 1:16, indicating

72
Campbell, “Romans 1:17,” 280–81.
73
Ibid., 280.
74
Ibid., 282–83.
75
Schreiner, Romans, 74.
76
Ibid., 72.
 69

the goal.77 Johnson claims that this view agrees with the force of the similar constructions

in 2 Corinthians 2:16, although this is disputable (see below).78 One might even argue for

a closer connection with verse 5. Dunn’s suggestion, noted above, was that Paul was

playing on the different meanings of the word . In that case, perhaps the phrase

means “by faith for faithfulness.” In other words, in verse 16 could mean the

same thing as ! in verse 5. (Note also the same phrase in 16:26,

which shows that the idea is a theme of the epistle.) This would fit nicely in the context

of Romans, where Paul discusses both justification and sanctification. On the other hand,

1:5 is somewhat removed from verse 16, both spatially and contextually. Moreover, this

view finds little support in 3:21–22, which seems to parallel 1:17.

View that understands as “to believers”

This parallel is maintained quite well with the view of Murray, in which the first

phrase means “by faith” and the second is an instance of the abstract used for the

concrete, almost equivalent to ! (3:22). Murray notes, “‘To

faith’ underlines the truth that every believer is the beneficiary whatever his race or

culture or the degree of his faith.” Paul had just made this same point in verse 16.79 Godet

rejects this view, because “Paul is not concerned with the person appropriating, but solely

77
Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 256.
78
Johnson, “The Gospel,” 337.
79
Murray, Romans, 1:32.
 70

with the instrument of appropriation.”80 However, this is merely an opinion, and the

reference to “everyone who believes” in verse 16 seems to imply otherwise. Charles

Quarles admits that this view has “several merits,” but he does not think that Romans

1:17 has the same emphasis on “all.” According to Quarles, if Paul wanted to emphasize

“all,” he would have used different language (as elsewhere in Romans).81 Once again,

this is merely his opinion of what Paul “would have done.” The reference to “everyone”

in verse 16, which is picked up again in 3:22, shows that the idea is not foreign to the

context.

View that understands a rhetorical formulation

The final view to be considered is supported by many modern interpreters. This

view takes the phrase as simply a rhetorical formulation to put special emphasis on

, the second phrase being practically equivalent to the “sola” of “sola fide.”82

Morris notes, “The centrality of faith is important and must be clearly seen.”83 Faith is

indeed central in this passage, but there would be emphasis on faith without this alleged

rhetorical flourish. Moo claims that the parallel construction in 2 Corinthians 2:16 should

also be understood in this emphatic sense,84 but as noted above, there is some

80
Godet, Romans, 1:161.
81
Quarles, “From Faith to Faith,” 15.
82
Cranfield, Romans, 1:100. Cf. Morris (Romans, 70): “faith through and
through”; Barrett (Romans, 31): “faith from start to finish.”
83
Morris, Romans, 70.
84
Moo, Romans, 76.
 71

disagreement about this. In fact, Johnson claims, “Parallels to this type of expression are

hard to find.”85 Moreover, Davies asserts that this view does not do justice to the

revelation of God’s righteousness.86 Perhaps the definitive argument against this view

was provided by Quarles. He used the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae to find all occurrences

of the construction +A+ + A in texts dating from the Homeric era to AD 600

(excluding biblical texts and quotations thereof). He found about 340 occurrences. He

found no examples to support this popular interpretation of Romans 1:17 (i.e., that the

construction is emphatic).87

The variety of views explored above demonstrates the difficulty of properly

understanding this phrase. However, most of the views have good arguments against

them. Therefore, Murray’s view seems to be the most likely: “by faith to those of faith.”

As It Is Written

Regardless of which view is correct, it is clear that Paul emphasizes faith in

connection with the righteousness from God. In support of this, he cites Habakkuk 2:4,

where and are found together.88 An important issue in understanding

Paul’s use of this quotation is the place of in the sentence. Should it be

connected with the verb " or with the substantive ?

85
Johnson, “The Gospel,” 337.
86
Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans, 43.
87
Quarles, “From Faith to Faith,” 8.
88
It is clear from the context of Romans (and Galatians) that here Paul used
to refer to “faith,” while Habakkuk 2:4 refers to “faithfulness” in the original
Hebrew. The significance of this will be considered in chapter 5.
 72

Connecting with the verb

There are several arguments for connecting with the verb. First, this

connection is made in Habakkuk in both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. Paul (and

his readers) would naturally know of this connection, although some claim that Paul can

quote the Old Testament with “considerable freedom.”89 Morris notes that Greek

grammar also favors this connection, if only slightly.90 Some argue that " is weak

without , but Cranfield objects that this misunderstands the importance of this

verb in Romans.91 Hendriksen claims, “The phrase here in verse 17b

corresponds to the same phrase in the earlier part of the verse. There too it belongs to the

predicate, not the subject.”92 As was seen above, this claim is disputed.

Hendriksen also believes this connection makes more sense in the quotation of

Habakkuk 2:4 in Galatians 3:11, where “live by faith” is contrasted with “live by the

law.”93 However, Williams argues that a connection with the substantive fits better in

Galatians. His argument is based on the relationship between 3:11a and 3:11b.94 On the

89
Cranfield, Romans, 1:102.
90
Morris, Romans, 71.
91
Cranfield, Romans, 1:102.
92
William Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, New
Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1981), 64 n. 31.
93
Ibid.; cf. D. Moody Smith Jr., “ ,” in
Studies and Documents XXIX: Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in
Honor of K. W. Clark, ed. Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs, 13–25 (Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press, 1967), 19.
94
Williams, “Righteousness of God,” 257 n. 49.
 73

other hand, Cavallin observes Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12, and he

argues for “live by faith” in verse 11.95 Thus, this argument must wait until detailed

exegesis of Galatians 3:11 has been done. Moreover, the context of Romans is a more

important factor for one’s understanding of Romans 1:17.

Against the connection of with the verb is the fact that Paul connects

righteousness and faith throughout the context, whereas he “is not talking about the way

God’s people should live.”96 In fact, in Romans 3:22, 26, 30; 4:11, 13; 5:1; 9:30; 10:6

Paul connects righteousness or justification with faith.97 However, these passages are not

ambiguous. Moo observes, “Paul in Rom. 1–8 consistently links faith with righteousness

(cf. the summary in 5:1) and shows how ‘life’ is the product of that righteousness (cf.

5:18 and 8:10).”98 Surely few would question the connection between righteousness and

faith in Paul’s theology; the issue is Paul’s understanding and use of Habakkuk.

Connecting with the noun

One of the most cited arguments for the connection “righteous by faith” is the

structure of the epistle.99 It is claimed that Romans 1:18–4:21 explains “righteous by

95
H. C. C. Cavallin, “‘The Righteous Shall Live by Faith,’ A Decisive Argument
for the Traditional Interpretation,” Studia Theologica 32 (1978): 37–8. Cavallin also
considers Paul’s reference to Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5 (ibid., 40–2).
96
Morris, Romans, 71.
97
Cranfield, Romans, 1:102; Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 51 n. 54.
98
Moo, Romans, 78.
99
For example, see Nygren (Romans, 86), Cranfield (Romans, 1:102), and Morris,
(Romans, 71–72).
 74

faith,” while 5:1–8:39 discusses “will live.” The vocabulary supports this assertion.

Nygren found that “faith words” occur frequently in the first section and infrequently in

the second, but the reverse is true for “life words.”100 Moody Smith sees this as the “most

compelling reason” to connect “righteous” and “by faith,” although he is not persuaded.

Smith notes, “[Feuillet] demonstrated with somewhat more precision [than Nygren] that

the concepts and terms of righteousness (justification) and faith are quite prominent in

chapters 1–4 and rather rare in chapters 5–8, while exactly the reverse is true with respect

to those pertaining to life and death. The shift in terminology is impressive and

undeniable.”101 However, Smith also argues that this does not determine the

interpretation of the Habakkuk quotation. Moreover, this ignores chapters 9–11 and 12–

15.102 Schreiner adds, “I believe this reads more out of the citation than is warranted.”103

Furthermore, despite the vocabulary statistics, the sharp division between 4:21 and 5:1

that this approach assumes is disputable. Some commentators would put the major

division between chapters 5 and 6 instead. This discussion is beyond the scope of this

paper; suffice it to say that this structural argument is not certain. Even if the structure

100
Nygren, Romans, 86. See also A. Feuillet, “La Citation d’Habacuc II.4 et les
Huit Premiers Chapitres de l’Epitre aux Romains,” New Testament Studies, 6 (1959–60):
52–80. The present writer’s limited knowledge of French prohibits extensive interaction
with this work.
101
Smith, “ ,” 19.
102
Ibid., 20. In fact, “live by faith” would be a good description of chapters 12–
15. Note the references to faith in the context of Christian living in 12:3, 6; 14:1–2, 22–
23. However, these passages are not referring to eschatological life.
103
Schreiner, Romans, 74.
 75

has been correctly understood, this alone does not determine Paul’s intention for the

quotation.

There are several arguments against connecting with the substantive

. If Paul intended this connection, he should have written or

. For example, Paul wrote ! in Romans

10:6, which shows what he could have written if he meant to connect the substantive and

the prepositional phrase in 1:17b.104 Although the second of is

sometimes omitted in Koine Greek, this would be unusual for Paul. On the other hand,

Paul is quoting.105 He probably used the Septuagint (see above); thus, he omitted the

pronoun $ . If he was willing to omit this pronoun to match his understanding of

Habakkuk, why not make the connection with clear?106

More importantly, this view takes the emphasis off “faith,” which the context

shows is central, and puts the emphasis on “live.”107 “Live” is not even in the context, so

surely it is not where the emphasis should be; the emphasis should be on faith.108

Moreover, this view would seem to contrast the “just by faith,” who will live, and the

“just by works,” who will not live. But if anyone could be just by works, he would live

104
Fitzmyer, Romans, 265; R. M. Moody, “The Habakkuk Quotation in Romans
117,” Expository Times 92/7 (April 1981): 205.
105
Cranfield, Romans, 1:102.
106
Smith, “ ,” 15.
107
Morris, Romans, 70, n. 177.
108
Smith, “ ,” 18.
 76

(Rom 10:5).109 One might wonder whether Paul would have said, “The just-by-faith will

live,” since there is no other kind of just person. In fact, Hendriksen asserts, “In Paul’s

epistles there is no parallel to ‘righteous by faith.’ Rom. 5:1 is not really a parallel.”110

Smith claims that such a connection would be a Pauline innovation. There is no evidence

that Habakkuk ever was interpreted this way by others of the time, including 1QpHab, the

Targums, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.111

Combination view

Given all of the foregoing discussion, it is not surprising that some commentators

argue that both views are correct; i.e., that should be connected with both

and " .112 Dunn claims that Jewish exegesis of Paul’s day tried to extend

meaning, not exclude possible meanings. In this case, the fuller meaning would connect

with both substantive and verb.113 Dunn asks, “How could Paul have

expected his readers to opt one way or other without clearer guidance?”114 One would

expect that the original context of Habakkuk would be guidance enough. Barrett asserts,

109
Godet, Romans, 1:162.
110
Hendriksen, Romans, 64 n. 31.
111
Smith, “ ,” 13–5.
112
Dunn, Romans, 45; Barrett, Romans, 32. Davies comes close to this: “It is
therefore best to understand a primary reference to the righteous who live by faith, with a
secondary reference to the fact that they are also righteous by faith” (Faith and
Obedience in Romans, 41).
113
Dunn, Romans, 45.
114
Ibid., 46.
 77

“More probably, however, [Paul] is again emphasizing the principle of ‘faith all the

time’: man (if righteous at all) is righteous by faith; he also lives by faith.”115 Both of

these ideas may be implicit in the context, but it seems unnecessary to believe that Paul

intended two different meanings for one phrase.

Conclusion

Schreiner seems to think this issue is not extremely important, based on the

meaning of the verb. He writes,

Perhaps Paul did not intend to distinguish rigidly between the two options,
although it is more likely that the prepositional phrase modifies the verb. In Paul
" is often eschatological (e.g., Rom. 6:10, 11, 13; 8:13; 10:5; Gal. 2.19–20),
and it bears such a meaning here. Those who believe will obtain life
eschatologically. “To be righteous by faith” and “to live by faith” are alternate
ways of communicating the same reality.116

Indeed, there is a close relationship between the two ideas. If one is righteous by faith,

certainly he will continue to live by faith, and he will receive eternal life on the basis of

faith. On the other hand, if one will live by faith, then clearly he must have received his

righteous standing on the basis of faith. Thus, both sides are true and fit the broad

context, but it is still better to understand a connection between and " .

As Schreiner mentioned, " refers to eschatological life. Cranfield believes it

refers to “the life with God, which only is true life, the life which the believer is to begin

to enjoy here and now, but which he will enjoy in its fullness in the eschatological

115
Barrett, Romans, 32. He wishes to maintain the “ambiguity” in the Greek.
116
Schreiner, Romans, 74.
 78

future.”117 Dockery claims, “It is primarily eschatological, where its fullness can be

enjoyed, although it can be enjoyed in some sense in the present. . . . For Paul, as for

other Jews, ‘life’ and salvation were practically synonymous.”118 Moody states, “We

must conclude that z setai refers to a living relationship with God established by faith,

lived out by faith, and culminating in a full experience of the presence of God.”119

The Purpose of the Quotation

Now that the quotation is understood, Paul’s purpose for quoting from Habakkuk

should be considered. Some might be tempted to see Habakkuk 2:4 as Paul’s main text,

with the following chapters of Romans as a sermon on this text. Dunn objects,

However, in the light of what we know of first-century midrashic technique and

forms, it is difficult to classify Romans as a midrash on Hab 2:4. We are probably
closer to Paul’s intention if we take the whole of vv 16–17 as the text for or
thematic statement of what follows, with the Habakkuk citation giving the first or
primary proof text, as the introductory formula (‘as it is written’) indicates. The
role of the proof text is to provide the initial underpinning and prima facie
justification for the thematic assertion to which it is attached.120

However, there are reasons for seeing this quotation as more than a mere proof text.

Davies sees Paul’s movement to the wrath of God in verse 18 “as the development of a

117
Cranfield, Romans, 1:101.
118
David S. Dockery, “The Use of Hab. 2:4 in Rom. 1:17: Some Hermeneutical
and Theological Considerations,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22/2 (Fall 1987): 30.
For support Dockery cites Romans 2:7; 4:17; 5:17, 18, 21; 6:4, 10, 11, 13, 22, 23; 7:10;
8:2, 6, 10, 13; 10:5; 12:1.
119
Moody, “Habakkuk Quotation,” 206.
120
Dunn, Romans, 46.
 79

theme inherent in the context of Habakkuk’s prophetic word.”121 Habakkuk contrasts the

righteous and the wicked (even in Hab 2:4). The righteous will live, while the wicked

will face judgment. Thus, the Habakkuk quotation in its context would suggest a

discussion of God’s dealings with the unrighteous.

Moody goes even further: “Note that Paul does not just use quotations from the

OT as proof texts. Major themes and subjects from the OT underlie whole sections of

Romans.”122 He elaborates,

It is therefore very revealing that the basic theme of Habakkuk is the problem of
the punishment of Israel by means of the heathen. Is God choosing the less-
righteous in place of the more-righteous? What a very vital question for Paul
whose whole working life was the experience of Gentiles becoming Christians
and the Jews rejecting Jesus! Given that God is in control, here is the problem of
Habakkuk laid alive on his very doorstep. And when we examine Romans we find
that it has in a very important way the same theme as Habakkuk. Ch. 1 presents
the fundamental evil of the Gentiles and chs. 2 and 3 the evil of Israel, and then
from the end of ch. 3 we examine God’s solution to the problem of evil; the
nature of the solution, causing Gentiles, it seems, to be preferred to Jews, leads
naturally into chs. 9–11 which outline God’s temporary rejection of his people
and their ultimate restoration at the end-time.123

Surely Paul had reflected on the meaning of Habakkuk. Would not he have had in mind

the whole message of Habakkuk, rather than a simple proof text?

Habakkuk deals with the problem of evil in that the prophet wonders how a holy

God can use wicked Babylon to punish the less-wicked Israel. Habakkuk wanted to

reconcile God’s revealed character and His pronouncement that He would use the

121
Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans, 43. Davies also suggests that
Romans 1:18–32 is not a universal condemnation of mankind but a condemnation of the
wicked (ibid., 45). This does not seem to be a necessary inference.
122
Moody, “Habakkuk Quotation,” 207.
123
Ibid., 208.
 80

Babylonians. Romans also deals with the problem of evil, but from a different angle. Paul

is not concerned with justifying God; instead, he is concerned with justifying man. The

biblical problem of evil does not deal with the reconciliation of the existence of both God

and evil; the biblical problem of evil involves the reconciliation of the holy God and evil

men. This reconciliation is possible by grace through faith; without faith, man must face

destruction. This is what Romans is all about, and in many ways this was also God’s

answer to Habakkuk. This was not the answer Habakkuk was looking for. Instead of

explaining His actions, God told Habakkuk that he simply needed to remain faithful. In a

sense, God was saying, “Trust me. You do what you need to do, and I’ll do what I need

to do.” There are two ways open to men: one of self-reliance with self-exaltation and one

of steadfast trust in God with God-glorification. As Paul expounded these two ways in

Romans, it is no surprise that his mind turned to Habakkuk.

Conclusion

Paul states the theme of his epistle to the Romans in 1:16–17. This letter is all

about the gospel because the gospel is where one finds the power of God at work. The

gospel message offers salvation to anyone who believes, whether Jew or Gentile. The

message of salvation offered in the gospel is that God will declare a person to be

righteous on the basis of faith, not works. This message was not a Pauline innovation.

According to Paul, Scripture testifies that the one whom God reckons as righteous will

live by faith. Whether this agrees with Habakkuk’s meaning for the same words in the

context of the upcoming Babylonian invasion will be explored after examining Galatians

3:11 in the next chapter.

 CHAPTER FOUR

EXEGESIS OF GALATIANS 3:11

The final New Testament quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 to be considered is found in

Galatians 3:11. Verses 10–12 will be particularly important for one’s understanding of

Paul’s use of Habakkuk in Galatians.

Context

Paul’s epistle to the Galatians shares many themes with Romans, so it is not

surprising that a quotation from Habakkuk is found in both books. However, the tone of

Galatians is very different because of the historical situation the letter was intended to

address. Unlike with the church at Rome, Paul had personally preached the gospel to the

Galatians.1 After he had left, false teachers had come to the Galatian churches with “a

different gospel” (Gal 1:6). It is evident that these false teachers demanded that Gentile

Christians observe the Law of Moses, especially circumcision.2 Thus, these false teachers

1
There is much scholarly debate regarding which “Galatians” this epistle was
addressed to. The commentaries cited below provide evidence for and against the “North
Galatian” and “South Galatian” theories. There is also discussion about the date of the
epistle and how it fits with the historical information provided by the book of Acts. These
issues are beyond the boundaries of this thesis. Sufficient context for the proper
interpretation of Galatians 3:11 is provided by the epistle itself.
2
See references to circumcision in 2:3, “the party of the circumcision” in verse
12, living like Jews in verse 14, “the works of the Law” in verse 16 and 3:2, 5, 10,
observing “days and months and seasons and years” in 4:10, being “under law” in verse
21, circumcision in 5:2–3, “justified by law” in verse 4, and circumcision in 6:12–13.
 82

have traditionally been called “Judaizers.” They wanted Gentiles to become Jews in order

to be Christians.

Paul called down a curse upon these false teachers (1:8–9) and urged the

Galatians to hold firmly to the gospel as he had preached it to them. One reason that

Paul’s gospel was superior is that it did not come from man but from God, by direct

revelation to Paul (vv. 11–12). Indeed, after Paul’s conversion, he did not consult with

the other apostles for some time (vv. 15–19). When some years later he spent time in

Jerusalem, the apostles approved of his gospel (2:1–10).

In fact, when the apostle Peter came to Antioch, he initially had table fellowship

with Gentiles, until some Jewish Christians came from Jerusalem (vv. 11–12). But Paul,

rather than following Peter’s example, “opposed him to his face” (v. 11). Paul was not

concerned with pleasing men; he was concerned about the truth of the gospel. The gospel

promises justification through faith in Christ, not through observance of the Mosaic Law.

In fact, if one could be justified through the Law, it would have been unnecessary for

Christ to die (v. 21).

Indeed, seeking righteousness through the Law is a foolish enterprise, and Paul

proved this to the Galatians by citing both their own experience (3:1–5) and the testimony

of Scripture (3:6–29). He reminded them that they had received the Holy Spirit by

believing, not by observing the Law (v. 2). He then turned to the ultimate example of a

Jew, the patriarch Abraham (v. 6). Genesis 15:6 testifies that Abraham was justified

because he “believed God.” Scripture also promised (Gen 12:3) that the Gentiles would

be blessed in Abraham, who stands as an example of faith, not works. Paul declared, “It
 83

is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham” (Gal 3:7) and, “Those who are of

faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer” (v. 9).

Galatians 3:10

Paul contrasts “those who are of faith [ ]” (vv. 7, 9) with “as many as

are of the works of the Law [ % & ' $ ]” (v. 10). While the former are

blessed ( # , v. 9), the latter are under a curse ( ! , v. 10). Jan

Lambrecht notes the implicit argument standing between verses 9 and 10: “The people of

the law ( $ ) are not blessed.”3 Why does blessing come by faith and not by the

Law? Paul quotes Deuteronomy 27:26 to show that the Law brings a curse, not blessing.

Unsatisfactory Views

Scholarly debate rages about Paul’s use of this quotation from Deuteronomy. This

verse states that those who fail to keep the Law are cursed, but Paul says that those who

“are of the works of the Law,” presumably people who try to keep the Law, are cursed.

At first glance, Paul’s assertion in Galatians 3:10a seems to be the opposite of the Old

Testament Scripture cited in 10b as support for that assertion. A few unsatisfactory ways

of dealing with this apparent problem have been suggested.

The curse is upon Israel

James Scott notes that Paul’s phrase “written in the book of the Law” (Gal 3:10)

is not actually found in Deuteronomy 27:26, but it “runs through Deuteronomy 27–32

3
Jan Lambrecht, “Curse and Blessing: A Study of Galatians 3,10–14,” in Pauline
Studies: Collected Essays, 271–98, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lov
Aniensium 115 (Leuven, Belg.: Leuven University Press, 1994), 279.
 84

like a leitmotif (cf. Deut. 28.58, 61; 29.19, 20, 26; 30.10).”4 Deuteronomy 27–32 is the

section on blessings and curses, and the contrast between these two is central in Paul’s

argument in Galatians 3:10–14. Paul says that “as many as are of works of the Law are

under a curse,” which Deuteronomy 27:26 does not explicitly say. Scott claims Paul was

making an assumption that was fairly common in Jewish tradition at the time: “The

curses of Deuteronomy 27–32 had indeed fallen upon Israel in (722 and) 587 BCE, and

would remain upon the nation until the time of the messianic redemption and the

restoration. From Paul’s perspective, however, (# ! # $ !) . The time

of the Restoration has come.”5

However, what impact would this traditional Jewish understanding (if Scott is

correct about that) have had on the Gentiles to whom Paul was writing? Would they have

even understood Paul’s veiled references to Jewish tradition? Furthermore, it is not clear

to what degree the exile influenced Paul’s thinking. Moisés Silva notes, “When drawing

exegetical conclusions one should hesitate to lean heavily on a concept that the apostle

never mentions explicitly and to which he does not even clearly allude.” Even if Paul

shared this view of the exile, one cannot be sure that he was referring to this in Galatians

3. Silva adds, “The apostle frequently uses scriptural texts in ways that differ from, or

4
James M. Scott, “‘For As Many As Are of Works of the Law Are under a Curse’
(Galatians 3.10),” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A.
Sanders, 187–221, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 83
(Sheffield, Eng.: JSOT Press, 1993), 195.
5
Ibid., 221.
 85

even contradict, those of his contemporaries, so we can hardly assume that his use of

Deut 27:26 here conforms to theirs.”6

Jewish distinctives excluding Gentiles

James Dunn thinks those who are “of the works of the Law” were specifically

those who put too much emphasis on that which distinguished Jews from Gentiles, “those

who rested their confidence in Israel’s ‘favoured nation’ status.”7 According to Dunn,

focusing on the Law to the exclusion of the Gentiles was itself a violation of the Law and

thus brought a curse.8 However, the citation from Deuteronomy implies that “the works

of the Law” include more than the “ethnic aspects of the Law.” Indeed, “Deuteronomy

27–30 is full of curses against all sorts of legal violations. . . . The language is

comprehensive; the law is an organic whole, and all of it must be obeyed.”9 Scott also

notes that “the works of the Law” are related to “all” the commandments in Deuteronomy

27:26; “furthermore, in picking up the idea of a curse from v. 10, Gal. 3.13 cannot mean

to say that Christ delivers Jews from a mistaken view of the law!”10

6
Moisés Silva, “Abraham, Faith, and Works: Paul’s Use of Scripture in Galatians
3:6–14,” Westminster Theological Journal 63/2 (Fall 2001): 257; see also ibid., 260, n.
25.
7
James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, Black’s New Testament
Commentary (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 172.
8
Ibid., 172–72.
9
Andrew A. Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 2001), 157.
10
Scott, “Galatians 3.10,” 192.
 86

Potential curse

Some scholars understand verse 10 as giving only the potentiality of a curse:

Christopher Stanley writes, “Anyone who chooses to abide by the Jewish Torah in order

to secure participation in Abraham’s ‘blessing’ is placed in a situation where he or she is

threatened instead with a ‘curse,’ since the law itself pronounces a curse on anyone who

fails to live up to every single one of its requirements.”11 Joseph Braswell claims that

“under a curse” in verse 10 is parallel to the phrases “under law” (3:23; 4:4) and “under

tutors and governors” (4:2), and these are related to “under sin” (3:22) and “under the

elements” (4:3, 8). He asserts, “All of these expressions describe spheres of power and

dominion to which the people therein enclosed are made subject and under whose sway,

reign, and jurisdiction they live. The & ' $ are not said to be accursed; they are

merely under a curse(-threat) as those living within the sphere in which the curse

principle is operative.”12 Braswell’s observation of the use of in Galatians is

interesting; however, the phrase “under law” does not mean “potentially under law,” and

“under tutors” does not mean “potentially under tutors.” Those within the sphere of a

curse are accursed.

11
Christopher D. Stanley, “‘Under a Curse’: A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3. 10–
14,” New Testament Studies 36/4 (October 1990): 500.
12
Joseph P. Braswell, “‘The Blessing of Abraham’ Versus ‘The Curse of the
Law’: Another Look at Gal 3:10–13,” Westminster Theological Journal 53/1 (Spring
1991): 76 (emphasis original).
 87

Moreover, this potential-curse view is unlikely, since verse 10 says they “are

under a curse” (note the present tense).13 Norman Young tries to get around this present

tense by assuming an implied condition: “if they do not keep all the laws.”14 According to

Young, Paul is saying that if one puts himself under the Law, then he must obey all of it;

otherwise, he comes under the curse. However, Paul’s opponents did not accept all of the

Law (e.g., they probably no longer had sacrifices or priests).15 However, Young does not

adequately account for verse 13, which implies that the curse was realized. “Christ

redeemed ‘us’ from the curse of the law, not from a ‘negative potentiality.’”16 Moreover,

being “under a curse” is contrasted with the blessing of believers (v. 9). The blessing is

not potential, so the curse is not either.

A curse on Christians who submit to the Law

According to Timothy Gombis, verse 10 pronounces “a curse on New Covenant

believers who submit to the authority of the Old Covenant.”17 A believer in Jesus

13
Das, Paul, 148.
14
Norman H. Young, “Who’s Cursed—And Why? (Galatians 3:10–14),” Journal
of Biblical Literature 117/1 (Spring 1998): 86–87.
15
Ibid., 87–88. Note the comment of F. F. Bruce: “Why does Paul make no
reference to the sin-offering, or to the day of atonement? One reason may be that the
sacrificial ritual had not been mentioned by the agitators. Even they knew that this part of
the law at least had been rendered obsolete by the death of Christ” (The Epistle to the
Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament
Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983], 160–61).
16
Scott, “Galatians 3.10,” 193; cf. Das, Paul, 148.
17
Timothy G. Gombis, “The Curse of the Law in Galatians 3:10–14” (Th.M.
thesis, The Master’s Seminary, 2000), 83. See also idem, “The ‘Transgressor’ and the
 88

recognizes that God does not justify on the basis of one’s obedience to the Mosaic Law;

thus, this believer acknowledges that the Law does not have binding authority over him.

On the other hand, if a believer follows the Judaizers, then he must admit that the Law is

required for justification and thus has binding authority. This contradiction results in the

believer coming under the curse of Deuteronomy 27:26. Gombis believes this

interpretation provides the best fit for (1) “the nature of the error in Galatia,” (2) “the

logic of Paul’s argument,” and (3) “the context of Paul’s argument.”18

His first point is valid, for the Judaizers did claim that both faith in Christ and

submission to the Law were required. His second point is weak. Paul states that those

who do not “remain within” the things written in the Law are cursed, and he defines

“remain within” by the statement “to do them.” Thus, Gombis states the logic of the

argument as follows: “Those who are ‘of the works of the law’ are somehow not doing

them and so are accursed.”19 However, Gombis goes on to suggest that denying the

authority of the Mosaic Law is a failure to “remain within” the Law. Gombis has just said

that failure to “remain within” means a failure to do what is in the Law; how is a denial

of the Law’s authority a failure to do anything? Certainly denying the Law’s authority

would naturally lead to violations of the Law, but these are still two different concepts.

Gombis’s third point refers to Paul’s argument in Galatians 2:15–21 that

Christians are no longer under the authority of the Law. According to Gombis, Paul states

‘Curse of the Law’: The Logic of Paul’s Argument in Galatians 2–3,” New Testament
Studies 53/1 (January 2007): 81–93.
18
Gombis, “Curse of the Law in Galatians,” 83–85.
19
Ibid., 84 (emphasis original).
 89

that a Christian returning to the Law proves himself to be a transgressor of the Law, since

he already had ceased his submission to the Law (Gal 2:18). What Gombis assumes is

that such a person does indeed fail to keep the whole Law. This thesis will support the

view that there is an implied premise in Galatians 3:10 that no one obeys the Law

perfectly. Gombis assumes something very much like this premise, but he denies the need

for an implied premise.20 Therefore, Gombis’s view should also be rejected.

The Legalist Interpretation

To understand the connection between Paul’s assertion in verse 10a and his

citation of Deuteronomy in 10b, one must understand what he means by % & '

$ . It was noted above that this phrase stands in contrast with in

verse 9. This phrase means more than simply “believers.” When one reads 2:15–21, it

becomes clear that Paul is talking about how one is justified. Some seek justification “by

the works of the Law” (repeated three times in v. 16), while others seek justification “by

faith in Christ.” These verses in chapter 2 make it clear that law and faith are two

incompatible ways for one to seek justification. Thus “those who are of faith” are those

who rely on faith for their justification, and “as many as are of the works of the Law” are

those who rely on the Law for their justification. As F. F. Bruce notes, “The threefold

20
Gombis argues against the implied premise in his discussion of verse 10 (ibid.,
72–75); however, in his discussion of verse 12 he states, “Paul is assuming here the
fundamental problem of humanity, that they will inevitably fail to do all the
commandments of God’s Law. This is his main point in Romans 7 and this
understanding lies behind his argument throughout Galatians 3” (ibid., 120; emphasis
added). Gombis cites other scholars for this latter point, so perhaps he does not intend it
to express his own view. However, he cites this as an argument for the position he holds,
which would seem to imply that he thinks this argument valid.
 90

occurrence of & ' $ in 2:16 implies that the reference here is to those who rely

on the Law, or on their performance of the Law, for their acceptance with God.”21 Bruce

also observes, “Paul had no ready word or phrase in Greek to express what we mean by

‘legalism,’ and therefore had to use ‘law’ or a phrase containing ‘law’ to express it.”22

Silva notes that one’s understanding of should also be determined

by Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Galatians 3:11. Silva writes, “In other words,

are those who, like Abraham, live by faith and are blessed; while % & '

$ are those who live by the things commanded in the law and are cursed.”23 Silva

also notes a close connection between life and justification. Not only is

associated with " in Galatians 3:11, but the parallelism between 2:21 ( ! !

$ ) and 3:21 ( ! $ $ " ) makes this

same connection.24 This implies a connection between those “of the Law” and those who

seek to be justified by the Law in 5:4 ( % $ ). Silva concludes, “It

turns out, then, that a rendering such as ‘those who rely on works of the law,’ although

much maligned by some recent scholars, is hardly inimical to the context.”25

21
Bruce, Galatians, 157.
22
Ibid., 137. This point is also made by C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., International Critical
Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975–79), 2:853. Cranfield notes that context
must decide whether Paul meant the Law or the misuse of the Law that today is called
“legalism.”
23
Silva, “Abraham, Faith, and Works,” 260–61 (emphasis original).
24
Ibid., 261 n. 28
25
Ibid., 261.
 91

As Silva notes, some scholars reject this “legalist” interpretation. Scott writes,

“Paul speaks in Gal. 3.10 of a curse upon those who fail to do the law, not particularly

upon those who (misguidedly) try to do it!”26 It is true that 3:10b speaks of a curse for

law-breakers, but verse 10a does not specifically mention law-breakers (nor law-keepers

for that matter). Verse 10a does refer to those who are “of the works of the Law,”

particularly as opposed to those who are “of faith.” The addition of the preposition ,

especially in the context of 2:15–21, makes all the difference.

Das claims, “Verse 12 states rather bluntly that it is the law, not a

misunderstanding of it or a wrong attitude, that is opposed to faith.”27 However, Paul’s

purpose is not to contrast faith and Law in this passage. Instead, “the contrast is rather

between those who live by each.”28 Paul only argues against “works of the Law” in the

context of justification. Indeed, Paul allowed Jewish Christians to observe the Law, and

he obeyed the Law himself when appropriate.29 There is nothing wrong with “works of

the Law,” but Paul rejects the idea that one can be justified by them.

Why Legalists Are Cursed

In verse 10a Paul announces that those who seek to be justified by obeying the

Law (such persons would be called “legalists” today) are actually under a curse. Paul

26
Scott, “Galatians 3.10,” 190.
27
Das, Paul, 162.
28
Stanley, “Under a Curse,” 484.
29
Douglas J. Moo, “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul,”
Westminster Theological Journal 45/1 (Spring 1983): 97 n. 77.
 92

does not state explicitly why legalists are under the curse pronounced against law-

breakers.

The judgment of the Law differs from the judgment of God

Ernest Burton believes in a distinction between the curse of the Law and the

judgment of God in Galatians 3: “The verdicts of law . . . are, for Paul, not judgments

which reflect God’s attitude now or at any time or under any circumstances, but those

which the legalist must, to his own undoing, recognise as those of the law interpreted as

he interprets it, and which on the basis of his legalism he must impute to God.”30

However, Burton’s view “fails to take account of the seriousness of the ‘curse’

envisioned by Paul in the present passage—so serious in fact that it required the

crucifixion of Jesus Christ to annul it (v. 13) before God’s ‘blessing’ could come upon

the Gentiles (v. 14).”31 Moreover, in verse 13 “the curse is the curse of the Law, since the

Law expresses it (Dt. 27:26; 21:23). Yet it is also the curse of God, for the Law is the

revelation of God.”32 Thus, Burton’s distinction should be rejected.

30
Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on St. Paul’s
Epistle to the Galatians, International Critical Commentary (London: T. & T. Clark,
1921), 165.
31
Stanley, “Under a Curse,” 485.
32
Friedrich Büchsel, “ #*,” in Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, 10 vols., ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey
William Bromiley, 1:448–51 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–76), 1:450.
 93

Legalism equals bribery

Daniel Fuller asserts that legalism itself is a heinous crime, like those listed in the

curses of Deuteronomy 27:15–25. By trying to earn God’s favor by doing works, the

legalist attempts to bribe God. Fuller writes, “It should be pointed out that the law flatly

states that the Lord ‘takes no bribe’ (Deut 10:17). . . . So by regarding ‘the works of the

law’ in Gal 3:10 as the sin of bribing God, coherency is attained in the argument of Gal

3:10, without resorting to the highly arbitrary procedure of adding a whole proposition to

this verse.”33 Fuller’s reference to “adding a whole proposition” refers to the “implied

premise” view to be discussed next. However, Fuller is not correct when he asserts that

adding a premise is arbitrary. Silva notes, “Every single citation in vv. 6–14 is

characterized by some kind of logical gap. . . . One of the most significant gaps is the lack

of an explicit connection between the giving of the Spirit and Abraham’s faith, yet,

strangely, commentators and scholars seldom even mention the problem.”34 Silva also

notes that there is ample evidence in rabbinical writings for this type of omission of

assumed and agreed-upon premises.35 Moreover, bribery is not mentioned in the context

of Galatians, so Fuller’s view is at least as “arbitrary” as the implied premise view.

33
Daniel P. Fuller, “Paul and ‘The Works of the Law,’” Westminster Theological
Journal 38/1 (Fall 1975): 33.
34
Silva, “Abraham, Faith, and Works,” 262.
35
Ibid.
 94

An implied premise

The statement from Deuteronomy 27:26 that law-breakers are cursed supports

Paul’s assertion that legalists are cursed because there is an implicit assumption being

made: no one obeys the Law completely. Those who wish to be justified by the Law fail

because they do not obey it perfectly.

Supporting Arguments

There is some emphasis on “all things” in the quotation “Cursed is everyone who

does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”36 In fact, the

Masoretic Text does not include the Hebrew equivalent of “all” (although it is implicit in

the context). The word (“all”), which Paul includes, is found in the Septuagint, and

yet Paul does not follow the Septuagint exactly. Paul has “everything that is written in the

book of the Law,” while the Septuagint has “all the words of this law.” Deuteronomy

27:26 refers to the 12 curses pronounced from Mount Ebal, while Paul generalizes the

statement to include the entire Law.37

This understanding of an implied premise makes sense in this context. Thomas

Schreiner notes, “Paul’s claim that the OT itself curses those who do not abide by the law

36
Compare Galatians 5:3: “I testify again to every man who receives
circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” Thus, complete
obedience was on Paul’s mind. Cf. James 2:10: “For whoever keeps the whole law and
yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.”
37
Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, New International
Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988), 141.
 95

in its entirety is an effective statement only if one cannot obey it perfectly.”38 If the Law

could be obeyed, then why did Christ have to die (cf. 2:21)? Moreover, this view agrees

with Paul’s theology expressed in Romans 1–3, especially 3:9–20, that sin is universal.39

The fact that man’s inability to obey the Law perfectly is implied in Galatians 3 is

confirmed by verse 13, “where it is said that Christ redeemed those who were under the

curse by himself becoming a curse. Only if the curse of v 10 is pronounced on failure to

keep the law does the substitutionary redemption language of this verse make sense.”40

Silva has a different view of the implied premise. He believes the missing

assumption is that Paul’s “‘faith-less’ opponents in particular were the ones who failed to

fulfill the requirement of Deut 27:26. We could even say that the premise is built into the

way Paul introduces the citation, namely, by describing the false teachers as being

characterized by works (and therefore as not being children of faithful/believing

Abraham).”41 Silva seems to be saying that being “of the Law” is itself a violation of the

Law, since the Law requires one to be “of faith”; hence, anyone “of the Law” is

automatically cursed. While this may be true, the context of Galatians 3 discusses the

38
Thomas R. Schreiner, “Is Perfect Obedience to the Law Possible? A Re-
Examination of Galatians 3:10,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27/2
(June 1984): 159.
39
Ibid., 159–60. Compare also Galatians 6:3, “For those who are circumcised do
not even keep the Law themselves.”
40
Moo, “Legalism in Paul,” 98.
41
Silva, “Abraham, Faith, and Works,” 263–64. The argument is repeated in
Moisés Silva, “Galatians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 785–812 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Academic, 2007), 799.
 96

“works of the Law,” so when one reads of “all things written in the book of the Law” it is

natural to understand this as referring to the same thing as “works of the Law.” This

phrase would more readily suggest obedience to specific commands of the Law, rather

than a failure to adopt the principle of faith as opposed to works. Therefore, what Paul

assumed is that no one obeys the Law completely.

Opposing Arguments

This understanding of an implied premise is not without critics. Louis Martyn

claims that Paul nowhere refers to the required assumption that complete obedience is

impossible; in fact, Martyn cites Philippians 3:4–6, where Paul claims to have been

blameless himself.42 However, this indicates a misunderstanding of Philippians 3:6.

Schreiner writes, “The context indicates that this is Paul’s pre-Christian evaluation of

himself. As a Pharisee Paul thought that he kept the Law perfectly, but Phil 3:3–4 makes

it clear that this was Paul’s fleshly view of himself.”43 Schreiner also observes that Paul’s

notion of blamelessness likely included offering sacrifices for sin in the temple. “The

point that Paul is making in Phil 3:6 is simply that his obedience to the law was superior

to the obedience attained by his opponents.”44

Richard Hays says, “Whether it is possible to keep all the commandments of the

Law is beside the point, because in any case keeping the commandments cannot produce

justification and life. How does Paul know this? It is clear ( # ), he asserts, because

42
J. Louis Martyn, Galatians, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 310.
43
Schreiner, “Is Perfect Obedience to the Law Possible?” 158.
44
Ibid.
 97

" .”45 However, this passage does not say that “keeping the

commandments cannot produce justification.” What verse 11 does say is that “no one is

justified by the Law.” True, the support Paul offers for the claim that no one is justified

by the Law is the quotation from Habakkuk. But neither Paul nor Habakkuk explains why

justification is by faith and not by the Law. Man’s inability to obey the Law is what

makes faith necessary. Hays continues, “Paul rejects the Law not because of an empirical

observation that no one can do what it requires but because its claim to give life,

explicitly articulated in Lev 18:5, is incompatible with the gospel story, which says that

Christ had to die in order to give life to us (3:13–14; cf. 2:21).”46 Hays creates a false

dichotomy here. Man’s inability to keep the Law (or any law, for that matter) makes the

gospel necessary. Paul did not need “an empirical observation” of man’s inability; this

truth is implicit in the gospel.

Stanley claims that an argument regarding man’s inability to fulfill the Law

completely would be useless. “Paul’s Judaizing opponents would presumably have

agreed with any assertion that the law could not be fulfilled apart from divine assistance,

but would have countered that such help had now come (for Christians) in the appearance

of the Holy Spirit.”47 However, Paul does not argue man’s inability. Perhaps his

45
Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of
Galatians 3:1–4:11, 2d ed., Biblical Resource Series (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans;
Dearborn, Mich.: Dove Booksellers, 2002), 178.
46
Ibid., 179.
47
Stanley, “Under a Curse,” 483 (emphasis original).
 98

opponents, and certainly the Gentile Galatian Christians, would have agreed with him.

That is precisely why he does not need to state this premise explicitly.

E. P. Sanders offers three arguments against an implied premise of man’s inability

to keep the Law completely. First, he claims the emphasis is not on “all.” He asserts that

Paul chose which verse to quote in Galatians 3:10 because he wanted to link “law” and

“curse.” Deuteronomy 27:26 is the only passage in which “law” is connected with

“curse” in the Septuagint, and so Sanders believes that Paul emphasized “law” and

“curse,” not “all.”48 However, this does not prove that Paul intended no emphasis on

“all.” Even if this word were not involved in his choice of text, that would not imply that

“all” is not exegetically significant; to say that it does is merely to presuppose what one is

trying to show.49

In fact, there are at least four reasons to believe that Paul quotes Deuteronomy

27:26 because the Judaizers had done so: (1) Paul does not cite this verse anywhere else;

(2) Paul does not use the terms and except in Galatians 3:10, 13;

(3) when Paul talks about Abraham in Romans 4, he does not discuss blessing and curse,

since he did not face the Judaizers; and (4) this curse fits the Judaizers’ theology well.50 If

this is the case, then Paul might have wanted to turn the tables on them by emphasizing

“all.” Richard Longenecker observes, “The Judaizers had evidently focused on the words

48
E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1983), 21.
49
Thomas R. Schreiner, “Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation
of the View of E. P. Sanders,” Westminster Theological Journal 47/2 (Fall 1985): 256.
50
Martyn, Galatians, 309.
 99

(‘to do them’). Paul, however, seems to be more concerned to stress

(‘all’), which is his emphasis again in 5:3 (cf. also 6:13).”51

Second, Sanders claims that one should not exegete the “proof-text” to determine

Paul’s meaning; instead, one should see what Paul says. Sanders asserts, “In 3:10 Paul

means that those who accept the law are cursed. This consideration also points to the

conclusion that the emphasis is not on the word ‘all.’”52 However, Sanders principle is

assumed, not defended. The New Testament use of the Old Testament is too complex to

support such a universal principle.53 Moreover, in this context Paul cites the Old

Testament to explain his assertions. In verse 11, Habakkuk 2:4 explains why “no one is

justified by the law”; in verse 12, Leviticus 18:5 supports “the law is not of faith”; and in

verse 13, Deuteronomy 21:23 explains how Christ has become a curse. Similarly,

Deuteronomy 27:26 explains why those “of the Law” are cursed.54 Michael Cranford

notes, “What Sanders overlooks is that any mishandling of the text on Paul’s part would

provide his opponents the opportunity to discount his use of the text and therefore the

argument on which it rests.”55

51
Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas:
Word, 1990), 117.
52
E. Sanders, Paul, 22.
53
Schreiner, “Paul and Perfect Obedience,” 256–57.
54
Ibid., 257–58.
55
Michael Cranford, “The Possibility of Perfect Obedience: Paul and an Implied
Premise in Galatians 3:10 and 5:3,” Novum Testamentum 36/3 (July 1994): 246.
 100

Third, Sanders claims that Galatians 3:10–13 is subsidiary to verse 8 (he

translates, “God righteouses the Gentiles by faith”), so the point is not the unfulfillability

of the Law.56 However, Schreiner observes that this subordination does not prove the

claim Sanders makes.57 Thus, Sanders’ three arguments do not withstand careful scrutiny.

Louis Martyn prefers the view that “for Paul the curse of the Law falls on both

observer and nonobserver.”58 However, Paul’s citation of Deuteronomy would not

support this argument, since Deuteronomy 27:26 does not make this claim. Moreover, the

“law-observer” is not in this context. Paul is talking about those who are “of the Law,”

not those who obey the Law. In this passage Paul does not say whether those who are “of

the Law” actually obey it. It is safe to say that Paul believed (and assumed his readers

would agree) that they did not (cf. Gal 6:13). Silva states, “The fact is that the apostle

nowhere (in Galatians or in his other letters) characterizes his opponents as people who

are obedient to the law. He will admit to no such thing.”59

Conclusion

After considering all the views and all the arguments, no reason has been found to

reject the legalist interpretation or the understanding of an implied premise. Ronald Fung

concludes correctly, “Paul’s meaning in [Gal 3:10] is, therefore, that all who hold to legal

works are under the curse pronounced by the law itself upon all who do not observe the

56
E. Sanders, Paul, 22.
57
Schreiner, “Paul and Perfect Obedience,” 259.
58
Martyn, Galatians, 311.
59
Silva, “Abraham, Faith, and Works,” 263; idem, “Galatians,” 799.
 101

law completely. The words presuppose that no one does observe the law completely.”60

In contrast with verse 9, verse 10 could be summarized: “All who rely on legal efforts . . .

that is, all whose identity and direction are formed by meeting the requirements of a

system or a rule, are under a curse: they are excluded (or exclude themselves) from the

divine blessing by reason of the fact that they are not men of faith.”61

Galatians 3:11–12

Paul has argued that men of faith are blessed along with Abraham, while men of

Law are cursed. However, for his argument to work, Paul must show that men of Law are

not of faith. Thus verse 11 “introduces an additional piece of information by revealing

the principle that allows Paul to characterize his opponents as ‘faith-less.’ Thus it would

be possible to view v. 11 not as a distinct thesis but as a corollary of the thesis in v. 10.”62

The Law Does Not Justify

The thesis of verse 11 is that “no one is justified by the Law before God.”

Longenecker notes, “The passive construction of (‘is justified’) emphasizes

60
Fung, Galatians, 142.
61
David Hill, “Salvation Proclaimed: IV. Galatians 310–14: Freedom and
Acceptance,” Expository Times 93/7 (April 1982): 197.
62
Silva, “Abraham, Faith, and Works,” 264 (emphasis original); similarly, idem,
“Galatians,” 801. Note also, “The introduces a matter in addition to a previous one
(‘furthermore’), so that v 11 is more than simply a ‘parallel’ to v 10” (Hans Dieter Betz,
Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches of Galatia, Hermeneia
[Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979], 146).
 102

righteousness as bestowed by another rather than as achieved by one’s own effort.”63 Paul

had made this claim in 2:16, but here he says that this assertion is “evident” ( # )

because of the testimony of Scripture found in Habakkuk 2:4:

" . Once again the syntactical relationship between these words must be explored.

As was the case for Romans 1:17, so also for Galatians 3:11 some scholars connect

with the verb while others connect it with the substantive.

Live by faith

As was mentioned in the discussion of Romans, the Masoretic Text and the

Septuagint favor the connection “live by faith,” as does Paul’s word order. In the context

of Galatians 3, “live by faith” provides a better contrast with “live by them” ("

) in verse 12 (quoted from Lev 18:5).64 On the other hand, Fung claims, “It may

equally be argued that the very parallelism of the words "

and !" favors ‘he who is righteous by faith,’ corresponding to ‘he

who practices them,’ the two scriptures furnishing opposing answers to the question—not

‘How will one live?’ but ‘Who shall live?’”65 However, Fung has ignored the “in them” at

the end of the Leviticus quotation. Stanley claims that the parallelism logically implies

the addition of at the end of the Habakkuk quote,66 but that merely assumes the

63
Longenecker, Galatians, 118.
64
Fung, Galatians, 144.
65
Ibid., 145; similarly, Stanley, “Under a Curse,” 504 n. 60.
66
Ibid.
 103

parallel he is trying to assert and makes the addition to support it. Since there is no “in it”

at the end of the Habakkuk quote, Stanley’s understanding probably is flawed.

Hays believes that the connection “live by faith” fits better with the first part of

Galatians 3:11 as well. He claims, “The word " carried for Paul eschatological

connotations and . . . is used in 3:11b as a virtual synonym of in 3:11a. Thus,

should be taken as an adverbial modifier of " , functionally parallel (and

materially antithetical) to $ in 3:11a, which is clearly a modifier of , not

of .”67 Lambrecht asserts,

In Paul’s thought the whole expression “the righteous will live through faith” of
verse 11b corresponds to “is justified” of verse 11a. Notwithstanding its future
tense, the verb “will live” does not primarily indicate here the full Christian life
after justification nor life after death; it points, we think, to the justification itself
which occurs through faith, not through the law.68

Similarly, Bruce claims: “Righteousness by faith is for Paul so closely bound up with true

life that the two terms—‘righteousness’ and ‘life’—can in practice be used

interchangeably (cf. v 21b).”69 Burton states, “+ , ‘shall live,’ refers either to the

obtaining of eternal life as the highest good and goal to which justification looks, or, by

metonymy, to justification itself. It is justification, in any case, that is chiefly in mind.”70

Thus, there are good reasons for understanding Paul’s meaning to be “the righteous will

live by faith.”

67
Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 133.
68
Lambrecht, “Curse and Blessing,” 283.
69
Bruce, Galatians, 162.
70
Burton, Galatians, 166.
 104

Righteous by faith

Nevertheless, some scholars argue for the understanding “the righteous-by-faith

will live.” Fung notes that verse 11 speaks of “justified . . . by the law,” and indeed how

one is justified, not how the righteous shall live, is in context of Galatians from 2:15 on.71

However, one should note Galatians 2:20, where Paul says, “I live by faith [ " ]

in the Son of God.” Thus, in the context of justification (Gal 2:15–21), Paul does mention

how the righteous live. Fung also notes that if the righteous man lives by faith, then

certainly he became righteous by faith. Thus, Paul could use the Habakkuk quote in the

sense of “righteous by faith” without violating the prophet’s intention.72 On the other

hand, Paul could use the quotation in the sense of “live by faith” with the implication that

one becomes “righteous by faith” as well.

Combination view

Some scholars argue that Paul meant both “righteous by faith” and “live by faith.”

Dunn claims, “Paul’s point is precisely that the identity of ‘the righteous person’ per se

derives from and is determined by faith. And that includes his ‘living’ as ‘one who is

righteous’; ‘from faith’ characterizes and constitutes his relationship with God from

beginning to end.”73 Martyn claims, “Gal 3:21 suggests that the two readings would mean

the same thing to Paul, for in that verse he equates rectification with making alive. . . .

71
Fung, Galatians, 144.
72
Ibid., 144–45. Of course, if Habakkuk is referring to faithfulness and not faith,
then violating the prophet’s intention might not be a good standard on which to base
one’s decision.
73
Dunn, Galatians, 174.
 105

Being made alive by God and being rectified by God are the same event.”74 Even Hays

remarks, “It is difficult to see what is really at stake in this question, for no one seriously

supposes that Paul reckons with the possibility of some hypothetical person who is

apart from faith.”75 Hays claims that the meaning suggested by the two views is

“substantially identical”: “In either case, the phrase specifies the manner in

which shall find life (= be justified).”76 Perhaps “righteous by faith” and “live

by faith” are closely related; indeed, each one implies the other. However, there is no

reason to assume that Paul meant to communicate two different meanings (as related as

they are) with one phrase.

Conclusion

Paul uses the Habakkuk quotation in the sense “the righteous will live by faith,”

with the implication (especially in this context) that one’s righteous status was based on

faith to begin with. Longenecker notes, “The point he is making here is that righteousness

in this pivotal text is associated with faith alone—not with the law! . . . In v 11 Paul sets

74
Martyn, Galatians, 314.
75
Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 133 (emphasis original).
76
Ibid., 134. Hays thinks there are three possible interpretations of Gal 3:11b: “(a)
The Messiah will live by (his own) faith(fulness). (b) The righteous person will live as a
result of the Messiah’s faith(fulness). (c) The righteous person will live by (his own) faith
(in the Messiah).” He concludes, “Paul’s thought is rendered wholly intelligible only if
all three of these interpretations are held together and affirmed as correct” (ibid., 140).
Hays also claims that Paul had a messianic interpretation of Habakkuk 2:4, so that “the
righteous” refers to Christ. Dunn rightly objects, since “the righteous” of verse 11b
“answers to the ‘no one’ of verse 11a; Hab. ii.4 only demonstrates the claim of iii.11a if it
refers to everyone who considers himself ‘righteous’” (Dunn, Galatians, 174–75).
 106

up a sharp antithesis to v 10: righteousness is to be associated with faith alone; curse is

the result of trying to observe the law in order to gain righteousness.”77

The Law Is Not of Faith

Paul’s claim in verse 11, that no one is justified by the Law, is supported by an

Old Testament text that says nothing about the Law. Therefore, verse 11 is not a

complete argument without verse 12. So the quotation of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

is not the support of another thesis; instead, it is the grounds “for a premise that Paul now

realizes he needs to spell out, namely, that the law cannot be viewed as belonging to the

category ‘of faith.’”78 Hence, verse 12 must also be considered.

Paul states that the Law is not “of faith” ( ). Instead, Leviticus 18:5

sums up the principle of the Law: !" . “The law has to do

with ‘doing’ and ‘living by its prescriptions’ and not with faith.”79 The Judaizers may

have quoted this same verse to encourage the Gentiles to obey the Law. However, this

was inappropriate, because “‘by faith’ excludes the Torah.”80 Indeed, “faith and law

appear as two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive principles.”81 Bruce

77
Longenecker, Galatians, 119.
78
Silva, “Abraham, Faith, and Works,” 254.
79
Longenecker, Galatians, 120.
80
Betz, Galatians, 147.
81
Fung, Galatians, 146.
 107

concludes, “Since the law is not , whereas justification is only (v

11), therefore justification cannot come by the law.”82

One should not go so far as to say that the Mosaic Law itself excludes faith. The

Law must be understood in the context of the whole Pentateuch, including Genesis 15:6,

which Paul already used to show that justification is by faith. One must not forget that in

the context of Galatians 3 Paul is discussing the Law as a means of justification. Faith

can obey the Law, but not in order to be justified. Fuller writes, “Since verse 11 contrasts

faith, the proper attitude toward God, with its opposite, the improper attitude of legalism,

it would be hard not to understand verse 12 as continuing this contrast of attitudes.”83

Conclusion

In Galatians 3:10–12 Paul proves what he has already asserted in 2:16. No one is

justified before God by observing the Law. The Law can only curse, but blessing comes

on the basis of faith. This principle was true in the example of Abraham (Gen 15:6), and

God confirmed that it applies generally in Habakkuk 2:4. Anyone who tries to be justified

by obeying the Law will fail. The legalist is in a hopeless position, since the Law brings

only a curse and provides no way out. In verse 13 Paul introduces the solution to this

problem. As Charles Cosgrove says, “Even though legalists are under a curse,

nevertheless Christ redeemed men from that very curse by becoming a curse himself.”84

82
Bruce, Galatians, 162.
83
Fuller, “Paul,” 41.
84
Charles H. Cosgrove, “The Mosaic Law Preaches Faith: A Study in Galatians
3,” Westminster Theological Journal 41/1 (Fall 1978): 150.
 108

Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:23 to show that Christ took the curse upon Himself at the

crucifixion. The “blessing of Abraham” and “the promise of the Spirit” are available in

Christ through faith (Gal 3:14).

 CHAPTER FIVE

HABAKKUK 2:4 IN ROMANS AND GALATIANS

Now that Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17, and Galatians 3:11 have been carefully

examined, the results can be compared to determine how Paul has used the Old

Testament in this case.

Comparison of the New Testament Verses with Habakkuk 2:4

If the above exegesis is correct, Paul did not use Habakkuk 2:4 according to its

grammatical-historical meaning. In Habakkuk, “the righteous” refer to Jews who lived

before the Babylonian invasion of Judah and who had a right standing before God based

on their observance of the Law. In Romans and Galatians, Paul’s use of “the righteous”

refers primarily to Gentile Christians, who had been declared righteous on the basis of

their faith in Christ. When God told Habakkuk that the righteous would “live,” He was

promising that they would survive the invasion. Paul’s view of life is closely tied with

salvation in general and justification in particular; these were not in the context of

Habakkuk. Finally, the prophet refers to “faithfulness” as the means by which the

righteous would live. For Paul, it is “faith” that provides the foundation for righteousness

and the resulting life.

Habakkuk 2:4b consists of three Hebrew words, and Paul’s interpretation of the

verse differs from the original context for all three. It is clear that Paul was not merely
 110

using the words of the Old Testament to make a new point of his own, since he

introduces the quotation with “as it is written” in Romans 1:17. (The phrase “it is written”

does not appear before the Old Testament quotations in Galatians 3:11–12, but it does

appear before the quotations in verses 10 and 13, and so it is implied in verses 11 and 12.)

Moreover, Paul was not simply applying a universal truth from Habakkuk to a new

context, for his use of the text requires a different sense for the words than the original

Hebrew. If these conclusions are correct, then Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11 provide

two examples of non-literal uses of Habakkuk 2:4.

It should be noted that the context of Habakkuk gives hints of its more general

application. Although the immediate context indicates that 2:4 refers to the wicked

Chaldeans, verse 14 indicates that the vision awaits eschatological fulfillment (“For the

earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the

sea”). Thus, “the scope of the prophecy extends to a contrast of the wicked and righteous

in general. In this wider context Paul finds the meaning of the vision.”1 While Paul’s use

extends beyond the literal interpretation of Habakkuk 2:4, when the rest of Habakkuk 2 is

considered, one sees hints that God’s intention may have been broader. Paul’s citations

make clear what God’s additional intention was.2

1
E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver and
Boyd, 1957), 121.
2
Note that if the New Testament reveals a new meaning for an Old Testament
passage in addition to the grammatical-historical interpretation of this Old Testament
passage, this new meaning does not necessarily contradict the original meaning. God may
have two intentions for an Old Testament passage, one of which is revealed by the Old
Testament context and the other by the New Testament context. These two intentions
need not be contradictory or opposite. Nevertheless, there are two distinct meanings, as
 111

Survey of Modern Approaches

There are several schools of thought regarding the New Testament use of the Old

Testament. Since Paul does not use Habakkuk according to its original sense in Romans

and Galatians, these approaches must be explored. The approach that best fits the

exegetical data presented above and that also adheres to the best hermeneutical principles

should be accepted. Darrell Bock provides a useful classification of the four main schools

of thought.3 His classification will be followed below. Representatives of the schools of

thought will be allowed to explain their approaches in their own words. A critique of each

position will then be offered.

Full Human Intent

Bock calls the first the “Full Human Intent School.” He writes, “The basic

premise of this school is that if hermeneutics is to have validity then all that is asserted in

the Old Testament passage must have been a part of the human author’s intended

complementary as they may be. Note that this situation is not the same as the application
of the original meaning of an Old Testament passage to a new context. One expects this
type of application to be found in the New Testament. However, this thesis argues that
Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 is not merely an application. Instead, God intended two
distinct (complementary, not contradictory) meanings for the words uttered by the
prophet. God’s full intention was unknown at the human level until it was revealed
through Paul. These issues will be discussed further below.
3
Darrell L. Bock, “Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New,
Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 142/567 (July 1985): 209–20. In a recent work Bock notes,
“Little has changed in the character of the four basic schools discussed in this article or in
the issues evangelicals are concerned about in this area” (Darrell L. Bock, “Scripture
Citing Scripture: Use of the Old Testament in the New,” in Interpreting the New
Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis, ed. Darrell L. Bock and
Buist M. Fanning, 255–76 (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2006), 264 n. 13.
 112

meaning.”4 This approach sees some Old Testament prophecy as generic, so that the

prophet intended a series of fulfillments. According to this view, the human author was

aware of the series, although he may not have known the relative timing of its members.

Walter Kaiser

Walter Kaiser is the primary scholar in this camp. In his book on this subject,

Kaiser is particularly concerned with those Old Testament citations that are used “for the

purposes of argument.”5 Kaiser does not think a “fuller meaning” would be convincing.

He asks, “If the apostles claim they found such plenary meanings in the OT only by aid

of the Holy Spirit in them as authors of Scripture, why must they appeal to the OT?”6

Instead, Kaiser insists that the human author understood the full sense intended by God.

According to Kaiser, the single meaning imparted by God to the prophet included the

historical sense that applied to the prophet’s own day, a sense that applied to a future

fulfillment, and “the common plan of God in which both the word, the present historical

realization, and the distant realization shared.” He claims that these “parts of the plan of

4
Bock, “Use of the Old Testament, Part 1,” 210 (emphasis original).
5
Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1985), 17. It may be debated which New Testament citations of the Old
Testament should be classified as “for the purposes of argument.” Moo notes, “We must
ask to what extent the New Testament appeal to Scripture is intended for ‘general’
consumption or with apologetic purpose” (Douglas J. Moo, “The Problem of ‘Sensus
Plenior,’” in Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon, ed. D. A. Carson and John D.
Woodbridge, 179–211 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1986], 203).
6
Kaiser, Uses of the Old Testament, 29. Kaiser seems to assume that first-century
and modern argumentation are the same. However, “we must be careful not to think that
methods of proof not convincing to us would necessarily have been equally unconvincing
to first-century Jews” (Moo, “Sensus Plenior,” 203).
 113

God . . . were generic or corporate terms that were deliberately used to include the

historical antecedents as well as the realities yet to come.” Kaiser continues, “The

promise embraced yet another perspective in its single meaning: the means that God used

to fulfill that word in the contemporary environment of the prophetic speaker and the

result or even series of results that issued forth from that word.”7

Critique

Kaiser is to be commended for his defense of the single meaning of prophecies.8

However, he violates the single-meaning principle when he suggests the idea of “generic

promise,” by which he means that “many prophecies begin with a word that ushers in not

only a climactic fulfillment, but a series of events, all of which participate in and lead up

to that climactic or ultimate event in a protracted series that belong together as a unit

because of their corporate or collective solidarity.”9 He asserts, “The whole set of events

makes up one collective totality and constitutes only one idea, even though the events

may be spread over a large segment of history by the deliberate plan of God.”10 He

suggests several contextual markers that identify the presence of a generic promise,

including collective singular nouns, shifts between singular and plural, and the analogy of

7
Kaiser, Uses of the Old Testament, 29.
8
Ibid., 63–66.
9
Ibid., 67.
10
Ibid., 67–68 (emphasis original).
 114

“antecedent theology.”11 The exegete can detect the antecedent theology of a text through

the presence of technical terms, direct quotations, allusions to earlier texts, allusions to

earlier events, or references to God’s promises or covenants.12 Kaiser has applied this

approach to a number of texts. It is likely that he has produced a number of valid

exegetical insights. However, his approach does not adequately explain every use of the

Old Testament in the New, an example being Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4.13

Moreover, Kaiser’s approach may be built on faulty premises. Philip Payne

argues that it is a fallacy to equate meaning with the human author’s intention. He claims

that the human author’s intention “does not necessarily exhaust the meaning of his

statements, especially in more poetic and predictive writings. Ultimately God is the

author of Scripture, and it is his intention alone that exhaustively determines its

meaning.”14 God might reveal more through a text than its author understood, and “an

exegete can know that God has done this only when further revelation shows that he

11
Ibid., 68. Antecedent theology of a given text includes “all that has preceded it
in the history of revelation” (ibid., 68–69; emphasis original).
12
Ibid., 69.
13
As far as the present writer is aware, Kaiser has not published anything on
Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4. The claim that Kaiser’s approach is unsatisfactory with
regard to this passage is made under the assumption that the exegesis provided by this
thesis is accurate and that Habakkuk’s original meaning and Paul’s meaning are not the
same. Kaiser assumes such a situation is impossible.
14
Philip B. Payne, “The Fallacy of Equating Meaning with the Human Author’s
Intention,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20/3 (September 1977): 243
(emphasis original).
 115

did.”15 Moreover, biblical interpretation must deal with the Holy Spirit’s role in inspiring

the text. Can one be sure that the work of the Spirit was always part of the human

author’s intention?16 The prophet’s intention in Habakkuk 2:4 was to reproduce verbatim

what God had said. It is not necessary to assume that Habakkuk understood everything

God intended or the full implications of what God spoke.

Scott Swanson notes that advocates of the other schools may have underestimated

how much the human authors understood.17 However, he claims that Kaiser “does not

consistently base his messianic interpretations on the OT apart from the NT.” Kaiser does

show that the New Testament interpretations “are consistent with what contextual

exegesis can determine to be the human author’s intention”; however, “it is often the case

that grammatical-historical exegesis alone, without the added verification or information

from the NT, is not able to provide sufficient warrant for confidently deducing the

implications drawn by the NT.”18

Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 provides a good example of this. Kaiser joins those

scholars who argue for a reference to faith in Habakkuk 2:4.19 However, apart from

15
Ibid.
16
Ibid., 249.
17
Scott A. Swanson, “Can We Reproduce the Exegesis of the New Testament?
Why Are We Still Asking?” Trinity Journal 17/1 (1996): 69.
18
Ibid., 70.

19
He asserts that in Habakkuk 2:4 means “simply an unwavering trust in
God’s Word” (Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology [Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Zondervan, 1978], 227). His only evidence is a citation of C. von Orelli, The Old
 116

Paul’s quotation of this text, there is no grammatical-historical reason to look for such a

reference. Exegesis of Habakkuk without reference to the New Testament would find

only a reference to faithfulness. To conform Paul to the original meaning of Habakkuk

would violate the context of Romans and Galatians, but to conform Habakkuk to Paul

would take the exegete dangerously close to the canonical approach (the fourth school of

thought, discussed below), which Kaiser rightly rejects because it reads the New

Testament into the Old.20

Many scholars would like Kaiser to be right. Then the New Testament use of the

Old Testament would not present a problem. However, the present writer agrees with

Douglas Moo’s assessment:

While remaining extremely sympathetic to Kaiser’s general approach, and, in

fact, strongly supporting much of what he says, I am not convinced that his
approach offers an ultimately satisfactory answer to all the problems raised by the
use of the Old Testament in the New. There are places where the New Testament
attributes to Old Testament texts more meaning than it can be legitimately
inferred the human author was aware of.21

Ultimately, Kaiser’s view cannot explain all the exegetical data. Another approach is

necessary to account for some New Testament uses of the Old Testament.

Testament Prophecy of the Consummation of God’s Kingdom Traced in Its Historical

Development, trans. J. J. Banks (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1889), 325.
20
Of course, Kaiser might develop his argument in a different way. One who
addresses Habakkuk 2:4 specifically and argues from a perspective similar to Kaiser’s is
Robert P. Martin, “‘The Just Shall Live by Faith’: Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:16–17,”
Reformed Baptist Theological Review 3/2 (Fall 2006): 3–26.
21
Moo, “Sensus Plenior,” 201.
 117

Divine Intent–Human Words

The second approach is the “Divine Intent–Human Words School.” Bock notes,

“The key emphasis of this school of thought is that prophetic passages all draw on the

human author’s words but that the human author did not always fully intend or

comprehend the prophetic reference, while God did intend the full reference.”22 S. Lewis

Johnson and James I. Packer refer to sensus plenior, whereby God’s intention may

exceed the meaning of the human author. God never says less than the human author, but

He might say more. Elliot E. Johnson prefers references plenior. He distinguishes

between “sense” and “reference.” The former refers to the meaning of the words of the

text regardless of reference, while the later refers to the specific referent to which the

sense is applied. E. Johnson believes each text has one sense, but God may have intended

more references than the human author did.23

James I. Packer and S. Lewis Johnson

Although Packer acknowledges that the divine intention may go beyond the

human intention, he cautions, “The sensus plenior which texts acquire in their wider

biblical context remains an extrapolation on the grammatico-historical plane, not a new

22
Bock, “Use of the Old Testament, Part 1,” 212–13.
23
Ibid., 214. Bock’s treatment is a fair summary of Elliott E. Johnson, “Author’s
Intention and Biblical Interpretation,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible, ed. Earl
D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus, 407–29 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1984),
416–17.
 118

projection onto the plane of allegory.”24 S. L. Johnson quotes from this same passage of

Packer with agreement.25 He anticipates the objection that this approach reads the New

Testament into the Old Testament. He admits that one should do grammatical-historical

exegesis on the Old Testament text first, but he adds, “To use this as an excuse to reject

typical and prophetic sense in Scripture is . . . to reject authorial will, as the use of the

Old Testament in the New Testament indicates.”26 In other words, the New Testament

use of the Old Testament indicates that the divine Author intended more than the human

author in some cases.

Elliot E. Johnson

E. Johnson quotes both S. L. Johnson and J. I. Packer with approval, which

implies that his proposal is not very different from theirs. However, he rejects the sensus

plenior terminology, since he insists that the biblical text has a single, defining sense. He

says, “The single sense is capably of implying a fullness of reference,” and thus he

suggests the term references plenior.27 Bock notes a slight difference in nuance between

the two terms:

24
J. I. Packer, “Biblical Authority, Hermeneutics and Inerrancy,” in Jerusalem
and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van
Til, ed. E. R. Geehan, 141–53 (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1971), 148.
25
S. Lewis Johnson Jr., The Old Testament in the New: An Argument for Biblical
Inspiration (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1980), 50.
26
Ibid., 51.
27
E. Johnson, “Author’s Intention,” 427.
 119

Packer’s sensus plenior sees the limitation that prevents an arbitrary fulfillment as
residing in “the implications of the words” in the light of the progress of
revelation. While Elliott Johnson’s limitation is found in the non-alteration of the
“defining sense” of the human author’s words. Thus Packer’s limitation is slightly
more open-ended than Johnson’s.28

Critique

The sensus plenior and references plenior approaches raise a number of

hermeneutical questions, including the legitimacy of the grammatical-historical method

itself. Jack Riggs asks, “If the use of the grammatical-historical method does not produce

the full meaning of certain texts, how can one be sure that the fuller meaning is in fact

discovered by the application of that same method to later texts supposedly revealing the

fuller meaning of the earlier texts?”29 The answer is that God is responsible for revealing

whatever fuller meaning He intended according to His own timing. If the grammatical-

historical method does not reveal God’s full intention, then further revelation is required.

It is not legitimate for humans to seek fuller meanings beyond what God has revealed in

later texts.

Although Moo does not see “any compelling reason for rejecting the hypothesis,”

he hesitates to embrace it as a solution for the whole problem of the New Testament use

of the Old Testament. Sometimes the New Testament author appeals to the human author

in a questionable citation. For example, Peter refers to David regarding Psalm 16 (Acts

2:25–28). Also, the New Testament “gives the impression that the meaning they find in

28
Bock, “Use of the Old Testament, Part 1,” 215 (emphasis original).
29
Jack R. Riggs, “The ‘Fuller Meaning’ of Scripture: A Hermeneutical Question
for Evangelicals,” Grace Theological Journal 7 (Fall 1986): 227.
 120

the Old Testament can be seen by others, too, once certain basic presuppositions are

granted (see Jn 3:10; Mk 12:26).”30

Historical Progress of Revelation and Jewish Hermeneutic

The third approach is the “Historical Progress of Revelation and Jewish

Hermeneutic School.” Bock states, “The main characteristic of this school of thought is

its utilization of historical factors in assessing the hermeneutics of the relationship of the

two Testaments.”31 Although the New Testament use of the Old may not conform to

modern principles of grammatical-historical exegesis, this approach asserts that the New

Testament authors utilized accepted Jewish hermeneutics. This approach also emphasizes

the Christological perspective provided by the historical situation of the New Testament

authors. Moo calls this the “most popular explanation.”32

James Sanders

James Sanders claims, “The type of exegesis found at Qumran is largely the same

as is found in the New Testament. They each employ a kind of historical typology.”33

Regarding Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4, he notes, “While the emphasis in Habakkuk is on

acceptance of the divine judgment and commitment to the sovereignty of God in

30
Moo, “Sensus Plenior,” 204.
31
Bock “Use of the Old Testament, Part 1,” 216.
32
Moo, “Sensus Plenior,” 192.
33
James A. Sanders, “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament,” in
Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, 98–117,
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 83 (Sheffield, Eng.: JSOT
Press, 1993), 98.
 121

adversity, the emphasis in Paul is on faith in the person of Christ.”34 The Qumran

understanding of Habakkuk 2:4 reflects the same method of exegesis, according to

Sanders. Although the concept of faith and the object of faith are different (“the Teacher

of Righteousness” versus “God in Christ”), both Qumran and Paul interpreted Habakkuk

in the sense of faith in a person.35 Paul and Qumran also shared the perspective of “the

inbreaking eschaton.” While neither denied Habakkuk’s original meaning, both felt an

obligation to “modernize Habakkuk.” Sanders claims, “Their belief was that Habakkuk’s

faith was a canonical faith, and, if canonical, then its application was not limited to its

original expression; indeed, it had an especial application to the eschaton.”36

Richard Longenecker

Richard Longenecker also represents this school. He claims, “The Jewish roots of

Christianity make it a priori likely that the exegetical procedures of the New Testament

34
Ibid., 100.
35
Ibid. Recalling the discussion of 1QpHab in chapter 2 of this thesis, one may
doubt that Sanders is correct regarding Qumran. It seems more likely that the pesher
refers to faithfulness to the Teacher of Righteousness. Note also the comment of Don
Garlington: “The shock effect for the Jew of Paul’s usage of Habakkuk is that
( + ) is now detachable from the Torah. Paul thus stands in obvious juxtaposition to
1QpHab 8:1–3 (cf. CD 20:27–34), where faith in the Teacher of Righteousness as the
authoritative expounder of the law is said to be the fulfillment of Hab 2:4” (Don B.
Garlington, Faith, Obedience and Perseverance: Aspects of Paul’s Letter to the Romans,
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 79 [Tübingen, Germ.: J. C. B.
Mohr, 1994], 49 n. 28; emphasis original). Sanders’ argument also assumes that Paul
intended to provide an interpretation of the original meaning of Habakkuk. One should
resist making this assumption until all the exegetical data has been carefully considered.
It is the argument of this thesis that Paul did not intend to provide the original meaning of
Habakkuk.
36
J. Sanders, “Habakkuk,” 107.
 122

would resemble to some extent those of then contemporary Judaism.”37 He also adds,

“But the Jewish context in which the New Testament came to birth, significant though it

was, is not what was distinctive or formative in the exegesis of the earliest believers. At

the heart of their biblical interpretation is a Christology and a Christocentric

perspective.”38 He notes, “Jewish exegesis of the first century can generally be classified

under four headings: literalist, midrashic, pesher and allegorical.”39 The literalist and

allegorical methods are well known, but the other two require some explanation.

Midrash

Longenecker writes, “The central concept in rabbinic exegesis, and presumably in

that of the earlier Pharisees as well, was ‘midrash.’ The word . . . strictly denotes an

interpretive exposition however derived and irrespective of the type of material under

consideration.”40 There were seven principles of rabbinic exegesis, traditionally attributed

to Hillel:41 (1) “What applies in a less important case will certainly apply in a more

important case.” (2) “Where the same words are applied to two separate cases it follows

that the same considerations apply to both.” (3) “When the same phrase is found in a

number of passages, then a consideration found in one of them applies to all of them.” (4)

37
Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), 205.
38
Ibid., 207.
39
Ibid., 28.
40
Ibid., 32.
41
Ibid., 34–35.
 123

“A principle is established by relating two texts together; the principle can then be

applied to other passages.” (5) “A general principle may be restricted by a

particularization of it in another verse; or conversely, a particular rule may be extended

into a general principle.” (6) “A difficulty in one text may be solved by comparing it with

another which has points of general (though not necessarily verbal) similarity.” (7) “A

meaning [is] established by its context.” Some of these principles continue to be used

today, while others are very questionable.

Longenecker believes Paul made use of some of these techniques. For example,

“A recurring feature in Paul’s biblical quotations, and one that points up his midrashic

heritage, is the Pharisaic practice of ‘pearl stringing’; that is, of bringing to bear on one

point of an argument passages from various parts of the Bible in support of the argument

and to demonstrate the unity of Scripture.”42 As an example, he cites Galatians 3:10–13

(where Paul quotes from Deut 27:26; Hab 2:4; Lev 18:5; Deut 21:23).43 Longenecker

comments, “Involved in ‘pearl stringing,’ of course, is the highlighting of analogous

words or expressions in the various passages, which serves as the basis for their union.

And this feature of midrashic exposition is also apparent in the Pauline quotations.”44 He

cites as examples Galatians 3:10 ( ) and 3:11–12 (" ).45

42
Ibid., 115.
43
Ibid., 116.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid., 117.
 124

Pesher

Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the hermeneutics of Qumran have

been explored. Longenecker writes, “The exposition in the materials from Qumran is

usually introduced by the term ‘pesher,’ a word meaning ‘solution’ or ‘interpretation.’”46

For those who lived at Qumran, the Old Testament had an eschatological meaning. They

believed they lived in the eschatological age, so this veiled meaning applied to them.47

The authors of the New Testament also had an eschatological outlook. Some scholars

would classify the New Testament’s Christological interpretation of Old Testament texts,

which do not appear Messianic at first glance, as the “pesher” type of exegesis.

Joseph Fitzmyer

After studying the exegesis employed at Qumran, Joseph Fitzmyer found four

classes of quotations of the Old Testament: (1) “the Literal or Historical class,” (2) “the

class of Modernization,” (3) “the class of Accommodation,” and (4) “the Eschatological

class.”48 The first class employs the original sense of the Old Testament text. In the

second class, also known as typology, “the same general sense of the Old Testament text

is preserved, but it is applied to a new subject.”49 The third class is similar to the second

in that the text is applied to a new situation. “However, it differs in this that the Old

46
Ibid., 38.
47
Ibid., 39.
48
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran
Literature and in the New Testament,” New Testament Studies 7 (1960–61): 305.
49
Ibid., 309 (emphasis original).
 125

Testament text in this case is usually wrested from its original context or modified

somehow to suit the new situation.”50 In the fourth class “the Old Testament quotation

expressed a promise or threat about something to be accomplished in the eschaton and

which the Qumran writer cited as something still to be accomplished in the new eschaton

of which he wrote.”51 Fitzmyer remarks, “In some ways this group of quotations occupies

a middle ground, as it were, between the first group and the other two, for in many cases

the Old Testament text is quoted in the sense originally intended, but it is also extended

to a new situation which is expected.”52 Fitzmyer claims, “All four classes can be

illustrated by New Testament passages as well. We do not want to imply that these four

classes exhaust the grouping of the New Testament quotations.”53 He concludes, “The

exegetical practices of the New Testament writers is [sic] quite similar to that of their

Jewish contemporaries, which is best illustrated by the Qumran literature.”54

Critique

Moo believes similarities between first-century Jewish sources’ and the New

Testament’s use of the OT are “undeniable”; however, “we should recognize that the

degree of influence of Jewish exegetical methods on New Testament procedure has often

50
Ibid., 316.
51
Ibid., 305–6.
52
Ibid., 325.
53
Ibid., 306.
54
Ibid., 330.
 126

been considerably exaggerated.”55 G. K. Beale observes that most examples of rabbinic

exegesis available today date to after AD 70. Thus, modern scholars cannot be sure

whether rabbinic exegesis involved non-contextual, midrashic interpretation at the time

of the writing of the New Testament. Moreover, Beale questions the assumption that the

New Testament authors adopted contemporary Jewish hermeneutics, since early

Christians had a “unique perspective in comparison with early Judaism.”56 Another

problem with this school is that it makes hermeneutics culturally relative. In effect, this

approach claims that even though the exegetical methods of the authors of the New

Testament would be wrong today, these methods were not wrong in the culture in which

they wrote.

Canonical Approach and New Testament Priority

The fourth approach is the “Canonical Approach and New Testament Priority

School.” This approach sees the Old Testament text in the light of the expanding canon.

The New Testament is used to deepen and clarify the meaning of the Old Testament.57

According to this school, the Old Testament authors wrote in ideal language, and God’s

intention for this language becomes clear only in the light of later revelation. According

to this school, “the whole of the Old Testament is to be reread ultimately in light of the

55
Moo, “Sensus Plenior,” 192–93.
56
G. K. Beale, “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the
Wrong Texts? An Examination of the Presuppositions of Jesus’ and the Apostles’
Exegetical Method,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of
the Old Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale, 387–404 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker,
1994), 388.
57
Bock, “Use of the Old Testament, Part 1,” 219.
 127

New Testament; as a result the original expression of meaning within the Old Testament

passage is overridden and redefined by the New Testament.”58

Bruce Waltke

Bruce Waltke calls this the “canonical process approach,” which asserts that “the

text’s intention became deeper and clearer as the parameters of the canon were

expanded.”59 He believes that “the original authorial intention was not changed in the

progressive development of the canon but deepened and clarified.”60 He admits that this

approach is similar to the sensus plenior idea, but unlike that approach, he does not

“divorce the human authorial intention from the divine intention”; instead, he claims the

human author used ideal language, and later revelation clarified “the exact shape of the

ideals always pregnant in the vision.”61 Waltke also states, “Because God is the author of

the whole Bible, any piece of literature within it must be studied in the light of its whole

literary context.” Moreover, “The full meaning of an earlier and smaller text cannot be

gained without interpreting it in the light of the entire Bible.”62

58
Ibid., 220.
59
Bruce K. Waltke, “A Canonical Process Approach to the Psalms,” in Tradition
and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg, ed. John S. Feinberg and Paul
D. Feinberg, 3–18 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), 7.
60
Ibid., 8.
61
Ibid. Similarly, Moo claims that this approach decreases the distinction between
the human and divine authorial intentions; instead of a sensus plenior there is a “sensus
praegnans” (Moo, “Sensus Plenior,” 206).
62
Waltke, “Canonical Process Approach,” 10. These assertions will be critiqued
(and denied) after the discussion of Douglas Oss.
 128

Douglas Oss

Douglas Oss also proposes a canonical approach.63 He believes the canon is a

“single and unified literary work,” and thus, “no part can be properly understood apart

from the whole.”64 When a text is seen in the light of the whole Bible, its meaning will

become “deeper and clearer.” Oss claims, “This may include levels of meaning that were

not part of the conscious intention of the human author, but which are included in the

expressed meaning of the publicly accessible text and which are a part of the canonical

context.”65 Later he states, “The Bible as an integrated whole is more meaningful than its

discrete parts.”66 Oss anticipates the objection that his approach violates the single-

meaning principle, so he responds by refining the meaning of “single meaning.” He

claims, “Meaning in texts is multi-dimensional. The ‘single meaning’ in a text refers to

its unity of meaning, with all of its dimensions being connected to the results of

grammatical-historical exegesis.”67

Of course, this “multi-dimensional” meaning is not the result of grammatical-

historical exegesis of an Old Testament text. Oss states explicitly, “It is necessary for the

church to read the OT in the light of Christ. In addition, because the NT is the record of

63
Douglas A. Oss, “Canon as Context: The Function of Sensus Plenior in
Evangelical Hermeneutics,” Grace Theological Journal 9/1 (Spring 1988): 105–27.
64
Ibid., 107.
65
Ibid.
66
Ibid., 112.
67
Ibid., 115.
 129

Christ’s person and work, it is necessary also that the OT be read in light of the NT.”68

This is a dangerous hermeneutical principle and calls into question the perspicuity of the

Old Testament. The Old Testament must be allowed to speak for itself. Sanders notes,

“The Old Testament was the New Testament’s major premise. If that be so, then the Old

Testament case for faith must be seriously examined on its own terms. To do anything

less makes the New Testament claim a sham and a farce.”69

Oss tries to safeguard his method from abuse: “The deeper meaning of a text may

never contradict the results of a careful exegesis of that text. Nor may it be unrelated to

the results of exegesis.”70 However, if exegesis of the Old Testament is not sufficient to

reveal its meaning, then how is “careful exegesis” possible without turning to the New

Testament? Oss seems to have vicious circle. One must do exegesis of the Old

Testament, but the exegesis is not complete until the canonical context has been

considered, but the canonical context cannot be used until one understands the Old

Testament text well enough to know how it relates to other texts.

Oss provides five arguments to show that the grammatical-historical method is

insufficient: (1) “The ‘scientific’ grammatical-historical method is itself shaped by the

community from which it arises. Consequently, the results of the method will be slanted

toward a western mind-set.” (2) “The illusion of absolute objectivity can prevent one

from apprehending all the layers of meaning that might be in a text.” (3) “A narrow and

68
Ibid., 119.
69
J. Sanders, “Habakkuk,” 102.
70
Ibid., 122.
 130

fragmentizing exegesis can have the opposite result and reach conclusions that are too

vague. Apart from the canonical context one may miss pertinent information that would

have the effect of making a text clear.” (4) “The emphasis of much exegesis is still upon

smaller units of communication such as words and sentences. . . . Thus the results tend to

be atomistic and perhaps not that relevant to the larger conceptual framework.” (5) “An

overly scientific methodology may cause one to miss the primary goal of hermeneutics,

namely, a personal encounter with the risen Lord.”71

Perhaps other members of this school of thought would not agree with Oss on

every point, but some such arguments seem to provide the foundation for this school. It is

obvious from the quotations above that this represents a major modification of traditional

Protestant hermeneutics. In the context of Paul’s use of Habakkuk, this approach would

suggest that Habakkuk 2:4b means both “the righteous Israelite will live by his

faithfulness” (from exegesis of Habakkuk) and “the righteous Christian will live by faith”

(from exegesis of Romans and Galatians). However, according to this school, what seems

like two meanings are really just two dimensions of the “single meaning” of Habakkuk

2:4. The present writer rejects the hermeneutical gymnastics required to make this view

feasible.

Critique

Moo offers four arguments in support of this school: (1) “It builds on the

scripturally sound basis of a redemptive-historical framework, in which the Old

Testament as a whole points forward to, anticipates, and prefigures Christ and the

71
Ibid., 122–23.
 131

church.”72 (2) “This scheme can be shown to have its antecedents in what the Old

Testament itself does with earlier revelation.”73 (3) This approach decreases the

distinction between the human and divine authorial intentions as compared with the

sensus plenior approach. (4) “The ‘fuller sense’ discovered by Jesus and the apostles in

Old Testament texts is, at least to some extent, open to verification. One can, by reading

the Old Testament in the light of its completion and as a whole, as they did, often

demonstrate the validity of the added meaning they find in texts.”74 The weight of these

arguments depends on one’s own theology. The proponents of the other schools probably

would not be impressed.

For example, Kaiser rejects the idea that the whole must guide the interpretation

of the parts: “What is it that the whole or unity of Scripture teaches that cannot be found

in the individual parts by the grammar and syntax?”75 He argues that if the canon

provides a different sense to a particular text, then “we must deny that such a different

sense is scriptural (i.e., graph , ‘written’) at all. Indeed, had it been written, we could

have obtained it from the grammar and syntax at hand.” He continues, “Should someone

plead, ‘But that is a biblical sense which can be shown from another passage to be fully

72
Moo, “Sensus Plenior,” 205.
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid., 206.
75
Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “A Response to Author’s Intention and Biblical
Interpretation,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and
Robert D. Preus, 439–47 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1984), 444.
 132

scriptural,’ we will reply, ‘Then let us go to that passage for that teaching rather than

transporting it to odd locations in earlier parts of the canon.”76

This school does not allow the Old Testament to speak on its own. Instead, the

canonical approach reads the New Testament back into the Old Testament, which

undermines the scriptural authority of the Old Testament. The only way to get around this

is to suppose multiple meanings, one from the Old Testament and a second from the

canonical context. This clearly violates the single-meaning principle.

Eclectic Approach

Bock proposes an eclectic approach, designed to take the best from each school.77

Against Kaiser, Bock maintains a distinction between the intentions of the divine and

human authors. With E. Johnson, Bock allows multiple referents, although he is careful

to note the several ways in which sense and reference can relate. Bock recognizes the

importance of the progress of revelation, though he cautions that one should be aware of

both what the human author originally understood (cf. Kaiser’s emphasis on “antecedent

theology”) and what God made known through later revelation or the events of Jesus’

life. Bock also believes that any alterations of an Old Testament text found in the New

76
Ibid., 445.
77
Bock, “Scripture Citing Scripture,” 268–74; Darrell L. Bock, “Evangelicals and
the Use of the Old Testament in the New, Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 142/568 (October
1985): 306–16.
 133

Testament were not arbitrary, “rather they reflect accurate biblical theological

considerations of the New Testament authors on the original Old Testament text.”78

According to Bock, there are two ways to read a text, the “historical-exegetical”

and the “theological-canonical.” The first seems to refer to the grammatical-historical

meaning. The second “views the text in light of subsequent revelation and the full force

the passage comes to have because of that additional revelation.”79 This is close to the

canonical approach, but, unlike the adherents of that school, Bock believes “the NT

meaning can develop or complement what the OT meant, but never in a way that ends up

denying what the OT originally affirmed.”80

Like any eclectic approach, Bock risks adopting the weaknesses of the various

schools along with their strengths. For example, he has the same problem with the single-

meaning principle as E. Johnson when he accepts references plenior. Bock violates the

single-meaning principle again when he accepts both the “canonical meaning” and the

original meaning as equally valid ways of understanding a text.

Conclusion

Many more scholars could be quoted, but they would present only variations of

the views given above. After careful examination, the four schools and Bock’s eclectic

approach are not entirely satisfactory. The Full Human Intent School should be

commended for its commitment to the Old Testament text, but it is unable to explain the

78
Ibid., 315–16; the quotation is on page 316.
79
Bock, “Scripture Citing Scripture,” 268.
80
Ibid., 269.
 134

nonliteral uses of the Old Testament. The Divine Intent–Human Words School correctly

recognizes that the New Testament interpretation of some Old Testament texts exceeds

the grammatical-historical meaning of that text; however, this school does not admit the

extent to which the New Testament gives a different sense. The Historical Progress of

Revelation and Jewish Hermeneutic School recognizes the impact that Christ had on His

followers, and it attempts to place the New Testament within its historical context in the

first-century Jewish world. However, this approach often exaggerates the similarities

between Jewish exegesis and the New Testament authors’ exegesis while underestimating

the differences. The Canonical Approach and New Testament Priority School has a

legitimate desire to demonstrate the unity of Scripture, but in assigning priority to the

New Testament this school commits a hermeneutical blunder and denigrates the Old

Testament. An eclectic approach acknowledges the positive aspects of each school but is

unable to avoid their weaknesses.

The Preferred Approach

A question often arises in any discussion of the New Testament’s use of the Old

Testament: If the New Testament authors did not use grammatical-historical exegesis,

should modern scholars follow their lead? Many assume that the New Testament authors

provide a model for modern hermeneutics. Some would find sensus plenior meanings of

New Testament texts or of Old Testament texts that are never cited by the New

Testament. Others would use the alleged canonical context to support a particular

theological stance despite Old Testament passages that would seem to deny that theology.

The church must be protected from such abuses. Kaiser provides such protection by
 135

equating divine and human authorial intentions, but his approach cannot withstand sound

exegesis of some passages, such as Paul’s use of Habakkuk.

The other way to protect the church is to highlight the special circumstances

under which the authors of the New Testament wrote. In other words, one can deny that

the New Testament provides a model for hermeneutics. John Walton claims, “If you have

inspiration, you do not need historical-grammatical hermeneutics. If you do not have

inspiration, you must proceed by the acknowledged guidelines of hermeneutics. The

credibility of any interpretation is based on the verifiability of either one’s inspiration or

one’s hermeneutics.”81 Walton concludes, “We do not wish to reproduce the

hermeneutics of NT authors because they, by virtue of inspiration, accrued authority to

themselves by means unavailable to us. We seek only to proclaim what the text, in its

authority, has already revealed.”82 Modern scholars should adopt sound hermeneutical

principles, but they need not demand that the authors of inspired texts always adhere to

these principles. These observations will keep the exegete from making false assumptions

about the practices of the New Testament authors.

What, then, did the New Testament authors do? The approach that best defends

the grammatical-historical meaning of both the Old Testament and the New Testament is

proposed by Robert Thomas. There are many times when the New Testament uses an Old

81
John H. Walton, “Inspired Subjectivity and Hermeneutical Objectivity,” The
Master’s Seminary Journal 13/1 (Spring 2002): 70.
82
Ibid., 76.
 136

Testament text according to its original, literal meaning.83 However, there are also cases

of nonliteral use of the Old Testament, such as Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4. Thomas

refers to these as “inspired sensus plenior applications” (ISPA). He explains, “It is

‘inspired,’ because along with all Scripture, the NT passage is inspired by God. It is

‘sensus plenior’ in that it gives an additional or fuller sense than the passage had in its

OT setting. It is an ‘application’ because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the

OT passage, but simply applies the OT wording to a new setting.”84

The ISPA goes beyond the grammatical-historical meaning of the Old Testament

passage; therefore, the authority for this meaning is the New Testament citation, not the

Old Testament text.85 This is perfectly acceptable, since the New Testament authors

possessed the gift of apostleship or the gift of prophecy. Thomas admits that this use of

the Old Testament is similar to the “midrash pesher” exegesis of Qumran, but the

members of that community did not have the spiritual gifts to render their interpretations

authoritative.86

83
Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2002), 243–46.
84
Robert L. Thomas, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” The
Master’s Seminary Journal 13/1 (Spring 2002): 80. In a personal conversation on January
23, 2008, Thomas said he believes that both the New Testament author and the original
readers recognized the presense of ISPA. Both the author and the readers knew (or could
have known) the original meaning of the Old Testament passage through proper exegesis.
When the New Testament author used the same words with a different meaning, he did
not intend to set aside the original meaning. He would have recognized that God was
revealing another divine intention for those words.
85
Ibid., 86.
86
Ibid., 87.
 137

Thomas anticipates the objection that the ISPA violates the single-meaning

principle. He responds, “That the passage has two meanings is obvious, but only one of

those meanings derives from a grammatical-historical interpretation of the OT itself. The

other comes from a grammatical-historical analysis of the NT passage that cites it. The

authority for the second meaning of the OT passage is not the OT; it is the NT.” It is

obvious that God always knew of both meanings, “but until the NT citation of that

passage, the second or sensus plenior meaning did not exist as far as humans were

concerned. Since hermeneutics is a human discipline, gleaning that second sense is an

impossibility in an examination of the OT source of the citation.”87 There is one

grammatical-historical meaning of the Old Testament text, and there is one grammatical-

historical meaning of the New Testament text. If these meanings differ, then God has

revealed in the New Testament additional information about His intention for the Old

Testament passage.

Why would God inspire a text that appears to misuse the Old Testament? Thomas

suggests a possible reason for ISPA citations:

In almost if not every instance, the new meaning given an OT passage related to
Israel’s rejection of her Messiah at His first advent and the consequent opening of
the door to a new people, the Gentiles, for God to bless (see Romans 9–11). The
new people consisted of both Jews and Gentiles as fellow members of the body of
Christ. That such a new union would exist was unrevealed in the OT, as Paul
points out in Eph 3:1–7. New meanings through special divine revelation were
necessary to give this new program a connection with what God had been doing
throughout the OT period.88

87
Ibid.
88
Ibid., 87–88. This may not be the only (or even primary) reason for ISPA
citations. This issue requires further research.
 138

If the Old Testament author was aware that his text applied to the church, he would have

to know about the church. In that case, the church would not have been a mystery. Thus,

ISPA becomes a necessary technique for God to carry out His plan.

Conclusion

When Paul used Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11, he went

beyond the grammatical-historical meaning of Habakkuk. When God told the prophet,

) 9 ) +(, He intended one meaning that applied to Habakkuk’s situation.

However, when Paul wrote, " , God intended a different

meaning. The authority for the first meaning is based on the inspiration of Habakkuk. The

authority for the second meaning is based on the inspiration of Romans and Galatians.

God’s full intention for Habakkuk 2:4 became clear to men only after Paul “moved by the

Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet 1:21). Such a nonliteral use of the Old Testament by

the New Testament has been called an “inspired sensus plenior application.” This ISPA

theory can be established only by careful exegesis of every New Testament passage that

quotes the Old Testament and careful exegesis of the corresponding Old Testament text

(independent of one’s conclusions regarding the corresponding New Testament passage).

This thesis has investigated only Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans and Galatians.

For these verses, ISPA appears to be the best explanation. By God’s grace, this

understanding will result in greater honor for His Word and greater glory for His Person.
 CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The introductory chapter argues for the need to investigate every New Testament

use of the Old Testament on a case-by-case basis. Such as investigation has been

conducted for Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4b in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11. The

exegetical results will now be summarized, and the hermeneutical conclusions will be

reviewed.

Summary of Exegesis

A variety of conflicting interpretations have been offered for the three verses

under consideration. The preferred interpretation of each verse will be recapitulated

below.

Habakkuk

A number of suggested textual emendations were considered, but the Masoretic

Text of Habakkuk 2:4 was ultimately accepted. The first half of the verse speaks of the

Chaldeans, who were puffed up with pride and not morally upright. These ungodly

Chaldeans would invade Judah, as God predicted in 1:5–11. However, they would not

escape God’s judgment (2:6–20). In the midst of this discussion of the Chaldeans, God

inserts a message of hope for His people: “The righteous one will live by his faithfulness”

(2:4b; writer’s translation). The righteous were those Jews who demonstrated their faith
 140

in Yahweh by obeying His Law (cf. 1:4). If these righteous Israelites remained faithful

toward God and His Word in the midst of the Chaldean invasion, then God would ensure

their survival during the invasion.

Romans

Paul states the theme of his letter to the Romans in 1:16–17. This letter, indeed

Paul’s whole Christian life, focused on the gospel. Only in the gospel does the repentant

sinner find God’s saving power at work to redeem Jew and Gentile, for only in the gospel

does God offer imputed righteousness to those who have no righteousness of their own.

Only the gospel offers a forensic pronouncement of “not guilty” to those who are guilty

by nature and by choice. God reveals this imputed righteousness to those who have faith

in Him, and they apprehend this righteousness in the gospel by faith.

In support of his argument, Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4b. According to Paul,

Scripture testifies that the one whom God reckons as righteous would live by faith. Paul’s

quotation is more than a mere proof text. The theme of Habakkuk is the vindication of

God’s righteousness in light of the fact that He is going to use the wicked Chaldeans to

execute His judgment on Israel. Paul deals with a similar issue when he vindicates God’s

election of Gentiles while many Jews fail to believe in the Messiah (Rom 9–11). This

apparent reversal of God’s dealing with Jews and Gentiles was a direct result of the

gospel message of justification by faith, the message that Paul explains in Romans 1–5.

This exposition begins with a contrast between the righteous and the wicked (1:17–18),

the same contrast found in Habakkuk 2:4.

 141

Galatians

In Galatians 3:10–14, Paul argues that those who try to be righteous before God

by obeying the Law (i.e., legalists) are cursed, while those who accept righteousness from

God by faith are blessed. Paul’s condemnation of the legalists is based on the very Law

on which they depend. Deuteronomy 27:26 implies that anyone who fails to keep the

Law completely is cursed. Paul assumes (although he does not state it) that no one is able

to obey the Law perfectly. Thus, anyone who depends solely on the Law misses the

blessings of faith and ends up cursed.

To complete his argument, Paul must show that depending on the Law is

incompatible with faith; in other words, one cannot be a legalist and a man of faith. To do

this, Paul juxtaposes two Old Testament texts: Habakkuk 2:4 and Leviticus 18:5. Paul

uses the Habakkuk quotation in the sense “the righteous will live by faith,” with the

implication, in this context, that one’s righteous status was based on faith to begin with.

The point Paul is making is that Habakkuk’s words associate righteousness and faith, not

righteousness and the Law. Paul finishes the argument by showing that Law and faith are

incompatible. Leviticus 18:5 shows that living by means of the Law is based on “doing,”

not on believing. Of course, faith does not exclude obedience, but faith does exclude

obedience as a means of justification. Paul’s use of Habakkuk here is an important piece

of his larger argument for justification by faith alone.

Conclusions

The meaning that Paul ascribes to Habakkuk 2:4 does not contradict the prophet’s

original intention, but Paul’s intended meaning goes beyond the grammatical-historical
 142

interpretation of Habakkuk. The righteousness Paul refers to is not the same as that which

Habakkuk refers to. The faith that Paul commends is not equivalent to the faithfulness

that God calls for in Habakkuk. And the life that Paul promises differs from the life

offered in Habakkuk. How should one deal with these apparent discrepancies

hermeneutically?

Insufficient Explanations for Paul’s Use of Habakkuk 2:4

The Full Human Intent School argues that Habakkuk must have been aware of the

full range of meaning that the apostle Paul would give to his prophecy. This school fails

to account adequately for the exegetical data. There is nothing in the context of

Habakkuk to indicate that Habakkuk understood God’s saying in 2:4 to mean what Paul

would later claim that it means.

The Divine Intent–Human Words School includes sensus plenior and references

plenior approaches. These approaches acknowledge that God may have intended more

than the human author, although God’s intention is always an extension of the human

author’s intention. However, Paul’s use of Habakkuk seems to be more than simply an

extension of meaning, especially when one considers the difference between

“faithfulness” in Habakkuk and “faith” in Romans and Galatians.

The Historical Progress of Revelation and Jewish Hermeneutic School sees

parallels between Paul’s use of the Old Testament and contemporary Jewish exegetical

practices, such as midrash and pesher. However, this approach does not consider the

unique position of Paul as an author of inspired epistles. At best, this school may provide
 143

a hint as to how God providentially revealed His additional intended meaning for

Habakkuk’s words to Paul. At worst, this school makes hermeneutics culturally relative.

The Canonical Approach and New Testament Priority School assumes that the

New Testament explains the meaning of the Old Testament. According to this view, the

meaning Paul assigns to Habakkuk 2:4 is what Habakkuk 2:4 means, regardless of the

grammar and historical background of Habakkuk. Such an approach undermines the

authority of the Old Testament by denying its clarity. The grammatical-historical

interpretation of Habakkuk is independent of Paul’s use of it; to claim otherwise would

imply that Habakkuk was incomprehensible to his original audience.

Finally, some hold an eclectic combination of the preceding views. However,

such an approach merely claims all the advantages of the other schools without dealing

with their disadvantages. The eclectic approach, like the others considered so far, is not

sufficient to deal with Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4.

Preferred Explanation for Paul’s Use of Habakkuk 2:4

The authors of the New Testament were able to write inspired Scripture because

they had the gifts of apostleship or prophecy. Since modern interpreters do not possess

these gifts, they should not seek to reproduce the hermeneutics of the New Testament

authors when these authors use an Old Testament text in a nonliteral way. If the modern

exegete recognizes these facts, he will not make false theological or philosophical

assumptions about how the New Testament authors “must have” used the Old Testament.

Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 is an example of a nonliteral use of the Old

Testament. The best explanation available to date for this is the concept of inspired
 144

sensus plenior application (ISPA). When Paul wrote the inspired epistles of Romans and

Galatians, he accurately communicated (part of) the divine intention for Habakkuk 2:4b.

Paul gave an additional or fuller sense than Habakkuk 2:4 has in its Old Testament

context. Moreover, Paul uses Habakkuk’s words without negating the original meaning

intended by Habakkuk. When God spoke the words recorded in Habakkuk 2:4b, He

intended two meanings. One of these meanings is available via a grammatical-historical

examination of the verse in its original context. The second meaning is available via a

grammatical-historical examination of the verse in the context of Romans or Galatians.

The authority for the second meaning comes from the New Testament, not the Old

Testament.

The ISPA approach honestly appraises the meaning of Habakkuk 2:4, Romans

1:17, and Galatians 3:11 in their respective contexts. This approach does not demand that

these passages say exactly the same thing. This approach accepts the grammatical-

historical interpretation of Habakkuk 2:4 as divine revelation. This approach also accepts

the grammatical-historical interpretation of Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11 as additional

divine revelation using the words of Habakkuk. The ISPA approach refuses to read the

New Testament into the Old Testament, or vice versa. Therefore, this approach upholds

the hermeneutical principles behind grammatical-historical exegesis, without which one

cannot hope to interpret the Word of God accurately.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andersen, Francis I. Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.

Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

Armerding, Carl E. “Habakkuk.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. 12 vols., edited

by Frank E. Gaebelein, 7:491–534. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1976–92.

Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press,
1961.

Barrett, C. K. The Epistle to the Romans. Rev. ed. Black’s New Testament Commentary.
London: A & C Black, 1991.

Barrick, William D. “Ezekiel 33:12–19 and Eternal Security.” Unpublished paper

presented to the Evangelical Theological Society Far West Region Annual
Meeting, The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley, Calif., April 20, 2007.

Beale, G. K. “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong
Texts? An Examination of the Presuppositions of Jesus’ and the Apostles’
Exegetical Method.” In The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the
Use of the Old Testament in the New, edited by G. K. Beale, 387–404. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1994.

Beale, G. K., and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007.

Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches of

Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Bock, Darrell L. “Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New, Part 1.”
Bibliotheca Sacra 142/567 (July 1985): 209–20.

———. “Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New, Part 2.” Bibliotheca
Sacra 142/568 (October 1985): 306–16.

———. “Scripture Citing Scripture: Use of the Old Testament in the New.” In
Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of
Exegesis, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Buist M. Fanning, 255–76. Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2006.
 146

Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. Theological

Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 vols. Translated by John T. Willis et al.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974–2006.

Braswell, Joseph P. “‘The Blessing of Abraham’ Versus ‘The Curse of the Law’: Another
Look at Gal 3:10–13.” Westminster Theological Journal 53/1 (Spring 1991): 73–
91.

Brownlee, William H. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk. Society of Biblical Literature

Monograph Series 24. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979.

———. “The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk.” Journal of Biblical Literature 82

(1963): 319–25.

———. The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran. Journal of
Biblical Literature Monograph Series 11. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical
Literature and Exegesis, 1959.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New
International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1983.

Burton, Ernest De Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Galatians. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921.

Campbell, Douglas A. “Romans 1:17—A Crux Interpretum for the

Debate.” Journal of Biblical Literature 113/2 (Summer 1994): 265–85.

Cavallin, H. C. C. “‘The Righteous Shall Live by Faith,’ A Decisive Argument for the
Traditional Interpretation.” Studia Theologica 32 (1978): 33–43.

Cosgrove, Charles H. “The Mosaic Law Preaches Faith: A Study in Galatians 3.”
Westminster Theological Journal 41/1 (Fall 1978): 146–64.

Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975–79.

Cranford, Michael. “The Possibility of Perfect Obedience: Paul and an Implied Premise
in Galatians 3:10 and 5:3.” Novum Testamentum 36/3 (July 1994): 242–58.

Das, Andrew A. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001.
 147

Davies, G. N. Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4. Journal for the
Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 39. Sheffield, Eng.: JSOT Press,
1990.

Dockery, David S. “The Use of Hab. 2:4 in Rom. 1:17: Some Hermeneutical and
Theological Considerations.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22/2 (Fall 1987):
24–36.

Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.

———. The Epistle to the Galatians. Black’s New Testament Commentary. Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993.

Ellis, E. Earle. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver and Boyd,
1957.

Emerton, J. A. “The Textual and Linguistic Problems of Habakkuk II. 4–5.” Journal of
Theological Studies, n.s., 28/1 (April 1977): 1–18.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Habakkuk 2:3–4 and the New Testament.” In De la Tôrah au

Messie: Mélanges Henri Cazelles, edited by Joseph Doré, Pierre Grelot, and
Maurice Carrez. Paris: Desclée, 1981.

———. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible
33. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

———. “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the
New Testament.” New Testament Studies 7 (1960–61): 297–333.

Fuller, Daniel P. “Paul and ‘The Works of the Law.’” Westminster Theological Journal
38/1 (Fall 1975): 28–42.

Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Commentary on the
New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988.

Garlington, Don B. Faith, Obedience and Perseverance: Aspects of Paul’s Letter to the
Romans. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 79. Tübingen,
Germ.: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994.

Gesenius, Friedrich Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2d ed. Edited and enlarged
by E. Kautzsch. Translated and revised by A. E. Cowley. Oxford, Eng.: Oxford
University Press, 1910.
 148

Glombitza, Otto. “Von der Scham des Gläubigen: Erwägungen zu Rom. I 14–17.” Novum
Testamentum 4 (1960): 74–80.

Godet, F. Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. Translated by A.

Cusin. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.

Gombis, Timothy G. “The Curse of the Law in Galatians 3:10–14.” Th.M. thesis, The
Master’s Seminary, 2000.

———. “The ‘Transgressor’ and the ‘Curse of the Law’: The Logic of Paul’s Argument
in Galatians 2–3.” New Testament Studies 53/1 (January 2007): 81–93.

Gowan, Donald E. The Triumph of Faith in Habakkuk. Atlanta: John Knox, 1976.

Haak, Robert D. Habakkuk. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 44. Leiden, Neth.: E. J.

Brill, 1992.

Hays, Richard B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians
3:1–4:11. 2d ed. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans;
Dearborn, Mich.: Dove Booksellers, 2002.

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. New Testament

Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1981.

Hill, David. “Salvation Proclaimed: IV. Galatians 310–14: Freedom and Acceptance.”
Expository Times 93/7 (April 1982): 196–200.

Janzen, J. Gerald. “Habakkuk 2:2–4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances.”

Harvard Theological Review 73/1–2 (January–April 1980): 53–78.

Johnson, Elliott E. “Author’s Intention and Biblical Interpretation.” In Hermeneutics,

Inerrancy and the Bible, edited by Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus,
407–29. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1984.

Johnson, S. Lewis Jr. “The Gospel That Paul Preached.” Bibliotheca Sacra 128/512
(October 1971): 327–340.

———. The Old Testament in the New: An Argument for Biblical Inspiration. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1980.

Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. Subsidia Biblica 14. Translated and
revised by T. Muraoka. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991.
 149

Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. “A Response to Author’s Intention and Biblical Interpretation.” In

Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible, edited by Earl D. Radmacher and Robert
D. Preus, 439–47. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1984.

———. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1978.

———. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.

Keil, C. F., and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1866–91. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament. 10 vols. Translated and edited by Geoffrey William Bromiley. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–76.

Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner et al., eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon
of the Old Testament. 5 vols. Leiden, Neth.: E. J. Brill, 1994–2000.

Ladd, George Eldon. “Righteousness in Romans.” Southwestern Journal of Theology

19/1 (Fall 1976): 6–17.

Lambrecht, Jan. “Curse and Blessing: A Study of Galatians 3,10–14.” In Pauline Studies:
Collected Essays, 271–98. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lov
Aniensium 115. Leuven, Belg.: Leuven University Press, 1994.

LaSor, William Sanford. “The Sensus Plenior and Biblical Interpretation.” In Scripture,
Tradition and Interpretation: Essays Presented to Everett F. Harrison by His
Students and Colleagues in Honor of His Seventy-fifth Birthday, edited by W.
Ward Gasque and William Sanford LaSor, 260–77. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1978.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1990.

———. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1975.

Martin, Robert P. “‘The Just Shall Live by Faith’: Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:16–17.”
Reformed Baptist Theological Review 3/2 (Fall 2006): 3–26.

Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1997.

Moo, Douglas J. “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul.” Westminster
Theological Journal 45/1 (Spring 1983): 73–100.
 150

———. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996.

———. “The Problem of ‘Sensus Plenior.’” In Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon,

edited by D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, 179–211. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 1986.

Moody, R. M. “The Habakkuk Quotation in Romans 117.” Expository Times 92/7 (April
1981): 205–8.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. New International Commentary on the
New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1959. Reprinted in 1 vol.,
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1968.

Neufeld, Waldemar N. “An Exegetical and Theological Study of Habakkuk 2:4–5.”

Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1990. Text-fiche.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Carl C. Rasmussen.

Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949.

Oss, Douglas A. “Canon as Context: The Function of Sensus Plenior in Evangelical

Hermeneutics.” Grace Theological Journal 9/1 (Spring 1988): 105–27.

Packer, J. I. “Biblical Authority, Hermeneutics and Inerrancy.” In Jerusalem and Athens:

Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til,
edited by E. R. Geehan, 141–53. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1971.

Patterson, Richard D. Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary.

Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Payne, Philip B. “The Fallacy of Equating Meaning with the Human Author’s Intention.”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20/3 (September 1977): 243–52.

Quarles, Charles L. “From Faith to Faith: A Fresh Examination of the Prepositional

Series in Romans 1:17.” Novum Testamentum 45/1 (2003): 1–21.

Rast, Walter E. “Habakkuk and Justification by Faith.” Currents in Theology and Mission
10/3 (June 1983): 169–75.
 151

Riggs, Jack R. “The ‘Fuller Meaning’ of Scripture: A Hermeneutical Question for

Evangelicals.” Grace Theological Journal 7 (Fall 1986): 213–27.

Roberts, J. J. M. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary. Old Testament

Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical

Research. 4th ed. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. New

International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1990.

Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans. 5th ed. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1902.

Sanders, E. P. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Sanders, James A. “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament.” In Paul and the
Scriptures of Israel, edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, 98–117.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 83. Sheffield,
Eng.: JSOT Press, 1993.

Schreiner, Thomas R. “Is Perfect Obedience to the Law Possible? A Re-Examination of

Galatians 3:10.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27/2 (June 1984):
151–60.

———. “Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E. P.
Sanders.” Westminster Theological Journal 47/2 (Fall 1985): 245–78.

———. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker, 1998.

Scott, James M. “A New Approach to Habakkuk II 4–5A.” Vetus Testamentum 35/3 (July
1985): 330–40.

———. “‘For As Many As Are of Works of the Law Are under a Curse’ (Galatians
3.10).” In Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, edited by Craig A. Evans and James
A. Sanders, 187–221. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement
Series 83. Sheffield, Eng.: JSOT Press, 1993.
 152

Seifrid, Mark A. Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central

Pauline Theme. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 68. Leiden, Neth.: E. J.
Brill, 1992.

Silva, Moisés. “Abraham, Faith, and Works: Paul’s Use of Scripture in Galatians 3:6–
14.” Westminster Theological Journal 63/2 (Fall 2001): 251–67.

———. “Galatians.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,
edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 785–812. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Academic, 2007.

Smith, D. Moody, Jr. “ .” In Studies and

Documents XXIX: Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor
of K. W. Clark, edited by Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs, 13–25. Salt Lake
City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 1967.

Smith, Ralph L. Micah–Malachi. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984.

Southwell, P. J. M. “A Note on Habakkuk ii.4.” Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., 19/2

(October 1968): 614–17.

Spender, Robert. “Grow Your Faith with Habakkuk.” Emmaus Journal 11/1 (Summer
2002): 51–78.

Stanley, Christopher D. “‘Under a Curse’: A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3. 10–14.” New

Testament Studies 36/4 (October 1990): 481–511.

Swanson, Scott A. “Can We Reproduce the Exegesis of the New Testament? Why Are
We Still Asking?” Trinity Journal 17/1 (1996): 67–76.

Sweeney, Marvin A. “Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk.” Vetus
Testamentum 41/1 (January 1991): 63–83.

Széles, Mária Eszenyei. Wrath and Mercy: A Commentary on the Books of Habakkuk and
Zephaniah. Translated by George A. F. Knight. International Theological
Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987.

Thomas, Robert L. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Kregel, 2002.

———. “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament.” The Master’s Seminary
Journal 13/1 (Spring 2002): 79–98.
 153

Van Daalen, D. H. “The Revelation of God’s Righteousness in Romans 1:17.” In Studia

Biblica 1978. Vol. 3, Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors, edited
by E. A. Livingstone, 383–89. Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series 3. Sheffield, Eng.: JSOT Press, 1980.

VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology
and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997.

Wallis, Wilber B. “The Translation of Romans 1:17: A Basic Motif in Paulinism.”

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 16/1 (Winter 1973): 17–23.

Waltke, Bruce K. “A Canonical Process Approach to the Psalms.” In Tradition and

Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg, edited by John S. Feinberg
and Paul D. Feinberg, 3–18. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.

Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Walton, John H. “Inspired Subjectivity and Hermeneutical Objectivity.” The Master’s

Seminary Journal 13/1 (Spring 2002): 65–77.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. “Faith.” In Biblical and Theological Studies, edited by

Samuel G. Craig, 404–44. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co.,
1952.

Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004.

Watts, Rikki E. “‘For I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel’: Romans 1:16–17 and
Habakkuk 2:4.” In Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D.
Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Sven K. Soderlund and N. T.
Wright, 3–25. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999.

Wendland, Ernst. “‘The Righteous Live by Their Faith’ in a Holy God: Complementary
Compositional Forces and Habakkuk’s Dialogue with the Lord.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 42/4 (December 1999): 591–628.

Williams, Sam K. “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans.” Journal of Biblical

Literature 99/2 (June 1980): 241–90.

Woude, A. S. van der. “Der Gerecht wird durch seine Treue leben: Erwagungen zu
Habakuk 2:4–5.” In Studia Biblica et Semitica: Theodore Christiano Vriezen
dedicate, edited by W. C. van Unnik and A. S. van der Woude, 367–75.
Wageningen, Neth.: H. Veenman en Zonen, 1966.
 154

———. “Habakuk 2 4.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 82 (1970):

281–82.

Young, Norman H. “Who’s Cursed—And Why? (Galatians 3:10–14).” Journal of

Biblical Literature 117/1 (Spring 1998): 79–92.

Zemek, George J. “Interpretive Challenges Relating to Habakkuk 2:4b.” Grace

Theological Journal 1/1 (Spring 1980): 43–69.