Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen

zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe

Herausgeber / Editor
Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors

Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala)
Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg)
J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

428
 Robert C. Olson

The Gospel as the Revelation of

God’s Righteousness
Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 1:1–3:26

Mohr Siebeck
Robert C. Olson, born 1964; 1988 BA Maranatha Baptist University; 1993 MDiv Bob Jones
University; 1999 ThM Trinity International University; 2016 PhD University of Nottingham.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-154941-0

ISBN 978-3-16-154812-3
ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe)
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2016 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by
copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproduc-
tions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.
The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by
Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren.
Printed in Germany.
 In love and devotion to the Servant-King, my Savior, through whose
sacrifice I am made fit to offer back my life in worship, and of which this
book is a part
 Preface

This book, in some respects, is “born out of due time.” It is the result of a
thesis written as a doctoral dissertation at the University of Nottingham under
the supervision of Prof. Richard H. Bell. After my first year in residence at
the University, circumstances forced me to return home to the United States
where I suspended my studies for an extended period of time. I was eventual-
ly able to resume my research part-time, though even subsequent to that point
there were several necessary periods of additional suspension. In light of
these facts, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the University,
particularly the staff in both the Humanities Department and the Student
Administration, for its continued patience with my changing circumstances
and its support of the continuation of my research through its completion.
I would also like to humbly thank Prof. Jӧrg Frey and Mohr Siebeck for
accepting this work for publication in the WUNT II series, as well as the kind
and helpful editorial staff for their patient assistance with the reformatting
process.
Throughout this endeavor I have been supported in a multitude of ways by
many very fine and gracious people, all of whom cannot possibly be men-
tioned in this short space. There are some, however, whose help warrants
explicit mention. Two very good friends, Dave and Lora Gilbert, have con-
sistently and generously given their support to enable me to finish my course
of study, and have helped care for my family during my trips to England, to
whom I give my heartfelt thanks. My oldest brother, Ralph Olson, generously
assisted me with the provision of airfare to and from England, without which
I could not have continued my study and for which I am extremely grateful.
In these subsequent trips to the University of Nottingham I was consistently
shown the love of Christian hospitality by various members of Cornerstone
Church in Nottingham. In several of my earliest trips I enjoyed the hospitality
and fellowship of Jack and Elisabeth Simpson, as well as Len Miller, to
whom I would like to offer many thanks. David and Jenny Artingstall have
been a particular blessing; they welcomed me several times with very little
notice, shared many lovely meals, and always made me feel like family. I
truly miss their fellowship.
Lastly in this regard, but by no means least in gracious patronage, are Peter
and Valerie Lewis. During my initial year of residence at the University with
VIII Preface

my wife (also named Valerie) and first child (Gabriel), Cornerstone Church –
of which Peter Lewis was the pastor – was in many ways our “home away
from home.” Peter was not only one of the best expositors of scripture I had
ever heard, but he and Valerie lived out the grace of the gospel through their
love and hospitality to my family. During my trips back to England they not
only helped find places for me to stay, but also on several occasions gracious-
ly hosted me themselves, with Valerie going out of her way in preparing
delicious meals and making me feel at home.
In both my initial year of residency as well as throughout my part-time re-
search at the University, I was greatly helped by the kind and patient assis-
tance of my supervisor Richard Bell. Prof. Bell not only opened my eyes to
various crucial dimensions of NT research, but also on several occasions
extended hospitality to me, and allowed me to enjoy family time with him
and his two fine sons, Jack and Cameron.
Midway through my research I had the privilege of being introduced to
Prof. Roland Deines, who administered several of my annual reviews at the
University. Prof. Deines has had an immense influence upon me both aca-
demically and personally. Academically, his incisive and insightful candor as
expressed in his rigorous and disciplined criticism has greatly molded and
sharpened my understanding and employment of legitimate and effective
critical/theological methodology. Personally, he sacrificially supplied, on
several occasions, the various commentaries and monographs vital for the
completion of my project. His encouragement in word and deed helped sus-
tain my progress at a very crucial time, without which “the strength of the
burden bearer” may well have faltered.
I would also like to thank Prof. Steve Moyise who served as my external
assessor during my thesis defense. Prof. Moyise provided very valuable feed-
back which helped bring this work into closer and more beneficial dialogue
with some of the major views on Paul’s use of scripture.
On a more personal level, immense and heartfelt gratitude demands that
mention be made of my mother, whose love and support has been a constant
source of encouragement in every way, from her steady stream of cards and
letters that have always prodded me on to complete my thesis, to her financial
support, to her love that I have always known. But finally, in my immediate
family, my deepest debt of love extends to my eight children: Gabriel,
Nathaniel, Samuel, Nadia, Felicity, Daniel, Azarel, and Ezekiel – individually
and collectively a fountain of heavenly joy, the oasis on my earthly pil-
grimage.
Regarding the one I mention last, words fall short. My wife, Valerie,
alone, has entered most fully into the hardships and joys of this journey. She
has borne more than any other, and in many ways, the various difficulties and
burdens of this task, and has provided more than any other the constant
encouragement, selfless love, and unending support without which this work
 Preface IX

simply could not have been completed. It is her victory equally as well as my
own. She is my love, the joy of my life, my piece of heaven on earth. Or for
you academics – (humanly speaking) my purest piece of realized eschatology.

October, 2016 Robert C. Olson

Watertown, Wisconsin
 Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................ XVI

Chapter One: Introduction ..................................................................... 1

I. Statement of Theme .................................................................................... 2

II. Preliminary Considerations ...................................................................... 6

1. Overview of Research on Paul’s Use of Scripture ................................. 6
2. Recent Research on Paul’s Use of Isaiah ............................................. 10
3. Justification and Scope of Study ......................................................... 14
4. Methodology of the Present Study....................................................... 16
5. Historical Plausibility – The Inner-Canonical Status of Isaiah
and Its Use as a Literary and Theological Unity.................................. 22
6. Historical Plausibility – Paul’s Renewed Hermeneutic:
The Convergence Upon Isaiah as the Source
of Paul’s Gospel in Romans ................................................................ 27
7. Paul’s Recent Interpreters and the Challenge to an
Isaianic Background ........................................................................... 41
(1) Christopher D. Stanley: Arguing with Scripture ............................ 41
(2) Richard B. Hays: The Conversion of the Imagination .................... 48
(3) Frances Watson: Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith .................... 49
(4) A Note on the New Perspective (Via Watson) ............................... 57
(5) N. T. Wright: Paul and the Faithfulness of God ............................ 59

Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel – Paul’s Use of Isaiah in

Romans 1:1–17 ....................................................................................... 67

I. Romans 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant and the

Conquest of Death .................................................................................... 67

II. Romans 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah ... 80

XII Table of Contents

1. The Gospel as the Basis of Eschatological Vindication ....................... 85

2. The Gospel as the Power of God unto Salvation .................................. 88
3. The Gospel as Available to All within the Mediatorial
Primacy of Israel ................................................................................. 90
4. The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s Righteousness ........................ 93
(1) The Righteousness of God: Competing Concepts and
Contextual Considerations ............................................................. 94
(2) The Righteousness of God: Scriptural Background ....................... 98
(3) The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s Righteousness:
A Uniquely Isaianic Background ................................................. 102
(4) The Isaianic Good News: The Revelation of God’s
Righteousness in the Sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord ............ 106
5. The Gospel and Its Salvation-Historical Continuity........................... 115
6. The Gospel and Habakkuk – The Consummation of the
Saving Promise and Its Appropriation by Faith ................................. 120
(1) Introduction: The Relation between Habakkuk and
Isaiah in Romans ......................................................................... 120
(2) The Citation of Habakkuk 2:4 Textually and
Contextually Considered ............................................................. 124
(3) The Role of Habakkuk within the Isaianic Framework ................ 129

III. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 1:1–17 ........................... 136

Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned – Paul’s use of

Isaiah in Romans 1:18–3:20 .............................................................. 138

I. Warrant for Viewing a Broad Isaianic Influence on

Romans 1:18–3:20 ................................................................................. 138

II. Isaiah 52:5/Romans 2:24 in the Context of Romans 1:18–3:8 ............... 139

III. Romans 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus of

Adam, Israel, and Humanity: The Plight of Captivity ........................... 144
1. The Typological Nexus of Romans 1:23 ........................................... 147
2. Paul’s Understanding of Isaiah as Answering the Fall ....................... 154
3. The Typology of Isaiah as the Source of Paul’s Thought ................... 159
4. The Witness of Creation within the Trial Motif (Rom 1:19–20) ........ 169
5. Further Echoes of Isaiah’s Trial Motif (Rom 1:21–22, 25) ................ 173
6. The Universal Covenant Context of Wrath and
Captivity (Rom 1:18, 24, 26, 28, 32) ................................................. 178
7. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 1:18–32 ....................... 181
 Table of Contents XIII

IV. Romans 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the

World: Captives Condemned before the Divine Tribunal ...................... 182
1. Salvation-history – Continuity to Climax .......................................... 182
2. Isaiah (45): Equality in Judgment under Divine Law and the
Gospel’s Fulfillment of the Covenant Call to
Repentance (Rom 2:1–16)................................................................. 185
(1) Romans 2:1–4 – Humanity before the
Pre-Eschatological Tribunal ........................................................ 187
(2) Romans 2:1–4 – The Isaianic Backdrop ...................................... 197
(a) The trial motif of Isaiah ........................................................... 199
(b) The role of Isaiah 45 and its significance in Paul’s thought ..... 205
(c) Confirmation of Paul’s use of Isaiah’s trial motif .................... 208
(3) Romans 2:5–6 – The Day of Wrath and the Covenant Refuge ..... 209
(4) Romans 2:6–11 – The Eschatological Verdict and the
Mediatorial Role of the Isaianic Typology................................... 211
(5) Romans 2:12–16 – The Isaianic Gospel as the
Climax of the Eschatological Verdict .......................................... 215
3. Isaiah 52:5: The Covenant Curse and the Source of Its
Promised Restoration (Rom 2:17–29) ............................................... 222
(1) The Typology of Plight and Promise (Rom 2:17–24) .................. 223
(a) The allusions to the Servant of the Lord in Romans 2:19 ........ 225
(b) The allusion to the covenant law of Deuteronomy 5 in
Romans 2:21–22 ..................................................................... 230
(c) The quotation of Isaiah 52:5 in Romans 2:24 .......................... 232
(2) The Covenant Promise of Restoration and Its
Continuity with the Gospel (Rom 2:25–29) ................................. 239
4. The Posture of Renewal: An Unrighteous People before the
Righteous God (Rom 3:1–8) ............................................................. 243
5. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 2:1–3:8 ........................ 251

V. Isaiah 59:7–8a/Romans 3:15–17 in the Context of Romans 3:9–20....... 253

VI. Romans 3:9–20 and the Overarching Isaianic Framework of

Captivity and Condemnation ................................................................ 253
1. Romans 3:9 and the Isaianic Derivation of “Under Sin” .................... 254
2. Romans 3:15–17/Isaiah 59:7–8a within the
Catena – The Typological Solidarity of Israel with the World .......... 257
3. Romans 3:19 – The Courtroom Motif of Isaiah: Broken
Law and Humanity’s Guilt before the Divine Tribunal ..................... 269
4. Romans 3:20 – The Courtroom Motif of Isaiah:
The Plight of All Flesh and the Futility of Works ............................. 274
5. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:9–20 ......................... 281
XIV Table of Contents

Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus – Paul’s use of

Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26 ................................................................. 283

I. Introduction to the Isaianic Background of Romans 3:21–26 ................. 283

II. Exegetical Overview of Romans 3:21–26 in

Relation to Its OT Background ............................................................... 286
1. Romans 3:21 ..................................................................................... 286
2. Romans 3:22 ..................................................................................... 288
3. Romans 3:23 ..................................................................................... 289
4. Romans 3:24 ..................................................................................... 292
5. Romans 3:25–26 ............................................................................... 295
6. Excursus: “The Faith of Jesus Christ” ............................................... 304

III. Perceived OT Backgrounds to Romans 3:21–26 .................................. 307

IV. Isaiah 53 as the Background of Paul’s Theology of Atonement ............ 309

V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26 ............................... 311

1. The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the
Fulfillment of the Day of Atonement ................................................ 317
2. The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the
Fulfillment of Redemption (and the Passover Sacrifice) ................... 321
3. The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the
Fulfillment of the Guilt Offering ....................................................... 324
4. The Servant/Christ as the Mediator of Eschatological Justification ... 326

VI. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26 .......................... 329

Chapter Five: Conclusion .................................................................. 332

Appendix ................................................................................................ 351

Bibliography.......................................................................................... 353

I. Primary Sources ..................................................................................... 353

 Table of Contents XV

II. Reference Works and Exegetical Aids ................................................... 353

III. Secondary Sources............................................................................... 354

Index of References ............................................................................. 371

Index of Authors .................................................................................. 393
Index of Subjects.................................................................................. 398
 List of Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible
AnBib Analecta biblica
ANTJ Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament und Judentum
AOTC Appollos Old Testament Commentary
AR Allgemeine Reihe
ArBib The Aramaic Bible
ASBT Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology
BDB The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and
English Lexicon (see above under “Reference Works and
Exegetical Aids”)
BDF Blass, Debrunner, and Funk (see above under “Reference
Works and Exegetical Aids”)
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BEvT Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie
BHT Beiträge zur historischen Theologie
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
EBC The Expositor’s Bible Commentary
ECIL Early Christianity and Its Literature (SBL)
EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (see above
under “Reference Works and Exegetical Aids”)
ET Erlanger Taschenbücher
ET Expository Times
EvQ Evangelical Quarterly
EvT Evangelische Theologie
ExpT Expository Times
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments
FS Festschrift
HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion
 List of Abbreviations XVII

HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament

HNTC Harper’s NT Commentaries
HTR Harvard Theological Review
IB The Interpreter’s Bible
ICC International Critical Commentary
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic
and Romans Periods
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament–Supplement
Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament–Supplement
Series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KD Kerygma und Dogma
LNTS Library of New Testament Studies
MeyerK H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über
das Neue Testament
MNTC Moffatt New Testament Commentary
NASB New American Standard Bible
NCCS New Covenant Commentary Series
Neot Neotestamentica
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology
and Exegesis
NIGTC The New International Greek Testament Commentary
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum, Supplements
NT New Testament
NTL New Testament Library
NTS New Testament Studies
OT Old Testament
OTL Old Testament Library
RevExp Review and Expositor
RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLSS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series
SD Studies and Documents
SJT Southwest Journal of Theology
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
XVIII List of Abbreviations

SNTW Studies of the New Testament and Its World

SPCK Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
ST Studia Theologica
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
TNTC Tyndale NT Commentary
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Comentaries
TP Theologie und Philosophie
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Supplements to VT
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament
WTJ Westminster Theological Journal
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche
 Chapter One

Introduction

In 56 A.D. Paul was nearing the end of his third missionary journey, 1 prepar-
ing to embark on the lengthy voyage back to Jerusalem with the long-
promised financial contribution to the saints there. With a tirelessness and
missionary zeal so characteristic of the apostle, he begins to plan his next
foray into “uncharted” gospel territory even before he had completed the
current mission. With his sights set on Spain and the prospect that “They who
had no news of Him shall see, And they who have not heard shall under-
stand,” 2 the apostle to the Gentiles seeks a base from which to launch his
Spanish mission (Rom 15:22–25). And so Paul begins to dictate to his aman-
uensis Tertius his well-known epistle to the church at Rome, a church which
he had neither started nor visited. But with the multi-faceted concerns of an
apostle and shepherd to churches scattered across Asia Minor and Greece,
Paul sees this as an opportunity for much more (cf. Rom 1:8–17). He desires
not only to present the gospel to the church at Rome for their assent and sup-
port in his mission to Spain, but through both its written and then personal
proclamation to encourage and establish them in their faith, and “to obtain
fruit among them” (Rom 1:13).
There was, however, a growing tension in the church at large between the
Jewish and Gentile factions,3 reflected no doubt, in the Roman assembly. This
tension stemmed from the paradoxical reality in the ongoing mission of the
church that the nation of Israel, the people of God, “to whom belongs the
adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law
and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from
whom is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom 9:4–5) had by and large
rejected their Messiah. This grievous fact was exacerbated by the unbelieving
Jews’ view of the law and justification, which provided a further stumbling
1
The possible dates for Paul’s epistle to the Romans range from 54–59 A.D., but the
most likely dates are either late 55 to early 56 A.D ., or late 56 to early 57 A.D . See C. E. B.
Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Vol. I:
Introduction and Commentary on Romans I–VIII, ICC (London: T&T clark, 1979), 12–16.
2
Rom 15:21, quoting Isa 52:15.
3
Cf. Rom 14:1–15:12, 25–27. The collection Paul administered was in some measure
designed to mitigate this tension. On this tension see Richard H. Bell, Provoked to Jeal-
ousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11, WUNT 2.63
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 63ff.
2 Chapter One: Introduction

block between them and the gospel. These circumstances, moreover, threat-
ened to drive a wedge between the Jewish and Gentile factions of the messi-
anic community by challenging both the continuity and coherence of the
gospel in relation to scripture. So in answer to all these needs and challenges
the great apostle takes up his discourse, and pens through the hand of Tertius
the least situationally-conditioned, the most systematic and scripturally dense
of all his epistles, an exposition and defense of his gospel. 4

I. Statement of Theme
I. Statement of Theme
Paul’s letter to the Romans contains by far the highest concentration of ex-
plicit scriptural citations of any of his epistles.5 It is a scriptural mosaic de-
picting the gospel. In this epistle the apostle skillfully weaves together in his
explicit citations alone the words and themes of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Deuteronomy, Kings, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Habakkuk,
and Malachi; yet these diverse scriptural threads blend to create a single pic-
ture, the portrait of Paul’s gospel.
Yet does this portrait contain a dominant scriptural motif around which the
others are built, and around which the diverse elements of his presentation
cohere? As one reads Romans one cannot help noticing that certain portions
of scripture were particularly important to Paul in setting forth the gospel –
Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah. 6 Of these, however, Isaiah ap-
pears to play a unique role in the scriptural exposition of the “good news”
which Paul sets forth in this epistle (Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1). This
possibility of a unique indebtedness to Isaiah on the part of the apostle is
suggested by a combination of significant factors.

4
On the purposes of Paul in the writing of his epistle to the Romans, particularly as an
exposition of his theology, see, for e.g., C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, BNTC
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 6–7. On Romans as a defense of Paul’s
gospel, see Richard H. Bell, No One Seeks for God: An Exegetical and Theological Study
of Romans 1:18–3:20, WUNT 106 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 1; Provoked, 63–79.
5
There are just over 100 explicit scriptural citations in the Pauline epistles. Romans
contains 60, 1 and 2 Corinthians has 27, Galatians 10, Ephesians 5, and the Pastoral epis-
tles 2. See Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New, The Continuum Biblical Studies
Series (London: Continuum, 2001), 75.
On the NT citation formulas’ background in both the MT and the LXX, and the varying
citation styles of the NT authors, see Hans Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testa-
ments, Band 2 (Gӧttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 15ff.
6
On the similar distribution in the Qumran writings, see Roland Deines, Die
Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias, WUNT 177 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2004), 457–64.
 I. Statement of Theme 3

First, a heavy dependence upon Isaiah in the composition of Romans is ev-

ident both in the sheer preponderance of quotations from, 7 as well as in the
substantial number of allusions to the great Prophet. 8 Second, in all of Paul’s
epistles it is in Romans alone that he invokes Isaiah’s name as a source of
authority, and he does so five times, more than twice as many times as he
invokes the authority of either Moses or David.9 Paul extends chiefly to Isai-
ah the role of an authoritative witness to verify the truth of the gospel he was
sent to preach (cf. again Rom 10:16),10 not only in terms of the gospel’s con-

7
Moisés Silva collates the findings of E. Earl Ellis, Dietrich-Alex Koch, and Otto
Michel who each have compiled their own respective lists of Paul’s scriptural citations.
The lists differ slightly due to differing criteria for identifying scriptural citations. Of the
four Old Testament books that Paul cites most frequently in Romans the citational fre-
quency is as follows: Genesis is cited 6 times, Deuteronomy either 6 or 7, Psalms 16 times,
and Isaiah 18 times. See Moisés Silva, “Old Testament in Paul,” in Dictionary of Paul and
His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsi-
ty Press, 1993), 631. Silva draws from E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957; repr. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003);
Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur
Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus, BHT 69 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1986); Otto Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1972 [repr.; orig. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1929]).
This preponderance of citational frequency seems to significantly separate Isaiah from
all of Paul’s other scriptural sources except the Psalms, which it only slightly surpasses.
The uniqueness of Paul’s dependence upon Isaiah in relation to the Psalms is hinted at in
several of the forthcoming considerations.
8
For example, Florian Wilk, in his insightful study on the meaning of Isaiah for Paul
detects the following allusions: Rom 4:25/Isa 53:12; Rom 8:32/Isa 53:6; Rom 8:33–34/Isa
50:8–9; Rom 9:6/Isa 40:7–8; Rom 9:20/Isa 29:16/45:9; Rom 9:30/Isa 59:9; Rom 9:30–
31/Isa 51:1; Rom 10:19/Isa 1:3; Rom 11:26a/Isa 45:17; Rom 11:34/Isa 40:13; Rom
13:11/Isa 56:1; Rom 14:21/Isa 22:13 (Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus
[Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998], 382).
9
Moses is mentioned four times (5:14; 9:15; 10:5; 10:19), but in only two of these in-
stances (10:5, 19 [possibly 9:15]) is Paul invoking Moses’ authority. David is mentioned
three times (1:3; 4:6; 11:9), twice as a scriptural authority (4:6; 11:9). In several of these
instances, moreover, it can be argued that these quotations by Moses or David are used to
shore up scriptural support for a point drawn principally from Isaiah (the use of Abraham
in Romans 4 would likely fit into this category as well). Cf. Acts 28:25–27, in which Luke
presents Paul as citing Isaiah in his attempt to defend his gospel and persuade the Jews of
Rome that Jesus is the Christ.
10
By the “truth of the gospel” is meant here not specifically its integrity in relation to
Paul’s conflicts with the Judaizers (the free gift of justification through faith apart from
works of the law) as in Galatians (2:5, 14), but rather its integrity or faithfulness with
regard to the OT scriptures from whence it derives (cf. Rom 1:1–2), and, by implication,
the faithfulness of God to His covenant promises conveyed and fulfilled through it (cf.
Rom 15:8).
On the background of the term avlh,qeia in both Greek and Hebrew thought and its rela-
tion to the gospel in Romans and Galatians see James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Gala-
4 Chapter One: Introduction

tent, but also, as will be seen, in terms of its audience and mission strategy.
Third, Paul employs Isaiah chapters 52 and 59 in Romans 2 and 3 (respec-
tively: Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24; Isa 59:7–8/Rom 3:15–17) to depict Israel and
humanity’s plight, and then uses these same chapters of Isaiah in Romans 10
and 11 (respectively: Isa 52:7; [53:1/Rom 10:15–16;] Isa 59:20–21/Rom
11:26–27) to depict the solution to this plight in divine redemption. The fact
that Paul quotes these same chapters of Isaiah to portray both plight and solu-
tion within the broader theological argument of Romans strongly suggests
that he conceived them to be a crucial and coherent redemptive narrative, and
employed them as such within his larger argument. Isaiah thus becomes a
very plausible theological framework for the epistle as a whole.11
What is perhaps most significant at the outset of the investigation, howev-
er, is that Paul, through his quotations in both 10:15–17 (Isa 52:7; 53:1) and
15:20–21 (Isa 52:15), ostensibly makes an explicit identification of his gospel
with Isaiah’s proclamation of the good news of redemption; and coupled with
this, in Rom 4:25 identifies Jesus Christ as the Isaianic Servant of the Lord
(Isa 53:4–6, 11–12; see Appendix). In Paul’s understanding of Isaiah, and as
this study seeks to demonstrate, the “good news” is the proclamation of the
reign of God evidenced and established by his redemptive act, typified in the
Egyptian and Babylonian deliverances but coming to full scriptural expres-
sion in the atonement and justification achieved by the sacrifice of the Serv-
ant of the Lord. This, according to Paul, is the climactic act of redemption
ultimately heralded in Isa 52:7. Of the four major sources of scriptural cita-
tions and allusions in Romans (Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah), Paul
draws from Isaiah not only the theme of “gospel,” but the content of that
gospel as well, in atonement, justification, redemption, and salvation. The
very use of the term “gospel” in Romans, then, is likely an allusion to Isai-
ah.12

tians, BNTC (London: A&C Black, 1993), 101. On the significance of the phrase “the
truth of the gospel” in the context of the Galatian controversy, see F. F. Bruce, The Epistle
to the Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 33–42, 115.
11
This issue of a theological framework becomes a crucial element of methodology in
terms of establishing the relative priority in Paul’s various references to scripture. See in
chapter one below, “Methodology of the Present Study.” For a description of the frame-
work itself, see esp. under chapter two, “Introduction: The Relation between Habakkuk and
Isaiah in Romans.” See also, e.g., in chapter three, “Warrant for Viewing a Broad Isaianic
Influence on Romans 1:18–3:20.”
12
J. Ross Wagner, in his very thorough investigation of Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans
9–11, describes the apostle’s “consistent representation of Isaiah as a fellow preacher of
the good news.” Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the
Romans, NovTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 1.
On Paul’s use of the substantive euvagge,lion as equivalent to the LXX Isaiah’s use of
the verb euvaggeli,zomai, see Wagner on Rom 10:15–16 (ibid., 174). See further below on
Rom 1:1.
 I. Statement of Theme 5

What makes this possibility more significant as one examines Paul’s use of
scripture in Romans is the strong likelihood that “gospel” is the theme of the
epistle. This is probable not only because of the clear statement of 1:16–17,
but also because of the frequent and significant use of the term euvagge,lion
and its cognates in both the introduction and conclusion of the letter – “its
epistolary ‘frame.’”13 This is a significant consideration, for if “gospel” in
Romans both alludes to Isaiah’s use of the cognate term (euvaggeli,zomai) and
is at the same time the major theme Paul is developing in the epistle, it pro-
vides an additional and substantial warrant for suspecting a high level of
dependence upon the Great Prophet.
These four factors, then – the preponderance of explicit Isaianic quota-
tions; the principal use of Isaiah as an authoritative witness for Paul’s gospel
in Romans; Paul’s use of Isaiah as a coherent redemptive narrative and possi-
ble theological framework; and the ostensible, dual identification of both
Paul’s gospel with Isaiah’s “proclamation of good news” (Isa 40:9 [2x]; 52:7
[2x]; 60:6; 61:1), and Jesus Christ with the Servant of Isaiah 53 – not only
suggest that the apostle is quite heavily dependent upon Isaiah, but that Isaiah
plays a central role in his exposition of the gospel, a role much more perva-
sive than that of individual citations. But what is the nature and extent of
Paul’s dependence upon Isaiah as he pens his epistle? The thesis of this in-
vestigation is that Paul’s theological presentation in Rom 1:1–3:26 reflects
Isaiah’s redemptive narrative as expressed in the prophecy’s “proclamation of
good news” – a coherent set of themes drawn from Isaiah that the apostle

13
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1996), 29. For his argument for “gospel” as the theme of the epistle, see pp. 27–30, 65. Cf.
Rom 1:1, 9, 15, 16; 15:16, 19, 20. See also Jeffrey A. D. Weima, “Preaching the Gospel in
Rome: A Study of the Epistolary Framework of Romans,” in Gospel in Paul: Studies on
Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, ed. L. A. Jervis and P.
Richardson (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 366. Weima concludes by stating, “. . . the
evidence provided by the epistolary framework of the letter indicates that Paul’s overriding
concern is to preach the gospel to the Roman Christians . . . All other proposed purposes
for the writing of Romans, therefore, must be integrated into Paul’s overriding concern ‘to
preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome’ (1:15).”
Other interpreters who view “gospel” as the theme of the epistle include, e.g., Cranfield
(apparently, as he places “gospel” as the central element developed in 16b–17), 87–102;
Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33
(New York: Doubleday, 1993), 253–5; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 107; Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans:
A Commentary, trans. Scott J. Hafemann (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994),
10–12. Stuhlmacher, in fact, asserts, “In view of the statistically stylized epistolary intro-
duction in 1:1–7 and the conclusion to the letter in 16:25–27, which once again refers back
to this prescript and is no less carefully formulated, the theme of Romans cannot be con-
tested. It concerns the gospel entrusted to Paul, which as the gospel of Christ is the revela-
tion of the salvific righteousness of God for Jews and Gentiles (1:16–17).”
6 Chapter One: Introduction

perceives as coming to an eschatological/theological climax in the redemp-

tion wrought by the Suffering Servant of the Lord, fulfilled in Jesus Christ.14
It is this Isaianic redemptive narrative, moreover, that forms the fundamental
theological framework for this section of the epistle, its leitmotif around
which the other scriptural sources cohere. Though dealing principally with
chapters 1–3, the thematic connections with the other major sections of the
epistle will strongly suggest a similar overarching framework for the epistle
as a whole, particularly in light of Paul’s extensive use of Isaiah in chapters
9–11.

II. Preliminary Considerations

II. Preliminary Considerations
Before the investigation is formally taken up, it will be helpful to set the stage
with a consideration of the research bearing particularly upon the theme.
Following this research review, the specific areas in which the present inves-
tigation hopes to advance the current boundaries of knowledge will be
sketched and the methodological framework set forth.

1. Overview of Research on Paul’s Use of Scripture

In the twentieth century the flourishing of interest and activity in the scriptur-
al citations of the NT writers which began at the reformation continued una-
bated.15 Rendel Harris (1916), for example, sought to explain the textual
nature of the NT’s scriptural citations by postulating the existence of a “tes-
timony book” from which they were drawn, a source compiled by the early
14
This concept of an Isaianic gospel complex has a strong interpretive precedent in the
Jewish literature of the intertestamental period. See the introductory section in chapter one
further below, “Historical Plausibility – The Inner-Canonical Status of Isaiah and Its Use
as a Literary and Theological Unity.”
15
For a brief but helpful discussion on the use of the OT in the NT from the Refor-
mation to the mid twentieth century, with particular reference to Paul, see Ellis, Use, 2–5.
In addition to Ellis, helpful surveys on Paul’s use of scripture, as well as the use of the
OT in the NT, include: Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 5–14; I. Howard Marshall, “An Assessment of Re-
cent Developments,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, ed. D. A. Carson and H.
G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 1–21; Michel, Paulus,
1–7; Shiu-Lun Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans: A Comparative Study of Paul’s
Letter to the Romans and the Sibylline and Qumran Sectarian Texts, WUNT 2.156
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 1–5; D. Moody Smith, “The Pauline Literature,” in It is
Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 267; Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the
Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary
Literature, SNTSMS 74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 4–28; Wagner,
Heralds, 5–13.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 7

church for use in the anti-Jewish polemic.16 With respect to Paul, A. von
Harnack (1928) concluded that the apostle’s use of scripture was peripheral to
his theology, while the very influential work of Otto Michel, on the other
hand, perceived Paul’s various adaptations of scripture as a means whereby
the apostle, led by the Spirit (“charismatic exegesis”), unfolds the intended
meaning of the text. 17 This general perspective of the central role of the OT in
the development of NT theology was given further impetus by L. Goppelt
(1939), who in his seminal work demonstrated both the nature and pervasive
influence of typology used by the NT writers in their quotations of and allu-
sions to scripture.18
As the twentieth century continued, J. Bonsirven (1939) renewed research
into the comparative exegetical techniques of Paul and the Rabbis, dealing
briefly with the subject of adaptations to the wording of the quotations.19
Midway through the century, the highly influential work of C. H. Dodd
(1952) countered the “testimony-book” thesis of Harris and furthered the
view of the organic unity between the testaments. Dodd regarded the NT
writers’ use of scripture as evidencing dependence upon certain textual fields
of the OT which were of central importance in the exposition of the kerygma
and which formed the substructure of the theological development of the NT.
A significant element of his overall thesis is that in quoting or alluding to
passages from these textual fields, the NT authors were recalling the entire
context in which the given passage was found. 20 Building on such predeces-

16
J. Rendel Harris, Testimonies, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
19161; 19202).
17
Adolf von Harnack, “Das Alte Testament in den Paulinischen Briefen und in den
Paulinischen Gemeinden,” in Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften, 124–41 (Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1928); Michel, Paulus.
18
L. Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New,
trans. Donald H. Madvig (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982; 19391).
19
J. Bonsirven, Exégèse Rabbinique et Exégèse Paulinienne, Bibliothéque de la
Théologie Historique (Paris: Beauchesne, 1939).
20
C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theol-
ogy (London: Nisbet, 1952). Though not without dissenters, Dodd’s thesis has gained
fairly wide support. For example, Dodd’s basic conclusions are supported by I. Howard
Marshall who defended Dodd’s position over against some more recent antagonists. In his
critique Marshall affirms that the kerygma was developed in light of the Old Testament,
that this development primarily but not exclusively centered in certain textual fields which
were of particular theological significance, and that in this use of Old Testament fields by
the New Testament authors there was respect for the original context and meaning of the
passages (“Assessment,” 1–21). Richard Bell, in his detailed study of Romans 9–11, like-
wise defends Dodd, affirming that in Paul certain sections of the Old Testament are of
particular importance, and that Paul’s quotations do indeed often point to their broader
context (Provoked, 207–9). In this regard, see also B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic:
The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: The Westmin-
ster Press, 1961), 14; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 112–13.
8 Chapter One: Introduction

sors as Goppelt, Bonsirven, and Dodd, E. Earle Ellis (1957) compares Paul’s
use of the OT with Jewish exegesis and concludes that while similarities of
form may exist, such as the use of introductory formulas and combined quo-
tations, there was between them an uncrossable hermeneutical divide. Paul’s
hermeneutics were christocentric, typological, and eschatological. For Paul,
interpretation centered in the person of Jesus Christ and the eschatological
realities inaugurated through his death, burial and resurrection. From a textual
standpoint, Ellis sees Paul as predominantly following the LXX, but believes
many of the problems and uncertainties surrounding his quotations stem from
these hermeneutical practices.21
More recently, several studies have significantly contributed to the discus-
sion of Paul’s use of scripture, particularly in the textual realm. The detailed
textual studies of both Dietrich-Alex Koch (1986) and Christopher D. Stanley
(1992) have uniformly pointed to Paul’s primary use of a Greek Vorlage,22
and reveal that Paul often altered his citations to fit the context or argument
in which they occur. The conclusions of Koch and Stanley are significant
because they reconfirm and refine the textual conclusions of earlier scholars
in light of the recent and extensive Qumran textual finds. These conclusions,
however, have been challenged by Timothy H. Lim (1997). Lim, while valu-
ing the contributions of Koch and Stanley, holds that their conclusions should
be accorded somewhat provisional status. He contends that the fluid state of
both the Hebrew and Greek texts of the first century combined with the fact
of Paul’s linguistic competence necessitates an investigation into all available
textual witnesses, particularly the Hebrew variants, as well as the various
versions and patristic evidence.23 Lim gives several examples to support the
need for a more thorough investigation, but provides nothing approaching a
comprehensive treatment.

For a discussion of the significance of C. H. Dodd as over against that of Rendel Harris
in terms Paul’s use of the Old Testament, see Bell, Provoked, 201–9.
21
Ellis, Paul’s Use, 148–49.
22
Koch, Schrift; Stanley, Paul. Stanley’s investigation treats only citations clearly
marked as such, and employs a stricter set of criteria for identifying them, whereas Koch’s
criteria, being somewhat less restrictive, allows a somewhat broader treatment, yet still
leaves untreated Paul’s many allusions to scripture. J. Ross Wagner notes regarding these
works, “A particular strength of these two studies is that they take into account the grow-
ing body of research on the Septuagint, including the critical work on the text of the LXX
undertaken by the Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen. As a result, Koch’s and Stanley’s
studies completely supersede E. E. Ellis’s earlier investigation of Paul’s citations (1957),
which relies on too narrow a base of evidence for the text of the LXX in Paul’s time.”
Wagner, Heralds, 6, note 23.
23
Timothy H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 140–49. Contrary to the view of A. Du Toit (“A Tale of
Two Cities: ‘Tarsus or Jerusalem’ Revisited,” NTS 46 [2000]: 375–402), Lim offers sup-
port for his view of Paul’s linguistic competence (see 161–68).
 II. Preliminary Considerations 9

Even as Stanley, Koch and Lim concentrate their efforts principally in the
textual field, treating both the subjects of Paul’s Vorlage as well as the her-
meneutical axioms that can be ascertained from his citational techniques,
Richard B. Hays (1989) focuses on the literary concept of “intertextual echo”
in the letters of Paul.24 Hays garnered the technique from the field of modern
literary criticism and the work of John Hollander in particular, and fruitfully
adapted it to the study of intertextuality in Paul’s epistles.25 Describing
“intertextual echo,” Hays states, “Allusive echo functions to suggest to the
reader that text B should be understood in light of a broad interplay with text
A, encompassing aspects of A beyond those explicitly echoed.” By means of
this literary device, the reader is placed “within a field of whispered or un-
stated correspondences.”26
Though the attempt to understand New Testament citations and allusions
to scripture with respect to their broader context certainly is not new, Hays’
approach appears to be more nuanced, emphasizing the dialectic resonances
that occur particularly between the unstated elements of the respective texts.
He states, “When a literary echo links the text in which it occurs to an earlier
text, the figurative effect of the echo can lie in the unstated or suppressed
(transumed) points of resonance between the two texts.”27 Hays distinguishes
between various types of intertextual reference as follows: “Quotation, allu-
sion, and echo may be seen as points along a spectrum of intertextual refer-
ence, moving from the explicit to the subliminal.” He adds, “. . . allusion is
used of obvious intertextual references, echo of subtler ones.”28 He uses the
term “echo” with some flexibility, employing it to refer both to the
intertextual, transumptive phenomenon found in all types of intertextual ref-
erence, and to the subtle form of allusion in which the phenomenon is often
found.29

24
Hays, Echoes.
25
See Echoes, 18–21. John Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Mil-
ton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).
26
Hays, Echoes, 20.
27
Ibid., 20.
28
Ibid., 23, 29, respectively.
29
Hays’ highly influential work follows in the tradition of C. H. Dodd, who, in his sem-
inal work (According to the Scriptures) perceives a high degree of contextual continuity
between the given NT text and the OT text to which it cites or alludes. This thesis of
Dodd’s, that the New Testament writings are built upon a thoroughly scriptural substruc-
ture, finds confirmation for Hays in the work of Michael Fishbane, who asserts that “within
Israel as a reading community, ‘all significant speech is Scriptural or Scripturally-oriented
speech.’” Hays citing Fishbane (Echoes, 21). Michael Fishbane, “Inner Biblical Exegesis:
Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel,” in Midrash and Literature, ed. G.
H. Hartman and S. Burdick (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 34. For Hays on
Dodd, see Echoes, 182.
10 Chapter One: Introduction

In addition to demonstrating the presence and significance of intertextual

echo in Paul’s letters, one of the most helpful contributions of Hays’ work is
his formulation of criteria for establishing the presence of this literary phe-
nomenon. Hays sets forth seven criteria: 1) availability; 2) volume; 3) recur-
rence; 4) thematic coherence; 5) historical plausibility; 6) history of interpre-
tation; and 7) satisfaction. 30
There are several more recent and substantial contributions to Paul’s use of
scripture that are more directly relevant to the thesis here proposed. These
works, and particularly the manner in which they both challenge and support
the present thesis, will be discussed in a separate introductory section.31

2. Recent Research on Paul’s Use of Isaiah

In addition to the literature on Paul’s use of scripture in general is the grow-
ing body of research on Paul’s use of Isaiah. Much attention has been paid in
recent years to the relationship between Paul’s epistle to the Romans and the
great prophetic book of Isaiah,32 and rightly so. These works are considered
by most, if not all, scholars to be among the most theologically profound and
significant biblical books in their respective testaments,33 and given the level

30
Hays, Echoes, 29–32. Hays has expanded his discussion and description of these cri-
teria (with specific reference to Paul’s use of Isaiah, in fact) in a more recent work. See
The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scriptures (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 34–45. For more on Hays, see below in the introductory section
on methodology in which Hays’ criteria are discussed in detail.
31
See below in this chapter, “Paul’s Recent Interpreters and the Challenge to an
Isaianic Background.”
32
See for example: D. R. Denny, The Significance of Isaiah in the Writings of Paul
(PhD. diss, New Orleans Theological Seminary, 1985); Paul E. Dinter, “Paul and the
Prophet Isaiah,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 13 (Ap 1983): 48–52; D. A. Oss, Paul’s Use of
Isaiah and its Place in His Theology: With Special Reference to Romans 9–11 (Ph.D. diss.,
Westminster Theological Seminary, 1992); Shum, Use; Wagner, Heralds; A. L. Yang,
Paul’s Prophetic Reapplication of Isaiah in Romans 9–11 (Ph.D. diss., The University of
Bristol, 2001); Wilk, Bedeutung.
33
John Oswalt states concerning Isaiah, “Unless the book of Isaiah is a great theologi-
cal document, it is nothing. Whatever may be its strengths as a piece of literature, they pale
by comparison to the breadth and the sweep of the book’s theological insights.” He goes on
to state , “Perhaps in no other biblical book are the wonder and grandeur of the biblical
God so ably displayed.” John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39, NICOT (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 31–32. Concerning Romans, Carson/Moo/Morris (see preface,
p. 10) state, “Romans is the longest and most theologically significant of the letters of
Paul, ‘the very purest gospel’ (Luther)” (D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris,
An Introduction to the New Testament [Leicester: Apollos, 1992], 239). This point need not
be labored; examples of those who hold such a high view of the theological significance of
these two works in their respective testaments could be multiplied ad infinitum.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 11

of dependence upon the great prophet that the apostle exhibits, the study of
Isaiah in Romans would seem to promise rich, theological dividends, indeed.
While not focusing exclusively on Romans, the valuable work of Florian
Wilk (1998) examines the citations of and allusions to Isaiah in the undisput-
ed letters of Paul, with particular reference to Paul’s self-understanding as
apostle to the Gentiles. Wilk seeks to trace the development of Paul’s reading
of Isaiah throughout Paul’s letters and organizes Paul’s interpretation into
four main categories: “Christusbotschaft,” “Selbstverständnis,” “Israelfrage,”
and “Parusieerwartung.” Wilk argues that not only Paul’s theology, but his
very self-understanding as an apostle to the Gentiles is significantly formed
by major sections of Isaiah.34 As valuable as Wilk’s work is in discerning
these broad lines of Isaianic influence across the Pauline corpus as a whole, it
is this very breadth of treatment that prevents him from examining the situa-
tion in Romans as closely as one might desire.
Dealing specifically with the use of Isaiah in Romans, the insightful inves-
tigation by Shiu-Lun Shum (2002) seeks to develop a comparative hermeneu-
tical frame of reference for Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans by first examining
the interpretation of Isaiah in both the Sibylline Oracles and the Qumran
literature.35 Avoiding some of the ahistorical pitfalls of intertextuality in
modern literary criticism, Shum, following Hays, employs a modified
intertextual approach. He examines both the citations of and allusions to
Isaiah in Romans, utilizing several of Hays’ criteria for detecting allusions.
He concludes that Paul uses Isaiah in Romans, by and large, in keeping with
the original Isaianic context. Shum notes, moreover, that while Paul’s use of
Isaiah reflects his theological convictions and messianic presuppositions, it at
the same time exhibits at several points a “transplanting” of Isaiah’s theology
into his epistle.36 Like Wilk’s work, the scope of Shum’s study also limits its
usefulness to the present investigation. His comparative approach highlights
Paul’s christocentric hermeneutic and sheds some valuable light on the use of
Isaiah in Romans, but it does not achieve a thorough investigation of that

On the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah, see, for example, Claire Mathews McGinnis and
Patricia K. Tull, eds., As Those Who Are Taught: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the
LXX to the SBL, SBL Symposium Series 27 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006).
34
Wilk, Bedeutung, 160–206; 340–80. Though Wilk examines all of Paul’s undisputed
letters, he states regarding Romans, “So stellt dieses Schreiben als Höhepunkt der
paulinischen Jesajarezeption zugleich ihre Summe dar,” 404.
35
Shum, Use.
On the use of Isaiah by Josephus with a brief contrast of its use in the NT, see Christo-
pher Begg, “Isaiah in Josephus,” in Josephus und das Neue Testament, ed. Christfried
Bӧttrich and Jens Herzer, WUNT 209 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 233–43. In the
same volume, and on the [comparative] use of Isaiah in the NT as a whole, see Florian
Wilk, “Die Geschichte des Gottesvolkes im Licht jesajanischer Prophetie,” 245–64.
36
Shum, Use, 267.
12 Chapter One: Introduction

topic, nor does it seek to determine the relation of Isaiah to Paul’s other scrip-
tural sources in terms of their relative and confluent influence upon the epis-
tle.
The most significant, recent work on the use of Isaiah in Romans is doubt-
less that of J. Ross Wagner (2003).37 Wagner builds upon the textual studies
of Koch, Stanley and Lim, and seeks to take up Lim’s challenge to establish
Paul’s Vorlage by attending to all available textual witnesses, including the
Hebrew variants, the various versions, and the patristic evidence. Wagner
uses his textual study and the likely changes Paul made to his scriptural texts
as a starting point to determine both the hermeneutical logic and theological
significance of Paul’s appropriations of Isaiah. He focuses on the dense scrip-
tural hub of Romans 9–11, and with this more narrow focus is able to go
beyond these previous studies in terms of a closer contextual comparison of
source and receptor texts, attending not only to explicit citations, but to allu-
sions as well. In his treatment of chapters 9–11, he also explores Paul’s use of
major scriptural sources other than Isaiah, trying to give a sense of the overall
scriptural “complexion” of that section of the epistle. Following the work of
Hays, to which he is greatly indebted, Wagner employs several of Hays’
criteria for detecting allusions and “echoes,” paying particular attention to the
transumptive elements, or unspoken “echoes” in the intertextual relationships.
As thorough and insightful as Wagner’s work is on chapters 9–11 of Romans,
this also marks its limitation for the current investigation. Though he does
treat Romans 15 and has some brief discussions of Isaianic elements in the
earlier chapters of Romans, he does not seek to determine the influence of
Isaiah on the argument of the epistle as a whole, particularly in reference to
the quotations of and allusions to Isaiah in the early chapters of the epistle.
Another recent and illuminating work on Paul’s use of Isaiah is Paul and
Isaiah’s Servants by Mark Gignilliat (2007).38 Gignilliat has focused more
narrowly on 2 Cor 5:14–6:10, exploring the nature of the relationship be-
tween the concept of “the Servant of the Lord” in Isaiah 40–55, and Paul’s
own self-understanding. In terms of his basic presuppositional approach, his
work follows Brevard Childs’ conception of the canonical nature of scripture,
particularly the canonical relation between Old and New Testaments.39
Gignilliat states, “For Paul, Jesus Christ is the interpretive centre of Scripture
and as such, genuine interpretation depends on Scripture’s bearing witness to
Jesus Christ.”40

37
Wagner, Heralds.
38
Mark Gignilliat, Paul and Isaiah’s Servants: Paul’s Theological Reading of Isaiah
40–66 in 2 Corinthians 5:14–6:10, LNTS 330 (London: T&T clark, 2007).
39
See Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1992).
40
Paul and Isaiah’s Servants, 30.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 13

Gignilliat, holding that 2 Cor 5:14–6:10 evokes the broader context of

Isaiah 40–55, explores the conceptual overlap between Paul’s text and its
Isaianic backdrop with the purpose of addressing the contemporary scholarly
confusion over Paul’s vocational self-understanding in relation to the enig-
matic figure of the Servant of the Lord. Following Richard Bauckham, he
holds that the Servant in Isaiah 40–55 is caught up into the unique identity of
Yahweh.41 Therefore, according to Gignilliat, there is in Paul a recognizable
distinction within his understanding of the servant concept. The servants (Isa
54:17) derive their identity by virtue of their relation to the Servant (Isa
50:10); they are his promised seed (Isa 53:10), constituted righteous through
his sacrificial work (Isa 53:11), and are his followers who carry his message
to the nation and the world (Isa 52:7–10).42 This, Gignilliat holds, is the rela-
tion between Christ and his followers (particularly Paul) expressed in the 2
Corinthians passage. Isaiah 56–66, then, focuses in large part on the servants
of the Servant (e.g., 56:6) and develops their identity as over-against the rest
of the unbelieving nation, portraying them as following in the Servant’s path
of suffering in obedience to the Lord.43
The foregoing sketch of recent scholarship on Paul’s use of the OT and his
use of Isaiah in Romans forms the backdrop for the current investigation. Its
main lines of significance for the study may be briefly summarized as fol-
lows: a) Paul relied primarily upon the LXX for his scriptural quotations,
with a few exceptions; b) Paul occasionally alters his scriptural citations for
literary or hermeneutical/homiletical purposes; c) Paul often quoted scripture
with respect to the broader context in which the passage was found; d) Paul’s
quotations often recall these broader contexts; e) Paul frequently alludes to
scripture, often in very subtle and nuanced ways; f) these allusions may be
substantiated and granted a relative degree of legitimacy by the employment
of a set of objective criteria; g) Paul’s uses of scripture reflect a christocentric
hermeneutic that has strong typological and eschatological elements; h) Isaiah
was extremely important for Paul in the development of his theology in Ro-
mans, providing a large part of the scriptural basis for the message of re-
demption in Christ and the outworking of that redemption in such areas as the
question of Israel, the parousia, as well as his own apostolic identity and
mission.
With this overview of recent research, the subject now turns to the need for
and unique contribution of the current investigation.

41
See Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Tes-
tament (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998).
42
See, e.g., ibid., 53–54. They are, in fact, the implied messengers who have taken this
good news to a largely unbelieving Israel (Isa 53:1).
43
Ibid., 108ff. See esp. 113. In terms of Isaiah, this is essentially the view of both Jo-
seph Blenkinsopp and John Oswalt (see below, p. 79 note 40).
14 Chapter One: Introduction

3. Justification and Scope of Study

In spite of the great amount of research in this burgeoning field of Paul’s use
of Isaiah, there are, nevertheless, some significant gaps that the current inves-
tigation seeks to fill. Most of the research has focused either more broadly on
the use of Isaiah in the Pauline literature as a whole, or has focused more
narrowly on Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans 9–11. 44 The present study seeks
to examine the influence of Isaiah principally upon the first three chapters of
the epistle, but also to examine the essential relationship between these open-
ing chapters and the overall theological presentation of Romans. It seeks to
determine if Paul is gleaning from Isaiah the fundamental theological struc-
ture of his epistle, a theological structure centered in Isaiah’s “proclamation
of good news” – what was termed above as an “Isaianic redemptive narra-
tive.” Beyond an examination of the individual instances of citation and allu-
sion, therefore, the study attempts to help determine and confirm Paul’s un-
derstanding of Isaiah as an organic unity, a literary and theological whole. 45 If
this is the case, it could well shed valuable light on a number of difficult
passages in the epistle.
In determining the existence and nature of this possible Isaianic theologi-
cal framework, the investigation will pay particular attention to the various
“inter-citational” gaps to determine if Paul is developing in these sections
Isaianic themes implicit in or related to his more explicit references to Isaiah.
Of Paul’s 18 citations of Isaiah in Romans, 13 fall within chapters 9–11.46
This “citational weighting” of Isaianic material in chapters 9–11, however,
does not necessarily imply that Paul’s dependence on Isaiah was predomi-
nantly restricted to these chapters. As Moisés Silva perceptibly notes, “. . . a
particular quotation, though explicit and verbatim, may play only an illustra-
tive role and thus will not tell us very much about Paul’s fundamental con-
ceptions. Conversely, some of the apostle’s arguments that do not contain any
apparent citations reflect a very deep insight into, and dependence upon, OT
themes.” 47 With this caveat in mind, the inter-citational material will be ex-
plored for Isaianic dependence. Throughout this process, the explicit citations
to Isaiah will serve as both a starting point for the study of Paul’s develop-
ment of Isaiah’s theology and a necessary check on the plausibility of an
alleged Isaianic reading.
Furthermore, the analysis will necessarily take into account the other major
scriptural sources to determine their relative weight, purpose, and interrela-

44
Shum’s work (Use), due to its comparative approach, is necessarily self-limiting in
terms of its ability to treat thoroughly Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans.
45
On this topic, see below in chapter one, “Historical Plausibility – The Inner-
Canonical Status of Isaiah and Its Use as a Literary and Theological Unity.”
46
See Silva, “Old Testament,” 631.
47
Ibid., 630.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 15

tionship in Paul’s argument and theological presentation. A sense of the gen-

eral scriptural complexion, therefore, will be sought – an attempt to convey
the many rich, biblical shades with which this epistle is imbued. Romans is a
scriptural mosaic, its intermingling themes skillfully woven together by the
apostle to the Gentiles to create the single portrait of his gospel; its various
seams and motifs can only be properly appreciated, therefore, and its domi-
nant themes apprehended, not in isolation, but in relation to the whole.48
The goal of this investigation is a richer understanding and appreciation of
Paul’s hermeneutic and theology through a more accurate understanding of
the manner in which they are informed by scripture. In light of this goal and
in anticipation of several of the following introductory issues, two suggestive
and representative questions might be posed regarding the relevance of this
thesis: Does the text make good sense as it stands without having an Isaiah
background constantly in one’s mind? And also, with the distinct possibility
of a more limited reader competence for the original audience, is it a credible
approach, historically and otherwise, to seek to understand Romans in this
manner? To these questions it may be answered that neither the coherence of
the surface level of the text, nor the limited reader competence of any number
of the original audience negates the reality or the value of a deeper signifi-
cance to the text. In fact, to deny a deeper meaning to the text of Romans in
relation to its scriptural backdrop seems to fly in the face of certain historical
realities, such as: an understanding of the nature of scripture as the source of
spiritual life; the nature of the church as a discipling community based upon
scripture, and hence a re-reading community; the role of competent teachers
within this community more thoroughly conversant with and attuned to the
intertextual nature of apostolic writing; the canonical, and hence, mutually
informing dynamic of OT scripture with its attendant and authoritative apos-
tolic interpretation in light of the saving event; the continuing hermeneutical
significance that this canonical, intertextual, mutually interpreting dynamic of
the old and new testaments has had throughout the history of the church.49

48
On the Roman Christians’ “reader competence,” Ernst Kӓsemann comments, “The
epistle is clearly addressed to a community whose firm status as Christians is not in doubt,
and from whom a high degree of theological understanding is required in view of the
dogmatic concentration of this letter.”Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey
Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 34. On this positive assessment of reader
competence, and against Christopher D. Stanley in his book Arguing with Scripture: The
Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), see especially
N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God
Series, Vol. 4 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 13–14, 613, 1449–56.
49
For more discussion on this issue, see the introductory section later in this chapter,
“Christopher D. Stanley: Arguing with Scripture” (under “Paul’s Recent Interpreters and
the Challenge to an Isaianic Background”).
16 Chapter One: Introduction

The text of Romans is indeed understandable at the rhetorical level. But it

is the contention of this thesis that the meaning and significance conveyed by
this rhetorical level deepens immensely through the light reflected forward by
antecedent scripture, particularly inasmuch as that antecedent scripture mir-
rors the light of the Messiah himself, and so prophetically discloses the dawn
of the messianic redemption.

4. Methodology of the Present Study

This investigation will explore the Isaianic influence upon the epistle to the
Romans along three principle lines: 1) citations; 2) allusions; and 3) thematic
development (or, in other words, the development of uniquely characteristic
themes). During the course of the investigation, these three separate lines of
Isaianic influence will be consistently related to two separate criteria intended
to establish a relative, Isaianic priority among Paul’s scriptural sources (the
theological “weight” of a biblical reference within its quoted context, and a
demonstrable scriptural/theological framework, discussed below). For each
type of Isaianic influence in Rom 1:1–3:26, the study will seek to be as ex-
haustive and inclusive as possible. For that reason it will follow a collation of
citations and allusions from the works of five authors: Ellis, Shum, Stanley,
Wagner and Wilk. 50 This collation, found in the Appendix, will be employed
not only with reference to Romans 1–3 but with reference to the rest of the
epistle as well, especially chapters 9–11. The theological relationship be-
tween these citationally dense chapters of Romans 9–11 and the opening
chapters of the epistle, particularly with regard to Isaiah, create a mutually
interpreting, intertextual dialogue. The Isaianic citations in 9–11, therefore,
frequently shed valuable light upon the use of Isaiah in the earlier chapters.
The investigation into each instance of perceived Isaianic influence will
begin with an examination of the verbal and syntactical links and/or depend-
encies, and proceed to a consideration of the dual issues of contextual conti-
nuity and thematic and theological dependence and development. Though the

50
See Appendix. In terms of the explicit citations of Isaiah in Romans, the authors cited
above agree in most cases. In terms of the allusions there is not the same degree of consen-
sus (Stanley does not attempt to detect allusions). Scholars in general differ with respect to
the criteria they employ for distinguishing between citations and allusions, and this is due,
no doubt, to the great variety of ways in which Paul’s scripture-saturated vocabulary re-
flects the text of scripture. There is a full spectrum in Paul’s writings, from a virtually
verbatim quotation with a formal introduction to the subtlest of allusions that reflects
merely a theme or “catch word,” with every variation in between. For the purposes of the
present investigation an exact distinction need not be pressed since it attempts to treat both
quotations and allusions. But for the sake of clarity, the term citation or quotation will
refer to those instances in which Paul clearly attempts to refer to the words of scripture as
indicated by a citation formula of some kind, and/or close verbal correspondence; and the
term allusion will refer to the subtler forms of reference.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 17

focus of the study is Isaiah, and with respect to the final criterion of a theo-
logical framework mentioned above, other dominant scriptural sources will
be examined to determine their role in relation to Isaiah and the overall scrip-
tural mosaic of Romans.
The examination of the two explicit citations of Isaiah in Romans 1–3 will
build upon the very valuable textual studies of Koch, Stanley, and Wagner.
Though the textual consensus of these authors will largely be followed, each
Isaianic reference will nevertheless be compared to both the LXX and He-
brew manuscripts and their variants with the goal of determining, wherever
possible, the changes Paul made to his Vorlage. 51 In the instances in which
they occur, these probable alterations will serve as valuable clues to Paul’s
interpretive and theological approach to Isaiah.
The examination of all possible allusions, including several allusions de-
tected by the present study, will be undertaken primarily by means of several
of the criteria established by Hays.52 Echoes will be treated as allusions, and

51
The Greek text of the NT used in this study will be Novum Testamentum Graece, ed.
E. Nestle, E. Nestle, K. Aland, B. Aland (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 199327);
for the LXX, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum-xiv Isaiah, ed. J. Ziegler,
Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis Editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19833);
and for the Hebrew text Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Ellinger and W. Rudolph
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984). The English rendering of the LXX follows
Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (London: Samuel
Bagster and Sons, 1851). The English version used is the New American Standard Bible
(La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1977).
52
For other discussions of criteria used to verify Paul’s scriptural references, see, e.g.,
Timothy W. Berkley, From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline
Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29, SBLDS 175 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Litera-
ture, 2000), 60–64; Carol K. Stockhausen, “2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline
Exegesis,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders,
JSNTSup 83/SSEJC 1 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 143–64. For a discussion of the
phenomenon of intertextuality within Israel’s scriptures, see Michael Fishbane, Biblical
Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985). The criteria of Berkley, e.g.,
appear roughly equivalent to Hays’ criteria (he uses Hays as a source), though with some
minor changes and unique emphases.
From the standpoint of establishing an interpretive basis for Paul’s uses of scripture,
see, e.g., Matthew W. Bates, The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation: The Center
of Paul’s Method of Scriptural Interpretation (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012),
53–56; Andrew David Naselli, From Typology to Doxology: Paul’s Use of Isaiah and Job
in Romans 11:34–35 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012), 118–39. Bates follows a
diachronic intertextual method, which holds that “. . . any given text [i.e., “. . . any specific
instance in which a NT author . . . directly cites the scriptures”] is informed by all of the
sociohistorical discourse that precedes, surrounds, and follows it.” Hence, he seeks to
attend to the entire intertextual context of a given text, such as “antecedent-texts,” “pre-
texts,” “co-texts,” and “post-texts.” (This overlaps, generally, with Hays’ criteria of histor-
ical plausibility and history of interpretation.) Nasselli examines the NT authors “herme-
neutical warrants” for their use of the OT. In the case of Paul’s quotations of Isaiah and
18 Chapter One: Introduction

understood as simply a subtler form of the same. The term echo, as in Hays,
will be used to refer both to this subtle form of allusion and to the
transumptive phenomenon found in all types of intertextual reference.
The criteria of Hays that will be employed to detect allusions are: Volume,
Recurrence, and Thematic Coherence. The criterion of volume refers to “the
degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns.”53 The greater
the degree of verbal correspondence, the “higher the volume,” and the greater
the likelihood of the proposed allusion. Hays’ criterion of volume, however,
will be slightly expanded in this study to include the concept of vocabu-
lary/thematic clusters, or in other words, a unique combination and integra-
tion of terms/themes as allusive references to larger narrative contexts.54 The
criterion of recurrence is used by Hays to refer to the number of times Paul
cites or alludes to the source of a proposed allusion in his epistles. Hays ob-
serves that this criteria of recurrence should not be understood simply with
reference to isolated verses as source texts, but in terms of larger passages of
scripture as well. He states,
When we find repeated Pauline quotations of a particular OT passage, additional possible
allusions to the same passage become more compelling. I use the term “passage” broadly
to indicate not just a particular verse quoted explicitly on more than one occasion (such as
Hab 2:4 or Gen 15:6) but also larger units of Scripture to which Paul repeatedly refers. One
example of this would be Deut 32, which turns up repeatedly in Paul’s letters . . . The
parade example of this phenomenon in the Pauline letters, however, is his use of Isa 40–55.
Paul returns again and again to this text, especially in Romans. Here we find clear evidence
of the clustering of citations from one special scriptural context.55

Job in Romans 11:34–35 he concludes that Paul’s hermeneutical warrants include the
larger contexts, application, a canonical approach, and typology (see 130–31, [through]
141). This conclusion, in terms of the manner in which Paul employs Isaiah, helps to
confirm the results of the present study.
53
Hays, Echoes, 30; Conversion, 34–37.
54
Allusions often tend to be used in tandem with major and highly characteristic
themes. Therefore, at times the categories may overlap, and a clear distinction between
allusion (particularly allusion by means of the thematic clusters) and thematic development
may not be possible.
On this criterion, see Timothy Berkley, Broken Covenant, 61–62. This criterion of vo-
cabulary/thematic clusters to establish an allusion to a larger narrative context will be used
primarily with reference to Rom 1:16–17 and 3:21–26. Cf. also, e.g., Rom 8:30, 33, and
the terms “elect,” “called,” “justified,” “glorified,” as a likely reference to Jesus as the
Servant of the Lord, and upon whom the calling (etc.) of believers is based. This likelihood
is greatly strengthened by the larger context of the Romans passage, which is replete with
allusions to Isaiah 50 and 53 (see Appendix). On Romans 8, see in chapter two below,
“Romans 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant and the Conquest of Death.”
55
Conversion, 37–38. His use of the term “clustering” in the above quotation is not to
be confused with its use in my expanded version of Hays’ criterion of volume described
 II. Preliminary Considerations 19

In the present study the criterion of recurrence will be employed primarily

with reference to Romans due to the sheer number of Isaianic quotations
outside of Romans 1–3; this use or repeated use of a given Isaianic text by
Paul, especially in Romans, greatly strengthens the likelihood of a further
allusion to that same text or its larger context elsewhere in the epistle. 56 The
criterion of thematic coherence evaluates the contextual continuity between
texts, establishing how closely the themes of the precursor text align with the
themes being developed in the context of the proposed allusion. This criteri-
on, therefore, adds credibility to the proposal that Paul is not merely proof-
texting from a favorite section of scripture, but is employing his references to
Isaiah in a coherent manner reflecting the prophecy’s redemptive narrative
centering in the good news.57
In addition to exploring Isaianic citations and allusions, this study will in-
vestigate Paul’s development of the Isaianic themes implicit in these refer-
ences. This development of Isaianic themes is to be distinguished somewhat
from allusion (though at times they seem to overlap, particularly in the case
of a clustering of uniquely Isaianic themes). Paul’s allusions generally reflect
a specific text, while his thematic development takes a particular Isaianic
theme or themes explicitly or implicitly contained in his more overt or partic-
ular references to Isaiah, and develops them along Isaianic lines.58 As in allu-

above, as referring to a group of key vocabulary terms characteristic of, and used to allude
to, an OT passage of scripture.
56
Wagner perceptibly notes, “In the case of Paul, intertextual echo nearly always func-
tions in tandem with more obvious references to scripture, including citations marked by
introductory formulas and more explicit modes of allusion,” (Heralds, 10).
57
See Hays’ concluding comments on his discussion of the criterion of recurrence
(Conversion, 38).
Hays’ criteria of Historical Plausibility will be employed in two separate introductory
sections related to issues such as Judaism’s use of Isaiah as a literary and theological unity,
and the source of Paul’s gospel (and, negatively, to weed out readings that from a cultural
or interpretive standpoint are historically unlikely). These sections, it is hoped, will
strengthen the plausibility of the arguments both for the nature of Paul’s gospel as Isaianic,
as well as his use of the prophecy as a coherent narrative of God’s redemptive righteous-
ness.
The criteria of Availability is inapplicable since Paul very obviously had access to the
text of Isaiah; his explicit citations alone span from the first to the sixty-fifth chapters.
Since the criteria of History of Interpretation does not discount readings that commend
themselves on the basis of other criteria, it is of more limited value for the current investi-
gation (though see Hays’ very interesting comments in this regard in Conversion, 43–44,
which go some ways toward confirming the thesis here proposed). Hays’ final criteria of
Satisfaction may be used by those evaluating the merit of the present work.
58
Again, as noted above, thematic development may be conceived at times as overlap-
ping the category of allusion, particularly when used in tandem with clear allusions or
quotations. This is especially evident in the thematic verses (Rom 1:16–17), as well as in
20 Chapter One: Introduction

sion, transumptive elements are often present. This thematic development is

evident in a variety of interrelated forms, such as a unique and complex use
of the typology of captive Israel, and, building upon this, the logical ordering
of themes in a manner that mirrors or reflects the redemptive narrative of
Isaiah and its theological framework (e.g., the deuteronomic curse of captiv-
ity, taken up into a typological portrayal of humanity, set within a pre-
eschatological trial scenario, with humanity predominantly portrayed as cap-
tive and condemned, as a prelude to God’s redemptive righteousness).
This discussion of the criteria used to establish Paul’s allusions to scripture
leads to one final and crucial issue: the need for criteria to help determine the
relative importance of Paul’s various citations and allusions to scripture. This
need is well expressed by Steve Moyise with respect to the opening quota-
tion(s) of the gospel of Mark. He states,
. . . the existence of a variety of historical reconstructions inevitably raises a question mark
against the importance being placed upon any one of them. It is not that quotations must
evoke a single context and therefore somebody has to be wrong. Indeed, it is quite plausi-
ble that a richly textured quotation like that found in Mk 1.2–3 might well evoke ideas and
themes from Exodus, Malachi and Isaiah. The problem is that the resulting complexity is
then artificially reduced so as to make one particular proposal more convincing than the
others.59

Or, as he elegantly phrases the issue more generally later in his book, “In our
search for the ‘loudest’ voice, we should not become deaf to the quieter voic-
es that give the work its particular texture.”60
In light of this need for more methodological precision to address the ques-
tion of the relative significance of Paul’s various references to scripture, I
propose two additional and interrelated criteria: the criterion of the theologi-
cal “weight” of a biblical reference within its quoted context, and the criteri-
on of a demonstrable theological framework.61 The first recognizes a relative
significance based upon both the nature and number of the themes evoked in
a biblical reference, together with the role or significance of this reference
within the context of Paul’s discussion. For example, it will be argued that
both Rom 1:16–17a and Rom 3:21–26 are allusions to Isaiah 40–55 (the se-

Rom 3:21–26, where allusive vocabulary clusters are combined with themes clearly char-
acteristic of Isaiah.
59
Steve Moyise, Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New (New York:
T&T Clark, 2008), 18.
60
Ibid., 140.
61
This last criterion is somewhat related to Hays’ criteria of both recurrence and the-
matic coherence, which highlights both the significance of this section of Isaiah, as well as
the coherent use of its individual references, respectively. This last criterion, however,
extends and blends the two to convey the concept of a coherent, overarching scriptural
framework. In the case of Paul’s use of Isaiah, the framework, though centered in chapters
40–55, encompasses the whole of prophecy.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 21

cond centering primarily upon Isaiah 53). Few would argue against either the
theological significance of these passages, or their crucial placement and role
within the argument of Romans 1–4. If these passages are allusions to the
larger context of Isaiah’s redemptive narrative, the proposal of Isaiah’s rela-
tive priority is greatly strengthened. 62 This also would apply in varying de-
grees to such passages as Rom 1:1–6 and 4:23–25 (as both opening and clos-
ing the first major section of the epistle), as well as to the two quotations
from Isaiah in Romans 1–4 (Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5; Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8; as
both conveying plight and anticipating redemption [Rom 3:21–26], as well as
intertextually connecting to the further depiction of this redemption later in
the epistle by means of these same passages [Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1;
Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9]). The theological “weight” of these vari-
ous biblical references within their quoted contexts, then, helps provide the
basis for the second criterion used to establish the relative priority of Paul’s
references.
With respect to this second criterion – a demonstrable theological frame-
work – if it can be demonstrated that Paul’s various references to Isaiah cre-
ate or constitute a coherent theological framework, a framework that not only
incorporates Paul’s other scriptural references but incorporates other major
scriptural narratives or frameworks as well, then it also establishes a degree
of relative priority for Isaiah. This being the case, Isaiah, then, could well be
described as Paul’s primary hermeneutical lens, the lens through which he
views all of scripture. For example, the Abrahamic narrative of righteousness
through faith in the covenant promise; Deuteronomy’s narrative of covenant
curse, exile, and ultimate restoration; and the manner in which Habakkuk
draws these together, intimating somewhat of the theological structure of the
Pentateuch; each of these, as this thesis will seek to demonstrate, are taken up
into, expanded, and brought to fulfillment by the eschatological good news of
Isaiah’s new exodus. These final two criteria, therefore, will be used in tan-
dem with the examination of quotations, allusions and themes to help estab-
lish the relative significance of Paul’s use of Isaiah as against his other refer-
ences to scripture.63
In terms of this relative significance, it must be clarified that Isaiah is not
necessarily the primary scriptural source of the dominant motif in each indi-
vidual subsection (though at times this impression might be given in the
treatment itself by virtue of emphasis and weighting of the discussion, e.g.,

62
In fact, it could well be that Paul’s choice of allusion as opposed to quotation in these
instances was due to his ability and intention to concisely evoke and interrelate a signifi-
cant number of Isaianic themes in a manner that reflects his understanding of the prophe-
cy’s wider redemptive context.
63
On the initial plausibility of Isaiah as Paul’s theological framework, see above, pp. 2–
6. For more on this Isaianic theological framework, see, e.g., in chapter two below, “Intro-
duction: The Relation between Habakkuk and Isaiah in Romans.”
22 Chapter One: Introduction

Rom 3:1–4). Isaiah is, however (or so it will be argued), the source of the
overarching framework that surfaces to some extent in each section, so that
the minor allusions that provide the consistent link to the larger framework
are duly noted, and by virtue of this connection are given a bit more attention
than their relative significance in the given subsection might seem to warrant.
Therefore, for example, the ostensible priority given to Isaiah in sections such
as Rom 3:1–4 is not intended to suggest a higher priority for Isaiah in that
sub-section as over against, say, Psalm 51. It rather stems simply from the
primary purpose of this thesis in exploring the role of Isaiah, as well as the
necessity of noting the links with the larger Isaianic theological framework. It
is hoped that the comments in such instances will clarify Isaiah’s relative
importance in the given individual subsection.
As a final note on the application of the criteria throughout the thesis, it
should be noted that this discussion will at times take place in the body of the
work, though more often it takes place in footnotes immediately following
the examination of the given Isaianic reference.
Because of the necessity of following Paul’s argument and its develop-
ment, the study will, for the most part, follow the order of the text of Romans.
However, the investigation will occasionally require an anticipation of its
argument by jumping ahead to a citation or allusion yet to be treated (this is
especially the case with Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24 because of its significance in its
wider context). As stated above, this requisite is due to the value of the ex-
plicit citations in validating the plausibility of an alleged Isaianic reading.
The page constraint will make it necessary to treat certain passages in a more
or less summary fashion.

5. Historical Plausibility – The Inner-Canonical Status of Isaiah and Its Use

as a Literary and Theological Unity
Paul interpreted Isaiah within the context of first century Jewish exegesis,
which, while defying generalizations, undoubtedly included the elements of
contextual and exegetical interpretation.64 He approached Isaiah, moreover,

64
On the contextual nature of scribal exegesis in the pre-70 era, see David Instone
Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE, TSAJ 30
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992). Brewer states (167), “Every single scribal exegesis
examined could be quoted as an example to show that Scripture was interpreted according
to its context.”
On the nature of interpretation in early Judaism, including the first century, which often
contains or is characterized by exegesis of the OT scriptural texts, see Matthias Henze, ed.,
A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012).
See, e.g., the interesting article by Robert Kugler, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patri-
archs: A Not-So-Ambiguous Witness to Early Jewish Interpretive Practices,” 337–60. He
demonstrates that this work reflects Jewish exegetical practice. He concludes, “There
should be little lingering doubt about the Testaments’ testimony to the interpretive practic-
 II. Preliminary Considerations 23

within an interpretive stream in which the Great Prophet buoyed Israel’s hope
of the promised, coming salvation to be mediated through Israel’s Messiah.65
But narrowing the topic a bit more, the inner-canonical status of Isaiah, as
well as its use as a literary and theological unity, provide strong initial sup-
port for the central role that Isaiah plays in Paul’s interpretive and theological
framework. The phrase “inner-canonical status” refers to the unique role that
Isaiah was believed to play in disclosing the future messianic kingdom, as
evidenced in the intertestamental literature. Generally speaking, Isaiah was
viewed as the prophet for the messianic or eschatological age in Judaism.66
Central to this role within the prophecy itself was “the proclamation of good
news” in chapters 40–66. The Hebrew term rfb occurs in five passages in the
second half of Isaiah,67 and the interrelated use of this term was part of an
early interpretive tradition found in the intertestamental Jewish writings,
Qumran, the LXX and the Targum of Isaiah which centered upon this con-
cept.68 Within this interpretive tradition the “proclamation of good news” was

es of Jews of Greco-Roman antiquity. Their contents, genre, and themes bear witness to
the Hebrew Scriptures as their root and stalk, and the history of research devoted to them
since the late seventeenth century further demonstrates their rightful place among the
Jewish Pseudepigrapha that rely on exegesis of the Hebrew Bible. The Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs, Christian or Jewish in their original form, are undeniable and first and
foremost the product of exegesis and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.”
On Qumran in the same work, see, e.g., Shani Tzoref, “The Use of Scripture in the
Community Rule,” 203–34.
65
E.g., on this Isaianic expectation of the coming salvation of God as evoked through
Isa 40:3–5 and reflected in Second Temple Jewish literature, see David W. Pao, Acts and
the Isaianic New Exodus, WUNT 2.130 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 41–45.
On the messianic character of this Isaianic expectation centering in texts such as Isa
11:1–9, see Michael A. Knibb, “Isaianic Traditions in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,”
in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, ed. C. C.
Broyles and C. A. Evans, 2 vols., VTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 633–50.
66
See Martin Hengel, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period,”
in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. Bernd Janowski
and Peter Stühlmacher, trans. Daniel P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 82–85.
See also Wagner, Heralds, 29–31, 175; Catrin H. Williams, “The Testimony of Isaiah
and Johannine Christology,” in As Those Who Are Taught: The Interpretation of Isaiah
from the LXX to the SBL, ed. Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull, SBL Sympo-
sium Series 27 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 107. Williams cites, e.g.,
Ben Sira (Sir 48:24–25), who portrays Isaiah as a prophet who “. . . saw the future, and
comforted the mourners in Zion, [who] revealed what was to occur to the end of time, and
the hidden things before they happened”; as well as a text from Qumran (4Q174 frgs. 1–2
line 15) which depicts Isaiah as “the prophet for the last days.”
67
Isa 40:1–11 (v. 9, 2x); 41:21–29 (v. 27); 52:7–12 (v. 7, 2x); 60:1–7 (v. 6); 61:1–11
(v. 1).
68
See Craig A. Evans, “From Gospel to Gospel: The Function of Isaiah in the New Tes-
tament,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition,
ed. C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans, 2 vols., VTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 651–91.
24 Chapter One: Introduction

theocentric, fundamentally referring to the presence and reign of God;69 it

was eschatological and messianic in character, based in repentance, and em-
phasized the healing and restoring power of God’s redemption of his peo-
ple.70 In its main contours this interpretive tradition bore a strong resem-
blance to Jesus’ proclamation of good news, and likely stood as the primary
scriptural source behind it.71
This Isaianic good news, then, was central to the prophecy’s larger narra-
tive of messianic redemption which culminated in the messianic reign. This is
consistent with and further supports the compelling evidence for a holistic
reading of Isaiah at a very early stage in the history of interpretation, evi-
dence which is apparent even within what came to be the canon itself.72 Mar-
tin Hengel states, “Since the beginning of the early Hellenistic period at the
latest, the book of Isaiah was interpreted as a whole (and eschatologically)
and exerted its influence as such.”73 But far from an eisegetical hermeneutic
of hope forged in the fires of national oppression, many scholars believe that
this is precisely the way the prophecy itself was intended to be understood.
Significant and representative in this regard, particularly with respect to the
central role of the Servant of the Lord, is Joseph Blenkinsopp, who writes,
The conclusion to which these exegetical considerations are leading is that an integrative
approach to Isaiah 40–66, and for that matter to the book as a whole, permits us to see
prophetic agency in general, and the profile and mission of the Servant of the Lord contin-
ued by his disciples in particular, as a central theme in the book, and one by no means
confined to the four Ebedlieder passages identified by Bernhard Duhm.74

69
Ibid., 656.
70
Ibid., 656–66. On the role of repentance, see 657, 666; for the theme of God’s re-
demptive healing and restoration, see 656.
71
Ibid., 667, 671, respectively. For the meaning and use of rfb in the OT, see, e.g., O.
Schilling, “rfb bśr,” TDOT, 2:313–16.
72
On Daniel’s allusive dependence upon various passages from Isaiah (Daniel 12/Isaiah
26, 53, 66) to depict the culmination of eschatological salvation in terms of both resurrec-
tion and judgment (particularly as Daniel develops this theme out of the context of Deuter-
onomy’s covenant curse as [partially] fulfilled in Jeremiah’s 70 years of captivity), see,
e.g., Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, [482–]493; Matthias Henze, “The Use of
Scripture in the Book of Daniel,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Juda-
ism, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 279–307 (esp. 297–98, 302).
On Habakkuk’s use of Isaiah, see further below, “The Gospel and Habakkuk – The
Consummation of the Saving Promise and Its Appropriation by Faith.”
73
“The Effective History of Isaiah 53,” 84.
74
Opening The Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 252.
Wagner (Heralds, 323, note 63) notes that not only Paul, but the Psalms of Solomon
and the Isaiah Targum evidence a messianic and holistic interpretive approach to the
prophecy.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 25

Isaiah, therefore, was interpreted as a literary and theological unity whose

chief significance was in disclosing the longed-for messianic salvation her-
alded forth in its message of “good news.” Isaiah’s inner-canonical status and
role, then, was likely a crucial factor in directing the apostle to this great
prophecy as his primary hermeneutical lens for understanding the eschatolog-
ical salvation now realized in and mediated through the Messiah’s sacrifice
for sin. As such, and understood as a literary and theological unity, moreover,
its sweeping and comprehensive narrative of redemption centering in the
messianic sacrifice allowed it to become for Paul the primary hermeneutical
lens through which he viewed all of scripture. A central tenet of the following
thesis is that this general interpretive approach to the prophecy was followed
by the apostle, centering on the “proclamation of good news” as fulfilled in
the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The present investigation, therefore, proceeded with the assumption that
Paul, in his use of Isaiah, approached the prophecy both with respect to the
wider context of the given citation or allusion, as well as with respect to the
relation of that particular context to the overall prophetic narrative of God’s
redemptive righteousness. He came to the prophecies of Isaiah as a literary
and theological unity. This assumption, which is intended to be thoroughly
tested in the present study, was based both on an initial investigation of the
material, as well as on a growing body of research regarding Paul’s use of
scripture that points in that very direction, both with regard to the Pauline
corpus as a whole as well as Romans in particular.75
75
The following recent studies support the thesis that Paul’s citations of and allusions
to scripture cohere with both the immediate contexts of the passages cited, as well as with
the larger narrative and structural patterns of their broader contexts: Scott J. Hafemann,
“The Glory and Veil of Moses in 2 Cor. 3:7–14: An Example of Paul’s Contextual Exege-
sis of the Old Testament – A Proposal,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?
Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1994), 295–309; Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the
Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, WUNT 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995);
Hays, Echoes, e.g., 157–58; Conversion, e.g., 25–49; Sylvia C. Keesmaat, “Exodus and the
Intertextual Transformation of Tradition in Romans 8:14–30,” JSNT 54 (1994): 29–56;
Paul and His Story: (Re)interpreting the Exodus Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1999); Gail R. O’Day, “Jeremiah 9:22–23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26–31: A Study in
Intertextuality,” JBL 109.2 (1990): 259–67; James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An
Exegetical Investigation in the Background of UIOQESIA in the Pauline Corpus, WUNT
2.48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992); Shum, Use, 273; D. Moody Smith, “The Pauline
Literature,” in It is Written, 265–91; Carol K. Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil and the Glory of
the New Covenant: The Exegetical Substructure of II Cor 3,1–4,6, AnBib 116 (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1989); “Pauline Exegesis,” 143–64; D. O. Via, “A Struc-
turalist Approach to Paul’s Old Testament Hermeneutic,” Int 28.2 (1974): 201–20; J. Ross
Wagner, “Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation of Paul’s Use of
Isaiah 51–55 in Romans,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian
Origins, ed. William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity
26 Chapter One: Introduction

The following statements by several of the scholars already mentioned typ-

ify the conclusions of much of the recent research on Paul’s use of scripture,
and express incisively the warrant for the current approach. Shiu-Lun Shum
concludes his detailed comparison of the use of Isaiah by the Sibylline Ora-
cles, Qumran, and Romans by stating,
. . . In utilizing the Isaianic material, the Sibyls, the sectarians, and (especially) Paul often
showed signs of knowledge of, or even respect for, its original context . . . it seems fair to
say that the Isaianic tradition, among many other OT traditions, more or less directed the
thinking of these Jewish writers. It then follows that it is essential and generally fruitful to
give serious attention to the original context of the scriptural material that is used by the
Jewish writers in question, in order to assess the magnitude of the impact of Scripture
upon, and/or to examine the characteristics of, their thinking. This is especially true of
Paul, whose thinking (as shown in Romans) was evidently greatly molded by Isaiah’s
sayings.76

J. Ross Wagner, in his very thorough study of Romans 9–11, notes that Paul’s
Isaianic citations and allusions, “. . . are not plunder from random raids on
Israel’s sacred texts. Rather, they are the product of sustained and careful
attention to the rhythms and cadences of individual passages as well as to
larger themes and motifs that run throughout the prophet’s oracles.”77 Of
particular importance is again Richard B. Hays, who insightfully observes,
God’s act in Jesus Christ illuminates, Paul contends, a previously uncomprehended narra-
tive unity in Scripture . . . Within this narrative framework for interpretation, Paul’s frag-
mentary references to and echoes of Scripture derive coherence from their common rela-
tion to the scriptural story of God’s righteousness. Though the quotations appear eclectic
and scattered, they usually must be understood as allusive recollections of the wider narra-
tive setting from which they are taken.78

Both the inner-canonical status of Isaiah, as well as its use as a literary and
theological unity, create a strong historical plausibility for the thesis that
Isaiah played a central role for Paul in the formulation of his renewed, escha-
tological hermeneutic. Further, and particularly in light of the studies support-
ing Paul’s contextual use of scripture mentioned above, Isaiah’s messianic,
eschatological status and holistically-conceived nature point to the probability
that Paul used the prophecy, not in the manner of isolated proof-texts, but in
dependence upon the prophecy’s larger redemptive narrative centering in the
proclamation of good news (or, as Paul more often expresses it, the gospel).
The question of the source of Paul’s gospel will now be examined to see if

Press, 1998), 193–222; Heralds, e.g., 356; Francis B. Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics
of Faith (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), e.g., 276, 517; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the
Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T clark, 1991); Paul
and the Faithfulness of God, e.g., 1449–56.
76
Shum, Use, 273.
77
Wagner, Heralds, 356.
78
Hays, Echoes, 157–58.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 27

there is additional warrant for suspecting the nature of this gospel to be pre-
dominantly Isaianic.

6. Historical Plausibility – Paul’s Renewed Hermeneutic: The Convergence

Upon Isaiah as the Source of Paul’s Gospel in Romans
Though the entire study treats the broader question of whether Paul’s gospel
in Romans is principally derived from Isaiah, can anything further be said in
a preliminary way regarding the probable Isaianic nature of this gospel? This
question brings to the forefront the matter of source. Most scholars recognize
several sources for Paul’s gospel, the most significant being: 1) his conver-
sion experience, 2) apostolic tradition, and 3) scripture.79 As various revela-
tory phases of the One revealing God, these disparate voices, far from contra-
dicting one another, could only speak to Paul in unison. At the climactic
revelatory event of his conversion, the facts and significance of the life, death
and resurrection of Christ which exploded upon Paul’s consciousness provid-
ed him with the hermeneutical key for understanding the scriptures of Israel.80
Within this messianic, hermeneutical framework, a framework begun by
Jesus and continued by the apostles, certain books and passages of scripture
were particularly relevant in terms of elucidating this new, eschatological
redemption.81 And so these disparate voices – his conversion experience,
apostolic tradition, and scripture – became to Paul a convergence of influence
that appears to have uniformly led him to the prophet Isaiah as a major source

79
See Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, WUNT 2.4 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr,
1984).
80
From the perspective of Jesus in both the synoptics and John’s gospel, the scriptures
can be properly understood only in relation to the Person of Christ to whom they bear
witness (e.g., Mat 5:17–18; 11:13–14; Luke 24:25–27, 44–47; John 5:39; 8:42; cf. also,
e.g., Acts 10:43). Paul, moreover, held the same view as his Lord (e.g., Rom 1:1–5; II Cor
3:7–4:4). Ellis (Use, 81–82) comments, “The Pauline use of the OT cannot really be under-
stood in terms of his Jewish contemporaries. This is especially true where principles of
interpretation are involved. The affinities which occur are in peripheral areas and never
reach to the heart of his thought. After his conversion the OT became a new book for Paul;
all that went before now stood only as a prelude – a prelude set quite apart from all that
was to follow. Although echoes of the prelude remain, the real meaning which the OT has
for him lies at a different source. And to find it one must go to Christ and to the apostles.”
On the teaching of Paul as in part based in and consistent with the teaching of the his-
torical Jesus, see David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).
81
Regarding his theory of particular scriptural fields employed by the early church to
explicate the facts of the gospel, C. H. Dodd states, “This whole body of material – the
passages from the Old Testament with their application to the gospel facts – is common to
all the main portions of the NT, and in particular it provided the starting point for the
theological constructions of Paul, the author to the Hebrews, and the Fourth Evangelist”
(According to the Scriptures, 127).
28 Chapter One: Introduction

for understanding the gospel he was commissioned to proclaim. A closer look

at this process of convergence begins with an examination of that life-
changing event on the Damascus road and its theological significance for
Paul.
Paul’s conversion undoubtedly had a dramatic influence upon every aspect
of his life, and his theology was no exception. His conversion experience left
him with an unshakable conviction that the Jesus of Nazareth who was cruci-
fied was the risen Messiah of Israel. Paul, therefore, had gone from being a
relentless persecutor of the faith to a relentless proponent of the faith who
was himself frequently and intensely persecuted. The logic of his theological
reorientation must have more or less followed this basic tack: Since Paul’s
persecution of the church based on his understanding of scripture had been
wrong, then of necessity his reading of scripture would have to be wrong as
well. Scripture is truth, and would have to be re-read and understood in a new
way so as to support the conviction created in the revelatory event of the
Damascus road – that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, and in his life, death
and resurrection is the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel in the torah and
prophets.
Based upon Luke’s testimony in Acts 26:15–18,82 the content of Paul’s
convictions garnered at his conversion may be sketched as follows: Jesus of
Nazareth who was crucified is the risen Lord and Christ; Paul was appointed
by the risen Christ a witness and minister in his behalf; this commission was
(in his case) principally directed to Gentiles; the purpose of this commission
was to bring people to salvation, described under the three categories of
transfer of dominion, forgiveness of sins, and reception of an inheritance; this
salvation is received through faith in the risen Christ.
The central role his conversion played in the formulation of his gospel is
evident in his epistle to the Galatians. Paul writes,
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not
according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it
through a revelation of Jesus Christ . . . But when God, who had set me apart even from
my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me
so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh

82
There are three descriptions of Paul’s conversion in Acts: 9:1–22; 22:3–21; 26:2–23.
The first is Luke’s description of the actual event within the course of his narrative, the
next two are recorded testimonies of Paul as he gives his defense before the Jews in Jerusa-
lem and before King Agrippa, respectively. Of these three, the third account is the fullest
in terms conveying the amount of information Paul received from the risen Christ during
his conversion experience. For a comparison of these accounts and the significance of the
third account in terms of both its content and its correspondence with Paul’s personal
account in Galatians, see Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul Between Da-
mascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press Ltd,
1997), 47–50; see esp. p. 49.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 29

and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went
away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to
Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did
not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother (Gal 1:11–12, 15–19).83

In this opening chapter of Galatians Paul takes pains to affirm the truth and
apostolic nature of his gospel by asserting its direct, revelatory character; he
emphasizes that it originated not from man, nor even from the other apostles,
but from the risen Christ himself.84 Yet though this gospel, along with its set
of messianic convictions, was independent in terms of its source, it was not
received by Paul in a revelatory vacuum. Quite to the contrary, the gospel
was the fulfillment of the promises made to the fathers (Gal 3:8; cf. also Rom
15:8; Acts 13:32; 26:6; etc.), and so scripture immediately became for Paul
the primary source of explicating the messianic truths he had so recently
embraced in germinal form. The three year period from his conversion to his
trip to Jerusalem, which included his Arabian retreat, was certainly devoted
to that very enterprise, as Paul, like the apostles before him, faced the daunt-
ing task of filling out his meager understanding of these new messianic
events with scripture (cf. Luke 24:44–49; Rom 1:2; 16:25–26).85

83
Gal 1:15–16a seems a certain allusion not only to Jer 1:5, but to Isa 49:1–6, particu-
larly v. 1, “. . . attend, ye Gentiles . . . from my mother’s womb he has called my name.”
See Moisés Silva, “Galatians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Tes-
tament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 786.
Wilk (Bedeutung) views Gal 1:15–16 as alluding to both Isa 49:1, 5–6, but also to Isa 42:6
and 52:10.
On the complimentary rather than contradictory nature of Gal 1:11–12 with I Cor 15:3,
see Ellis, Use, 85ff; Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commen-
tary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1205.
84
See Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 43–44.
85
Ibid., 109. Hengel (113–20) describes what he perceives as the likely possibility that
during Paul’s Arabian mission he reflected upon and developed certain facets of his gospel.
These could well surface in Gal 4:21–31, which bears a conceptual relation to his geo-
graphical setting in Arabia, and in which the Nabataean city Hegra figured prominently.
The city was in the close vicinity of Sinai, was traditionally the region of a portion of
Abraham’s sojournings, and its name was believed to be derived from Hagar herself, who
is mentioned in the Galatians passage.
Interestingly, with respect to this possibility and the nature of the scriptural develop-
ment of Paul’s theology at this early stage, it should be noted that the central theological
assertion of that passage comes in verse 27 with its quotation from Isa 54:1. Here the
theme of the divine reversal of Israel’s plight, depicted under the common OT metaphor of
the barren woman (epitomized in Sarah, cf. Isa 51:2; Gal 4:28), is effected by the sacrifice
of the Servant of the Lord (Isa 52:13–53:12) who establishes the seed of redeemed Israel
(e.g., Isa 53:10; 54:3). Paul, then, appears to base not only the fulfillment of the redemp-
tive promise through Abraham, but also the fulfillment of the law and its resulting “son-
ship” on the sacrifice of the Servant/Christ.
On Paul’s possible theological rationale for his Arabian mission, see 109–13.
30 Chapter One: Introduction

The various conversion truths sketched above can in their particulars be

supported by a broad selection of Old Testament scriptural texts. Yet taken
comprehensively, they bear a remarkable affinity to the main story lines of
the redemption wrought by Isaiah’s Suffering Servant of the Lord, and this
affinity ostensibly led Paul in that very direction. As Paul approached the
scriptures, and as evidenced by his citational frequency alone, he found cer-
tain OT books particularly helpful in expounding the truths of the gospel. Yet
even among his core sources of Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms and Isaiah, it
is from Isaiah that Paul draws all the main contours of his gospel. Anticipat-
ing the forthcoming discussion, Paul developed a new picture of Isaiah as a
whole because at certain crucial points he sees Isaiah’s message clearly ful-
filled in Jesus. This caused a thorough re-reading of Isaiah in the light of
Christ and, no doubt, a deepening of the understanding of Christ through
reading Isaiah. 86 In Galatians 1 the apostle designates this set of truths re-
ceived on the Damascus road as his gospel. The very connection of this term
with the messianic, redemptive event likely points in the direction of Isaiah,87
as this thesis as a whole will attempt to demonstrate. Paul’s seemingly explic-
it identification of the gospel in Romans with the climactic message of the
fourth Servant Song, however, would on the surface appear to bear this out
(Rom 10:15/Isa 52:7; Rom 10:16/Isa 53:1; Rom 15:20–21/Isa 52:15).88 But

See also, e.g., L. C. A. Alexander, “Chronology of Paul,” in Dictionary of Paul and His
Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press, 1993), 117.
86
For a discussion of this dynamic, see, e.g., Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of
the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 77–87.
See also Goppelt, Typos, 237, who emphasizes the role of typology in this process. Ad-
ditionally, see Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and
Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 150.
For an expression of this interplay in Paul’s quotations of scripture, particularly with
reference to the question of a diachronic or synchronic approach to interpreting quotations,
see Steve Moyise, “Quotations,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed.
Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, SBLSS 50 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2008), 28.
87
Hengel and Schwemer (Paul, 91–92), e.g., note the connection and equivalent refer-
ence of the noun and verb forms of euvagge,lion / euvaggeli,zw as expressed in Gal 1:11 (to.
euvagge,lion to. euvaggelisqe.n u`pV evmou/; cf. Rom 10:15–16), which reflect the Hebrew
rfb / hr'fB.. The verbal form is common in Isaiah and the Psalms (cf. Joel 3:5 LXX). They
note further the connection between Gal 1:11 and I Cor 15:1–3 (99), and the predominantly
Isaianic nature of the gospel in the latter text.
88
It has indeed been recognized by scholars that the Isaianic heralding of the good news
of God’s redemption of His people from captivity and establishment of His reign as king
(e.g., Isa 40:9; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1–3) had a formative influence upon Paul’s gospel. See, for
example, J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Phila-
delphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 116; A. B. Luter, Jr., “Gospel,” in Dictionary of Paul and
His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsi-
 II. Preliminary Considerations 31

strong, preliminary support for the essentially Isaianic character of Paul’s

gospel is provided by the nature and role of apostolic tradition, tradition that
came to be inscripturated in the four canonical gospels.
Following the apostle’s conversion, it was not the OT scriptures alone that
shed light on the eschatological good news of the redemptive work of Jesus
the Messiah. The risen Christ himself on the Damascus road certified to Paul
the truth of the apostolic gospel through his solidarity with the apostolic
church which was birthed from it (cf. Acts 9:5; 22:8; 26:15). Indeed, standing
over against Paul’s strong assertions of the independent nature of his gospel
in Galatians, he can just as readily speak of passing on an apostolic tradition
which he himself had received (e.g., 1 Cor 11:23–26; 15:3–8; also reflected,
e.g., in Rom 4:25).89 This contact with apostolic tradition doubtless took
place at a very early stage in Paul’s Christian experience. Both during Paul’s
pre- and post-Arabian Damascus fellowship (Acts 9:19–25), as well as in his
subsequent visit with Peter, he was not only exposed to apostolic tradition,
but it is probable that he actively pursued a fuller knowledge of his risen
Lord’s life and teaching, as well as the apostolic scriptural reflections upon
it.90
This apostolic tradition, moreover, seems also to have led Paul to focus on
Isaiah as the major scriptural source for understanding the gospel he was
commissioned to proclaim.91 Evaluating the precise nature of this influence

ty Press, 1993), 369; Wilk, Bedeutung, 340–80, 401–8. Wagner (Heralds, 15, note 55)
comments, “. . . Paul’s self-understanding and theology are shaped by his reading of large
sections of Isaiah from the standpoint of his calling as apostle to the Gentiles.”
89
This interplay between the independent nature of Paul’s gospel and the apostle’s use
of apostolic tradition is described, e.g., in Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 43–47.
90
Seyoon Kim states, “For Paul, Jesus was no legendary ancient hero, but a contempo-
rary of his who had been only recently crucified as a false messiah. Given this fact, it is
impossible to think that Paul did not try to learn of Jesus, his life and teaching, more accu-
rately from the primary witnesses like Peter as well as others from Jerusalem such as
Barnabas, Silvanus, and John Mark. Nor is it easy to think that the close correspondences
between the teaching and conduct of Jesus and the teaching and conduct of Paul could have
come about if there was anything less than an earnest desire on Paul’s part to learn of
Jesus” (“Sayings of Jesus,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne
and Ralph P. Martin [Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993], 484). See also the
discussion between James Dunn and Otfried Hofius on the question of the independence of
Paul from Jerusalem and the nature of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem to see Peter: James D. G.
Dunn, “The Relationship Between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2,”
NTS 28 (Oct 1982): 461–78; Otfried Hofius, “Gal 1,18: i`storh/sai Khfa/n,” ZNW 75
(1984): 73–85; Dunn, “Once More – Gal 1,18: i`storh/sai Khfa/n in Reply to Otfried
Hofius,” ZNW 76 (1985): 138–39.
91
Hengel comments (Paul, 98), “. . . in my view the basic features of christology (and
the soteriology which is indissolubly bound up with it) were fully developed in the earliest
Christian community on the day when Paul saw the risen Christ before Damascus . . .” He
32 Chapter One: Introduction

on the development of Paul’s gospel is complicated, however, both by the

dating of the gospels in relation to Romans, as well as by the close ties that
Paul enjoyed with [Peter,] Mark and Luke. All the gospels (with the possible
exception of Mark) were written after Paul penned his epistle to the Romans
(56 A.D.), though Mark and Luke were likely composed within five years of
Romans. 92 This means that though Paul was undoubtedly influenced by the
apostolic tradition that was eventually inscripturated in the four canonical
gospels before he wrote Romans, this influence could well have run in both
directions.93 Therefore, regardless of the direction the currents of influence
were flowing, evidence for the Isaianic nature of the gospel in the synoptics
(and to a lesser extent John) increases the likelihood that the gospel in Ro-
mans shares this same feature.

goes on to describe the scriptural nature of this early tradition, possibly already received by
Paul in Damascus and reflected in 1 Cor 15:3, as largely derived from Isaiah 53 (99).
Peter Stuhlmacher also describes the Isaianic interpretive milieu into which Paul was
converted and to which he was early exposed, a milieu reflected in 1 Cor 15:3ff and Rom
4:25. See “Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jew-
ish and Christian Sources, ed. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stühlmacher, trans. Daniel P.
Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 153–55.
Matthew Bates adds indirect confirmation to the above views (Hermeneutics, 99–107).
He contends that Paul’s hermeneutic was based upon what he terms a “master kerygmatic
narrative,” which Bates derives primarily from Rom 1:2–4 and 1 Cor 15:3–5. He believes
this kerygmatic narrative was comprised of twelve stages: 1) preexistence; 2) human life in
the line of David; 3) death in behalf of our sins; 4) burial; 5) existence among the dead
ones; 6) resurrection; 7) initial appearances; 8) installation as “Son-of-God-in-power”; 9)
subsequent appearances to others; 10) appearance to Paul; 11) apostolic commissioning;
12) mission to the nations. Bates himself acknowledges the Isaianic nature of some of the
kerygmatic material (152–53, 268). With the exception of items 7, 9, and 10 (which are
situationally related to the resurrection), this kerygmatic narrative greatly resembles the
Isaianic narrative framework reflected in Romans (as this thesis will seek to demonstrate).
For more on the Isaianic nature of apostolic tradition, particularly as employed by Paul,
see the discussion in chapter four, “Isaiah 53 as the Background of Paul’s Theology of
Atonement.”
92
Carson/Moo/Morris, Introduction, place Mark in the late 50’s or middle 60’s, Luke in
the early 60’s, Matthew before A.D . 70, and A.D. 80–85 for John (though tentatively, allow-
ing from A.D. 55–95).
93
In support of the careful transmission of apostolic tradition, see E. E. Ellis, “New Di-
rections in Form Criticism,” in Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 237–53; B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradi-
tion and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity; with Tradition
and Transmission in Early Christianity, trans. Eric J. Sharpe (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
19982 [19611/19641]); I. H. Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1977); Rainer Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer: eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der
Evangelien-Überlieferung, WUNT 2.7 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981); G. Stanton, Jesus
of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, SNTSMS 27 (London: Cambridge University
Press, 1974).
 II. Preliminary Considerations 33

As reflected in the NT accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, this

apostolic tradition evidences a thorough obedience to the command of the
risen Lord to fill-in the content of the message of Christ through Israel’s
scriptures (Luke 24:44–47; John 16:13–15). Following interpretive trajecto-
ries begun by both John the Baptist and the Lord himself,94 the evangelists
found the prophet Isaiah particularly useful in expounding the significance of
the messianic events so recently unfolded. It is, in fact, increasingly recog-
nized by scholars that the gospel of the kingdom proclaimed in the synoptic
gospels (e.g., Matt 4:23; Mark 1:14–15; Luke 4:43), first by John the Baptist
and then by Christ and his followers, finds its scriptural source in the good
news of Isaiah. 95 This Isaianic influence centering in the “good news,” more-
over, extends to much of the theological framework of the individual gospels,

94
The Isaianic nature of the apostolic tradition in the gospels and the traditional units of
the NT (e.g., 1 Cor 15:1–4ff; Rom 4:25) is derived from and accurately reflects the per-
spective and instruction of Jesus Himself, who understood His messianic mission in terms
of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52:13–53:12. This is asserted, e.g., by Otto Betz, Was
wissen wir von Jesus? (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1991), 106–8; Blenkinsopp, Sealed
Book, 289–92; James D. G. Dunn, New Testament Theology: An Introduction (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 2009), 24; Walther Zimmerli and Joachim Jeremias, “pai/j qeou/,” TDNT,
5:654–717 (see esp. 712–17); Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, trans. John
Bowden, NTL (London: SCM Press, 1971), 291, 298–99; Stuhlmacher, “Isaiah 53,” 147–
62.
95
Commenting on Isa 52:7, Blenkinsopp (Sealed Book, 135) writes, “Here we have
Paul’s gospel and that of the evangelists proclaimed in advance together with its essential
content, since ‘the kingdom of God’ (basileia tou theou) is simply an abstract formulation
of the statement ‘Your God reigns.’”
On the Isaianic nature of “gospel” in the four gospels, particularly the synoptics, see,
e.g., Millar Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Scrolls and New Interpre-
tations with Translations of Important Recent Discoveries (New York: Viking, 1958), 95;
W. Grimm, Die Verkündigung Jesu und Deuterojesaja, ANTJ 1 (Bern and Frankfurt am
Main: Lang, 19812 [orig. Weil ich dich liebe, 1976]); Otto Betz, “Jesus’ Gospel of the
Kingdom,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1991), 53–74; J. F. A. Sawyer, The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christiani-
ty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Evans, “Gospel to Gospel,” 667–74.
See also C. C. Broyles, “Gospel,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B.
Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press,
1992), 282–86; Gerhard Friedrich, “eu,aggeli,zomai,” TDNT, 2:707–37 (see esp. 718–19; he
states [708], “Most significant for an understanding of the NT concept euangelion is Dt. Is.
and the literature influenced by it.”); J. A. Sanders, “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4,” in Christi-
anity, Judaism, and other Greco-Roman Cults, ed. J. Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 75–
106.
Evans (“Gospel to Gospel,” 671) comments, “We have here every indication that Jesus
understood his call and ministry in terms of the message of (Second) Isaiah. In short,
Jesus’ gospel is essentially Isaiah’s gospel.” He goes on to assert (672–73), “The procla-
mation of God’s kingdom . . . the demand for repentance, and the summons to faith are all
rooted in the language and vision of Second Isaiah.”
34 Chapter One: Introduction

as well as the book of Acts.96 Due to the limitations of the current investiga-
tion, the following overview represents only the barest sketch of the theologi-
cal significance that prophecy of Isaiah held for the four gospels.
In Isaiah alone is the term euvaggeli,zw used to describe the proclamation of
the good news of the Lord’s redemption of his people from captivity [to sin]
and the subsequent establishment of his kingly rule (Is 40:1–11; 52:1–12;
61:1–3). This term (whether in the noun or verb form) is picked up in the
synoptic gospels in the proclamation of “the good news of the kingdom of
God” that began with the preparatory ministry of John the Baptist. Each of
the gospel writers present John as Isaiah’s voice crying in the wilderness,
“. . . make ready the way of the Lord . . .” (Isa 40:3–5; cf. Matt 3:1–3; Mark
1:1–4; Luke 3:1–6; so also John 1:19–23), a call that in both the gospels and
Isaiah is intimately connected with the proclamation of good news.97 This

96
On Matthew, see Richard Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel, SNTSMS 123
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Blenkinsopp, Sealed Book, 129–68;
Michael J. Wilkins, “Isaiah 53 and the Message of Salvation in the Four Gospels,” in The
Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Chris-
tian Theology, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012), 109–
32.
On Mark, see Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old
Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992); but see
esp. Rikki E. Watts, whose work can, in a measure, be said to be representative of the
synoptics (Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark, WUNT 2.88 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997]).
While acknowledging this central role of the Isaianic gospel in Mark’s theology, Evans
(“Gospel to Gospel,” 674–82) supports the second gospel’s unique application of the
Isaianic “good news” to Roman Gentiles as over against the emperor cult.
On Luke, see C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sa-
cred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1993), 14–25; Ulrike Mittmann-
Richert, Der Sühnetod des Gottesknechts: Jesaja 53 im Lukasevangelium, WUNT 220
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke,” in
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A.
Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 251–414; Sanders, “From Isaiah 61 to
Luke 4,” 75–106; D. Secombe, “Luke and Isaiah,” NTS 27 (1981): 252–59.
On John, see Craig A. Evans, “Obduracy and the Lord’s Servant: Some Observations
on the Use of the Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel,” in Early Jewish and Christian
Exegesis, ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987),
221–36; “On the Quotation Formulas in the Fourth Gospel,” BZ 26 (1982): 79–83; Wil-
liams, “Testimony,” 107–24.
On Acts see esp. David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. On the central role
of Isaiah 53 in the theology of the gospels and Acts, see Stuhlmacher, “Isaiah 53,” 147–62.
For an overview of the use of Isaiah’s prophecy in the NT, see Steve Moyise and Maar-
ten J. J. Menken, eds., Isaiah in the New Testament (London: T&T clark, 2005).
97
Luke even describes the Baptist as “preaching the gospel to the people” (Luke 3:18).
Luke’s account, moreover, extends the quotation from Isaiah 40:3 (which is the single
verse quoted by Matthew and Mark) to Isaiah 40:5. This extension is interpretively signifi-
cant because it substantively connects the call to repentance (see note below) with the
 II. Preliminary Considerations 35

exhortation to repentance and faith98 in the context of Isa 40:1–11 is, in fact,
part and parcel with the proclamation of the good news of God’s presence in
redeeming power to lead his people home (Isa 40:9–11).99 The phrase “the
way of the Lord” (hw"hy> %r<D< / th.n o`do.n kuri,ou) in 40:3 alludes to the exodus
event (Exodus 14) in which the Lord exerted his redeeming power in dividing
the Red Sea, thus creating a “way” for his people, a redemptive path to their
promised inheritance.100 This allusion is applied in the context of 40:1–11 to
the redemptive act then unfolding (Isa 40:9–11). In the continuing narrative
of Isaiah 40–55 this allusion to the exodus is clarified (e.g., 43:16–17; 51:10–
11), further linked to its initial reference in 40:3 (e.g., 43:19), and again used
as a salvation-historical precursor to the imminent redemption of the Lord’s
people from Babylonian captivity, a captivity fundamentally tied to the iniq-
uity and guilt of the nation before God.101 In the context of the gospels, there-
fore, this quotation of Isaiah is employed both to introduce the overarching

proclamation of good news. It also highlights the universal nature of the gospel and there-
fore the necessary connection between Luke’s first and second volume, as the “. . . history
of the early church . . . becomes an extension of the ministry of Jesus himself” (Pao and
Schnabel, “Luke,” 276).
98
Though the cryptic command, “Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness . . .” (Isa
40:3) is variously interpreted, Klyne R. Snodgrass (“Streams of Tradition Emerging from
Isaiah 40:1–5 and Their Adaptation in the NT,” JSNT 8 [1980]: 24–45), along with many,
understand it as a call to repentance. Snodgrass, moreover, also notes that the history of
interpretation similarly supports this view. Contextually, Craig Evans (“Gospel to Gospel,”
654–55) and Claus Westermann (Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary, trans. David M. G. Stalker,
OTL [London: SCM Press, 1969], 36–39), e.g., point to the manner in which the phrase is
picked up in the continuing prophetic narrative in reference to God’s miraculous interven-
tion in making a way for His people as He leads them back home. This connection, cou-
pled with the dual emphasis on redemption as uniquely God’s work throughout chapters
40–55, and the consistent call to repent and enter by faith into the redemptive promise,
points to the command in Isa 40:3 as just such a call. Israel’s response of repentance is
answered by the divine provision of the redemptive way, further heralded in the context of
Isa 40:1–11 in the proclamation of good news (Isa 40:9–11).
In the context of the gospels, the Isaianic text is, of course, used in relation to John’s
proclamation of repentance in light of and in preparation for the coming One, the messian-
ic Redeemer, to whom the Baptist directs the faith of his hearers.
99
The unity and interrelatedness of these themes in the prologue (40:1–11) are dis-
cussed, e.g., by Westermann, Isaiah, 32–33.
100
For this significant allusion, see esp. Evans, “Gospel to Gospel,” 654–55.
101
Speaking of the prologue (Isa 40:1–11) as a whole and the nature of the “good tid-
ings” of God’s deliverance, Westermann (Isaiah, 35) writes, “The change in Israel’s for-
tunes is based on the divine forgiveness. This at the same time means that, in Deutero-
Isaiah’s view, the fundamental and determining factor in that period of Israel’s history
which led to the ‘service’ was iniquity or involvement in guilt.”
36 Chapter One: Introduction

motif of the Isaianic new exodus, as well as to call Israel to faith in the escha-
tological promise of redemption now being realized.102
In keeping with this overarching motif in the synoptics, and central to it, is
the presentation of Jesus as the messianic Servant of Isaiah, whose redemp-
tive work climaxes in his self-sacrifice for sin.103 This joining of messianic
and servant concepts becomes the basis of the establishment of God’s right-
eous reign, so that these ideas together ultimately form the content of the
“proclamation of good news” carried by the apostles after the resurrection
and ascension. 104 The union of messianic and servant roles in the Person of
Jesus surfaces early in each of the gospels. The crucial nature of this identifi-
cation is evident first by the venue in which it preeminently emerges within
the gospel narratives – Jesus’ baptism, which inaugurates his public ministry.
It is evident as well by virtue of the divine voice itself which identifies Jesus
as both Messiah and Servant of the Lord through its conflation of Ps 2:7 and
Isa 42:1 (Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).105 This same conflation of texts
is repeated by Matthew and Luke in a second divine pronouncement at the
event of the transfiguration (Matt 17:5; Luke 9:35; though somewhat differ-

102
The importance of this citation from Isaiah 40 in terms of the theological framework
of the gospel of Mark, e.g., is thoroughly discussed by Watts, New Exodus, 53–90. He
concludes that for Mark, “. . . the overall conceptual framework for his Gospel is the
Isaianic NE . . .” (90); see also p. 86. For the significance of this citation in Luke, see, e.g.,
D. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology,
JSNT 12 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 94–99, esp. 97; Pao and Schnabel,
“Luke,” 275–78; Pao, Acts, 37–69.
103
This is a major thrust of Mittmann-Richert’s work on Luke (Sühnetod, 54–208), fo-
cusing on the atoning significance of the death of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and passion
narrative as a fulfillment of the sacrificial death of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53.
104
Though as Watts perceptibly notes with respect to the citation of Isa 40:3 (and its
recollection of the prologue, Isa 40:1–11) in Mark 1:3 (New Exodus, 87–88), “. . . while
the appearance of John and Jesus properly belong to the beginning of the gospel, what
Isaiah has written also concerns, fundamentally, the substance of that unfolding gospel
subsequent to its immediate beginning.”
105
So, e.g., Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 281; Wilkins, “Isaiah 53,” 120–22. Regarding a
possible allusion to Isaiah 11 in the baptismal narrative, Pao and Schnabel note (280), “The
repeated echoes of Isa. 11 (Luke 1:78; 2:40; 3:9, 16) encourage one to see a reference to
Davidic messiahship behind Jesus’ anointment by the Spirit.” Wilkins (120) rightly ob-
serves the descent of the Spirit (Matt 3:16; par.) as an additional allusion to Isa 42:1 in
which the Lord is said to “place His Spirit upon” the Servant.
Wilkins (119–20) notes further the allusion to Isa 53:11 in Matthew’s account of Jesus’
baptism, in which John’s reticence to baptize the Messiah is countered by Jesus’ reassuring
statement, “. . . in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt 3:15). Jesus’
self-identification with sinful Israel in His baptism is taken by Wilkins to anticipate His
coming passion (cf. Mark 10:38–39; Luke 12:50) in which, in fulfillment of the role of
Servant of the Lord, He brings to realization God’s saving righteousness through His self-
sacrifice, thereby making the many righteous (Isa 51:5–8; 52:7; 53:11; 54:14).
 II. Preliminary Considerations 37

ently in Luke), a repetition which is significant both in itself and also within
the larger movement of the synoptic gospels.
The initial baptismal pronouncement at the opening of the synoptic narra-
tives not only signals the identity of the Messiah, but communicates through
the conflation of texts that the nature of the messianic task is to be understood
under the paradigm of the Servant. As the respective gospel narratives unfold,
Jesus’ identity as the messianic Servant of the Lord is confirmed both by his
words and deeds, as well as by quotations and allusions employed to depict
his entire life and ministry as a fulfillment of the Servant’s task, including an
increasing resistance that portends his coming passion.106 In Matthew and
Luke (Matt 11:2–6=Luke 7:18–23), for example, Jesus’ answer to the inquir-
ies of John the Baptist as to whether or not he was “the Coming One” (Luke
7:22–23) includes allusions to Isa 35:5–6; 61:1; and 8:14; and by means of
this last text Jesus pronounces God’s covenant blessing upon the one “who
does not stumble over me,” which, within the context of Isaiah as read by the
evangelists, ultimately directs faith to the messianic, sin-bearing sacrifice of
the Servant of the Lord.
In each of the synoptic narratives there is a building towards the minor
climax of Peter’s messianic confession, which is then immediately followed
by Christ’s first instruction as to the nature of his messianic task in suffering
and death. This instruction is itself taken by scholars to be an allusion to
Isaiah 53,107 but the instruction is then followed by the transfiguration narra-

106
The characterization of Christ’s entire life and ministry as a fulfillment of the role of
the Servant of the Lord is discussed, e.g., by Stuhlmacher, “Isaiah 53,” 155–58. He dis-
cusses such passages as Matt 1:21–23; 8:15–17; 12:17–21; 28:20. Regarding Matthew in
particular, he concludes, “. . . the understanding of Jesus’ mission on the basis of the
Deuteroisaianic tradition of the (suffering) Servant has been extended from Jesus’ passion
predictions and the passion story to encompass the whole story of Jesus.”
On the relation of the early Isaianic tradition expressed in 1 Cor 15:3ff and Rom 4:25 to
the Isaianic nature of the synoptic gospels, he states (155), “Soteriological discourse about
Jesus’ death and resurrection was not limited to confessional or faith formulas in early
Christianity. Rather, the faith-knowledge expressed in these formulas combined with the
teachings of Jesus and with memories of his deeds and destiny to form a new entity when
the gospel traditions were fixed. It is to this that we owe the narrative testimony to the
ministry and death of Jesus as God’s Servant.”
107
E.g., on Mark (8:31), see Rikki E. Watts, “Jesus’ Death, Isaiah 53, and Mark 10:45:
A Crux Revisited,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins,
ed. William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998),
131–34; on Luke, see Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 311.
Blenkinsopp (Sealed Book, 163) states that the three explicit passion predictions, pre-
sent in each of the synoptics (Matt 16:21=Mark 8:31=Luke 9:22; Matt 17:22–23=Mark
9:30–31=Luke 9:43–44; Matt 20:17–19=Mark 10:32–34=Luke 18:31–33), emphasize
prophetic predestination in relation to Christ’s suffering, death, burial and resurrection. In
light of this, he further asserts that, “. . . the primary source in all these predictive state-
38 Chapter One: Introduction

tive with its repeated divine pronouncement of the “servant nature” of Jesus’
messianic identity. From this point in the synoptic narratives Christ soon
begins his journey toward Jerusalem and the fulfillment of his task as Serv-
ant. During this journey the vicarious, sacrificial nature of Jesus’ suffering,
death and resurrection is anticipated through various allusions to Isaiah and
the sacrifice of the Servant.108 The climax of the gospels, the passion account,
is again presented through quotation and allusion as a fulfillment of the sacri-
fice the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53, particularly in the words of institu-
tion during the last supper. Through these allusions, which reflect the wider
redemptive context of Isaiah, this sacrifice is depicted as the antitype of the
sacrifices of the Passover 109 and Day of Atonement.110 From the perspective
of the gospels, it is expressly the Messiah, “the king of the Jews” (Matt
27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19–22), who dies as a sacrifice for
sin, as is emphasized by Pilate’s placement of the charge upon the cross.111 It
is this messianic sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord, therefore, a sacrifice

ments and wherever prophetic inevitability is mentioned is the panegyric on the Servant of
the Lord in Isaiah 53.”
108
For several of the Isaianic allusions as the synoptic narratives approach the passion,
“. . . all of which have been formulated with a view to Isaiah 53 . . .” (152), see
Stuhlmacher, “Isaiah 53,” 149–53. He notes, e.g., Mark 9:31 par.; 10:45 par.; 14:22, 24, as
well as the significance of the temple cleansing (Mark 11:15–17 par.) within this Isaianic,
sacrificial context (151–52). He states (153), “The earthly Jesus himself understood his
witness and his approaching death in the light of the tradition already given to him in
Isaiah about the (vicariously suffering) Servant of God.”
Wilkins, speaking on Matthew (“Isaiah 53,” 125–26), describes the central role of Matt
20:28 (=Mark 10:45) within the passion predictions (Matt 16:21; 17:22–23; 20:17–19;
26:24) in terms of pointing to the scriptural source and significance of Jesus’ death in
fulfillment of the scriptures: the substitutionary and atoning sacrifice of the Servant of
Isaiah 53.
109
See Matt 26:2, 17–19, 26–28; Mark 14:12–16, 22–24; Luke 22:7–20; John 1:29;
13:1; 19:14–16, 32–36. On Jesus as the Isaianic Servant of the Lord in fulfillment of the
Passover, see Watts, New Exodus, 365. For the double allusion in Mark 14:24 to both Exod
24:8 and Isa 53:10–12, conveying sacrificial atonement, see Stuhlmacher, “Isaiah 53,” 152.
110
Matt 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45.
On the sacrifice of the Servant in Isaiah 53 as a fulfillment of both the Day of Atone-
ment and Passover in Rom 3:21–26, see the respective sections in chapter four.
111
During the crucifixion account itself, in fact, Luke connects this death of the Messi-
ah with the role of the Servant of the Lord through an allusion to Isaiah 42:1 (Luke 23:35).
Luke, employing irony, places this identification on the lips of the mocking rulers: “. . . the
rulers were sneering at Him, saying, ‘He saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the
Christ of God, His Chosen One (o` evklekto,j ).’” See I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of
Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 869.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 39

that effects forgiveness and redemption, which alone can mediate God’s
righteous reign and establish the new covenant. 112
Interestingly enough, the synoptic link with Isaiah is perhaps the clearest
in Luke’s gospel, which is significant because of Paul’s continued close asso-
ciation with the “beloved physician” throughout the course of his ministry.
This close association would very likely lead to a similar approach to under-
standing the gospel in light of Israel’s scriptures.113
This very brief sketch, which is representative of the synoptics, demon-
strates the strong Isaianic nature of “the gospel” in the synoptic tradition,114
112
This theological import of Jesus as the messianic Servant is well articulated by
Mittmann-Richert (Sühnetod, 313), who writes, “Der Tod des Knechts ist das Geheimnis
seiner messianischen Existenz . . . Der Tod des Knechts ‘für euch’ ist das Heilsereignis,
welches den Meschen entsühnt und befreit von der ihn bindenden Macht der Sünde und des
Todes. Der Kreuzestod Jesu öffnet dem Menschen die Tür zum Reich Gottes und zum
Leben in der Gemeinschaft mit dem Auferstandenen, dem zum königlichen Herrscher des
Reiches inthronisierten Knecht.”
On the relationship between the sacrifice of the Servant and the covenant in Luke-Acts,
see immediately below, note 113.
113
This is, in fact, one of Mittmann-Richert’s conclusions, that of all the gospels it is
Luke’s that bears the closest resemblance to Paul’s theology of the substitutionary, atoning
sacrifice of Christ (ibid., 313).
Though the limitations of the study preclude a more detailed treatment of Luke, several
of Luke’s unique features include, e.g., Luke’s exclusive use of the verbal form of
euvaggeli,zw, which stands closer to the LXX; Jesus’ own self-identification with the herald
of good news in Isa 61:1–2 in the key, programmatic verses of Luke 4:16–21, an identifi-
cation which characterizes His message and ministry as the fulfillment of the Isaianic good
news of redemption; the discussion between Jesus, Moses, and Elijah on the mount of
transfiguration in which Jesus’ coming death is described as His “exodus” (e;xodoj), so that
Luke apparently follows Isaiah in joining these concepts, and, in doing so, extends to that
death a supreme, redemptive significance; several unique allusions to Isaiah 53 in Luke’s
description of the last supper are followed by Jesus’ own quotation of Isa 53:12 in antici-
pation of the passion account, signifying that Christ’s earthly life, which finds its ultimate
and divinely appointed purpose in His death for sin, is to be understood and interpreted
preeminently under the scriptural matrix of the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.
114
Many scholars hold that the Isaianic nature of the gospel in Matthew and Mark is
similar to Luke, but is developed somewhat differently. For instance, though lacking the
programmatic verses from Isaiah in Luke 4, both Mark (10:45) and Matthew (20:28) pre-
sent Jesus as allusively identifying Himself with Isaiah’s suffering Servant and His re-
demptive work.
Though the term euvagge,lion and its cognates do not appear in the fourth gospel, the
Isaianic elements of the person and work of Christ presented therein are, nevertheless, very
prevalent, and form a fundamental part of theological structure of the book. For example,
the cry of John the Baptist in John 1:29 (“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin
of the world!” cf. v. 36) is taken by many scholars to be a dual reference to both the Passo-
ver lamb (cf. John 19:36) and to the lamb of Isaiah 53 as well, an allusion understood to
metaphorically depict the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord (Isa 53:6–7). Stuhlmacher
(“Isaiah 53,” 160) notes that both John 3:16 and 10:11, 15, 17–18 (the Good Shepherd
40 Chapter One: Introduction

and reflects to some measure the messianic, hermeneutical influences exerted

upon the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul’s gospel, therefore, was essentially
formulated from its inception as an ongoing, mutually interpreting process
between his conversion, apostolic tradition, and scripture.115 The christologi-
cal facts that Paul received at his conversion experience became his herme-
neutical key, a key that fit astonishingly well when placed within the existing
matrix of scripture and apostolic tradition. Both Paul’s explicit dependence
on tradition (e.g., 1 Cor 15:1–4ff) as well as the manner in which he inter-
prets scripture evidences a hermeneutical harmony with the interpretive tra-
jectories begun with Jesus and extended by the apostles. This hermeneutic
was christocentric, thoroughly sourced in the OT, yet uniquely dependent
upon Isaiah. All the major influences on Paul’s gospel, therefore, providen-
tially aligned as prophecy met fulfillment and issued in new scriptural formu-
lation, a formulation in which the great prophecy of Isaiah figured as a prin-
ciple source for explicating the gospel he was commissioned to proclaim. 116

laying down His life for the sheep) should be understood against this background. In addi-
tion to this, and most notable, are the dual themes of obduracy and glory taken from both
Isaiah 6 and 53 in John 12. The significance of these texts from Isaiah is that though the
quotations themselves (John 12:38/Isa 53:1; John 12:40/Isa 6:10) contain the theme of
obduracy, the wider context of both texts contain the theme of glory as well, which John
draws on as he closes the pericope (John 12:41; vv. 37–41). John, then, is evidently re-
calling the wider context of these Isaianic passages in reference to their present fulfillment,
to convey that the obduracy of the Jews to the Person/message of Christ becomes the
vehicle through which the glory of the Lord is definitively revealed through the vicarious,
redemptive work of the Suffering Servant (cf. esp. 12:37–41), also portrayed as the ulti-
mate fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice (John 19:14, 30–36; v. 36 alluding to Ex 12:46;
Num 9:12). These Isaianic quotations and allusions within this key transition from the
“book of signs” to “the book of the passion” (as described by Dodd, The Interpretation of
the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953], 379) is strategically
situated to convey the significance of the life of Christ.
See Craig A. Evans, “Isaiah 53 in the Letters of Peter, Paul, Hebrews, and John,” in The
Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Chris-
tian Theology, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012), 164–
70; “Obduracy,” 221–36; Robert C. Olson, “The Contribution of John 12:38 to the Struc-
ture and Theology of the Fourth Gospel” (Th.M. thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School, 1999), 74–108; Stuhlmacher, “Isaiah 53,” 159–60.
115
Regarding this interplay in Paul, Ellis states, “Dodd believes that the key to OT in-
terpretation was given by Christ Himself to His apostles, and a considerable portion of
Pauline exegesis appears to find its origin in just this source” (Use, 113).
116
Craig Evans concludes his study (“Gospel to Gospel,” 690) with the following as-
sessment: “Paul’s experience of the risen Christ was essential, of course, and we must not
discount the importance of the Jesus tradition itself. But if the assessment of the data above
has been sound, we must recognize that Jesus’ proclamation of the good tidings of the
kingdom of God and Paul’s proclamation of the good tidings of Jesus are both informed by
the same scriptural matrix. Both phases of this proclamation are informed by the good
 II. Preliminary Considerations 41

Having established the probable Isaianic nature of Paul’s gospel in Ro-

mans based upon his conversion experience, apostolic tradition and a prelim-
inary suggestion of the nature of Paul’s use of scripture which anticipates the
results of the investigation, the study now turns to one last, but very crucial
introductory issue. This thesis contends that Paul’s worldview was molded in
a unique way by Isaiah at the most fundamental level. Several of Paul’s re-
cent and very significant interpreters, however, have set forth proposals
which, at least on the surface, appear to challenge the thesis set forth in the
present work. It would seem, therefore, to be both appropriate and helpful to
sketch some of their leading ideas in a more coherent fashion in relation to
my own thesis, including elements of both continuity and contrast, in antici-
pation of the continuing engagement with these authors throughout the body
of the dissertation.

7. Paul’s Recent Interpreters and the Challenge to an Isaianic Background

The works discussed in this section have a bearing upon the present thesis in
two distinct but related ways. The first two works treated relate to this thesis
principally with regard to the question of whether Paul’s quotations and allu-
sions to scripture are employed with a primarily rhetorical function, or
whether they are intended to evoke the wider theological context from which
they have been taken. The second two works each argue for a particular over-
arching scriptural background to Romans which appears to challenge the idea
of a predominantly Isaianic backdrop. The works here discussed, then, deal
first with the primary hermeneutical principle upon which the thesis is built,
and second upon the competing claims as against the thesis itself in terms of
Paul’s primary scriptural framework. The first two works, therefore, will be
treated in a more condensed fashion, while a bit more space will be allotted to
the discussion of the works that bear more directly upon the major argrument
of the thesis.

(1) Christopher D. Stanley: Arguing with Scripture

The idea that Paul is evoking a scriptural framework in Romans centering in
Isaiah’s good news of redemption presupposes an understanding of Paul as
recalling through his scriptural references the wider narrative context of the
prophecy. Though this presupposition has been justified above and intends to
be thoroughly tested,117 it is worth considering here in more detail due to both

tidings of Isaiah and certain aspects of the interpretive tradition that had grown up around
the relevant passages.”
117
See the summary comments concluding the two introductory sections above, “Over-
view of Research on Paul’s Use of Scripture,” and “Recent Research on Paul’s Use of
Isaiah.”
42 Chapter One: Introduction

its foundational relevance to the thesis itself, as well as the challenge to this
conception posed by a leading scholar in the field.
Christopher Stanley has asserted in his recent monograph (Arguing with
Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul, 2004) that
Paul’s quotations of scripture are primarily intended for rhetorical effect.118
Drawing upon literary and rhetorical theory, he states, “These studies affirm
that the meaning and/or effect of a quotation arises out of its secondary liter-
ary and rhetorical context, regardless of how this relates to the ‘original
sense’ of the quoted passage.”119 Therefore, for example, “Quotation can
achieve its intended effect as long as the audience believes in the truth-value
of the source text and the literalness of the quotation.”120 Stanley’s inclination
to understand Paul from this perspective is evident when he states, “. . . that
quotations invariably seek to manipulate both the source text and the audi-
ence can help us to look beyond the apparent innocence of Paul’s appeals to
Scripture in order to ask questions about his underlying motives.”121 Paul’s
use of scripture, according to Stanley, was purely rhetorical; though at times
it could be contextual, that was neither the goal nor the issue that primarily
concerned him. The issue was to deal with the various pressing problems
arising in his congregations through the creative (/manipulative) use of Isra-
el’s scripture, which, as an acknowledged source of authority, would there-
fore be respected (as would Paul, for his ability to employ it). Stanley con-
cludes his monograph by stating, “While Paul was obviously a serious stu-
dent of Scripture, his letters were not written to teach biblical exegesis. They
were written to address a ‘provoking rhetorical urgency’ that Paul believed
could be brought under control through the effective use of language.”122
Paul, however, did not conceive of himself as employing merely language,
but life-giving scripture authoritatively interpreted by virtue of his divine
calling as an apostle (e.g., Rom 1:1–5). Stanley’s rhetorical approach, there-
fore, seems insufficient to account for the reality of Paul’s own understanding
of his apostolic authority and mission, and with that, the necessary canonical
relation his epistles (expounding the gospel) bore to the scriptures of Israel.
There is for Paul an essential theological relation between the two, conveyed

118
Stanley has continued to wrestle with this issue of the nature of Paul’s citations
through both co-editing and editing two subsequent books (respectively), which helpfully
present the issue from a variety of perspectives. See Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D.
Stanley, eds., As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, SBLSS 50 (Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2008); Christopher D. Stanley, ed., Paul and Scripture:
Extending the Conversation, ECIL 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012).
119
Arguing with Scripture, 21.
120
Ibid., 35.
121
Ibid., 36–37.
122
Ibid., 183.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 43

by the respective terms “promise” and “fulfillment.”123 It is this relation that

is fundamental for Paul, and that he seeks to make fundamental to his hearers.
It is the reality of the messianic eschatological salvation promised in Israel’s
scriptures that Paul desires his readers to embrace, and to be realized in both
their personal and corporate lives. Paul’s hermeneutic was apostolic, canoni-
cal, christocentric (and derivatively ecclesiological) and eschatological, a
truth concisely conveyed in the opening verses of Romans.124 Stanley’s ap-
proach does not take into account Paul’s own stated presuppositions, and
therefore, while it can indeed shed light on certain aspects of Paul’s use of
scripture, it is woefully inadequate as an overarching methodological ap-
proach.125
It should be noted, however, that an acknowledgment of the rhetorical na-
ture of Paul’s quotations, or their intelligibility at the surface level of the
argument, in no way negates their deeper theological significance; both dy-
namics are in play, with the latter reinforcing the former.126 This Stanley

123
Note, e.g., Paul’s opening description of his gospel in Romans as “promised before-
hand (proephggei,lato) through His prophets in the holy Scriptures . . .” (Rom 1:2). The
term “fulfillment” here is used in a general way to refer to the scriptural promise of the
gospel which has come to its eschatological realization in the death, burial and resurrection
of Christ (Rom 1:16–17; 3:21[-26]; cf. e.g., Mark 1:15; Acts 13:32–34). The actual term
“fulfillment” (plhro,w, plh,rwma) is generally used by Paul to refer the fulfillment of the
law by believers through the power of the Spirit (e.g., Rom 8:4; 13:8, 10; though see
11:12), which is itself an aspect of the gospel promise now brought to fulfillment (e.g.,
Rom 8:1–4ff).
124
See in chapter two below, “Romans 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant
and the Conquest of Death.”
125
Regarding Stanley’s approach, Wright states, “The idea of Paul adding rhetorical
verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing theological narrative might seem
appealing for a short while. But closer study of what he is actually saying in the letters,
where (as we have seen throughout this book) his whole case is that the one God of Israel
has acted freshly and decisively in Jesus, gives it the lie” (Paul and the Faithfulness of
God, 1452; see 1449–55).
126
In fact, several of the literary and rhetorical theories discussed by Stanley may be
employed to reinforce the deeper, theological significance of Paul’s references. For exam-
ple, in one of the literary theories of quotation Stanley discusses (Arguing with Scripture,
27–29), he notes that the “recontextualization” of the quotation “. . . invariably has a pro-
found effect on the meaning of the statement” (27). Setting aside the irony of Stanley’s
implicit portrayal of himself as accurately representing the views of the various authors of
literary and rhetorical theory through quotation, he goes on to discuss the inevitable ten-
sion between the intent to accurately convey the significance of a quotation within its
original context and the intent to render the quotation efficacious within its new literary
environment (28–29). Yet within a canonical approach assumed by Paul, with a single,
divine author, Scripture is understood as pressing toward its legitimate fulfillment in
Christ, and the ostensible tension between “maximal accuracy” and “maximal efficacy”
finds its resolution. Certainly Paul would echo the sentiments John places upon the lips of
44 Chapter One: Introduction

seems to admit in his discussion of 1 Corinthians 10. He states, “. . . the min-

imal audience [those “with little specific knowledge about the content of
Jewish scriptures”127] could have grasped Paul’s central point . . . But since
they did not know the original story, Paul’s allusive references to Scripture
would not have spoken to them with the same power as to those who pos-
sessed the requisite knowledge.”128
Nevertheless, as Stanley continues his argument to establish this rhetorical
perspective on Paul, he then questions the common scholarly assumptions
regarding, among other things, the contextual nature of Paul’s quotations of
scripture and the competence of Paul’s audience to understand his scriptural
citations.129 He argues, for example, that the cost of scrolls limited their ac-
cessibility to the great majority of Paul’s audience, a problem exacerbated by
low literacy rates in that period. This lack of access and ability to read and
study the scriptures rendered it highly unlikely that Paul’s audiences would
recognize and understand his quotations and allusions to scripture. This min-
imal understanding on the part of Paul’s audience, then, supports and necessi-

Jesus when he says, “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have
eternal life, and it is these that bear witness of me” (John 5:39).
Note also, e.g., the acknowledgement in literary theory of transummed elements, con-
textual awareness and audience competence within the practice of quotation (30–32), all of
which support a contextual understanding of Paul’s quotations.
127
Ibid., 69; see further below.
128
Ibid., 89. Regarding this relationship between the surface structure of Paul’s argu-
ment and its fuller intertextual significance, Richard Hays states (Conversion, 17), “Paul’s
argument is perfectly intelligible at the surface level with or without the OT echoes, but the
reader who overhears the original context of these citations will be all the more deeply
affected by the hearing.”
129
Stanley cites 9 “questionable” scholarly assumptions that have to be evaluated in or-
der to determine the manner in which “. . . Paul and his churches interacted with the bibli-
cal text” (Ibid., 40; 40–59): 1) “Paul’s audiences acknowledged the authority of the Jewish
Scriptures as a source of truth and a guide for Christian conduct”; 2) “Paul and his audi-
ence(s) had relatively free access to the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures (the ‘LXX’)
and could study and consult them whenever they wished”; 3) “Paul’s audiences routinely
read and studied the Jewish Scriptures for themselves in his absence”; 4) “Paul’s audienc-
es were able to recognize and appreciate all of his quotations, allusions, and ‘echoes’ from
the Jewish Scriptures”; 5) “Paul composed his letters with the expectation that the recipi-
ents would know and supply the background and context for his many quotations, allu-
sions, and other references to the Jewish Scriptures”; 6) “Paul himself knew and took into
account the original context of his biblical quotations”; 7) “Paul expected his audiences to
evaluate and accept his interpretations of Scripture”; 8) “Paul expected everyone in his
churches to have an equal appreciation of his biblical quotations”; 9) “The best way to
determine the ‘meaning’ of a Pauline biblical quotation is to study how Paul interpreted
the biblical text.”
The question of the competence of Paul’s audience to understand his scriptural citations
comprises numbers 2, 3, and 4 above; the question of the contextual nature of Paul’s quota-
tions of scripture comprises numbers 5 and 6 above.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 45

tates the rhetorical nature of his quotations. To test (or demonstrate) this
hypothesis, he postulates an audience comprised of a spectrum of comprehen-
sion – ranging from minimal, to competent, to informed130 – and employs test
cases from a selection of specific quotations to determine how each type of
audience would have reacted to the citation.131 Based upon these case studies,
he concludes that Paul’s [frequently uncontextual] quotations would most
often appeal to a minimal or competent audience, which thereby confirms his
theory of the rhetorical nature of Paul’s citations.
Yet this assessment seems unconvincing in many respects.132 For example,
with regard to the issue of audience competence and the related questions of
access and ability to read and study Israel’s scriptures on the part of Paul’s
congregations, the actual scenario seems to be not quite as bleak as Stanley
infers. There is substantial evidence, particularly with reference to the church
at Rome, that the synagogue was the matrix out of which the Roman church
was birthed, to which it sustained a continuing relationship, and after which
its form of worship was patterned, including the reading and study of scrip-
ture. This portrait assesses much more positively the issues of literacy, and
access to and knowledge of scripture, and portrays a Roman church with a
much greater capacity to comprehend Paul’s many and varied references to
scripture.133

130
Ibid., 68–69. The “minimal audience” is described as those “. . . with little specific
knowledge about the content of the Jewish Scriptures” (69). The “competent audience” is
described as those “. . . who [know] just enough of the Jewish Scriptures to grasp the point
of Paul’s quotations in their current rhetorical context” (68). The “informed audience” is
describes as those “. . . who [know] the original context of every one of Paul’s quotations
and is willing to engage in critical dialogue with Paul about his handling of the biblical
text” (68).
131
Ibid., 75–170.
132
Stanley summarizes the findings of the contributors to his last two edited works (As
It Is Written [co-edited with Porter], and Paul and Scripture) in the later work, noting areas
of consensus and dissent. Interestingly, it is precisely with regard to these two issues – the
question of the contextual nature of Paul’s quotations and the competence of Paul’s audi-
ence to understand his scriptural citations – that disagreement was sharpest. See Paul and
Scripture, 321–30.
133
See esp. (and within Stanley’s co-edited work) Bruce N. Fisk, “Synagogue Influence
and Scriptural Knowledge Among the Christians of Roman,” in As It Is Written: Studying
Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, SBLSS 50
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 157–85. Regarding the reader-competence
of the Romans Christians, and in light of “Paul’s extensive and intensive use of Scripture
in Romans” (180), Fisk concludes (185), “. . . it does not appear unreasonable to think that
many of those who first read or heard Paul’s letter would have enjoyed considerable prior,
and ongoing, exposure to a number of the scriptural passages Paul cites. Paul’s best guess
about his readers’ competence may not be far off.”
Weighing in on this issue of reader-competence, Richard Hays states, “We should give
Paul and his readers credit for being at least as sophisticated and nuanced in their reading
46 Chapter One: Introduction

As to the contextual nature of Paul’s scriptural citations, many scholars

view Paul’s quotations as situated within his broader conception of a narra-
tive scriptural framework, recounting the story of God’s promised, eschato-
logical salvation. 134 Consistent with this eschatological hermeneutic is the
additional assessment on the part of a considerable number of scholars that
Paul’s scriptural citations draw upon their immediate and (often) wider con-
text in a manner that appropriately and accurately reflects these texts as find-
ing their intended (though perhaps not yet ultimate) significance in reference
to the eschatological salvation now realized in Christ.135 Against Stanley, this
thesis supports the above mentioned appraisal of Paul’s use of scripture, and
understands Paul to be referencing the sacred text contextually and coherent-
ly, consistent with his primary scriptural framework as derived from the re-
demptive narrative of Isaiah.136

of Scripture as we are. Everything about Paul’s use of OT texts suggests that his ‘implied
reader’ not only knows Scripture but also appreciates allusive subtlety” (Conversion, 49).
A few other brief comments of critique might be made. Stanley’s “informed audience”
was obviously aware of the context, so Paul’s use of scripture had to be accurate or he
would lose the respect of the leaders of the church, and hence of the church as a whole.
The “competent audience” would naturally be taught by “the informed” (cf. Rom 12:6–7),
and would by no means remain static in their apprehension of scripture, but rather would
be moving toward the level of the “informed audience.” The same would obtain for Stan-
ley’s minimal audience. Therefore, as mentioned above, what makes sense on a rhetorical,
surface reading continues to make fuller, deeper sense as one moves upward through Stan-
ley’s hypothetical categories from “minimal” to “competent” to “informed.”
Paul’s self-understanding as an apostle, an authoritative interpreter of scripture, must
necessarily affect the conception of Paul’s intended audience. His epistles, therefore,
within this canonical role, necessarily have both an immediate and continuing significance,
and as scripture are intended to be the objects of on-going study, personally and corporate-
ly.
134
See, e.g., Hays, Conversion, 45–49; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God,
1449–56. In Stanley’s co-edited work, see Steven DiMattei, “Biblical Narratives,” in As It
Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D.
Stanley, SBLSS 50 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 59–93.
135
See the introductory section above, “Historical Plausibility – The Inner-Canonical
Status of Isaiah and Its Use as a Literary and Theological Unity,” particularly footnote 75.
136
It should be reasserted that there is a vital connection between Paul’s presupposi-
tions, the nature of his use of scripture, and the nature of the scriptural appropriation on the
part of Paul’s audience; but to be particularly noted is the deeply interrelated character of
the latter two concepts. Therefore, based upon both the above discussion as well as an
anticipation of the ensuing thesis, the following summary perspective is offered by way of
contrast to the view of Stanley presented above.
Paul’s use of scripture cannot be evaluated simply from a rhetorical standpoint, for even
Paul’s rhetorical approach cannot be separated from his theological presuppositions. Ac-
cording to Paul, the very nature of scripture itself in its prophetic capacity finds its fulfill-
ment both in the apostolic gospel which Paul authoritatively proclaims and in the messian-
ic people reconstituted through its proclamation, so that it precludes a purely human inter-
 II. Preliminary Considerations 47

Paul’s use of scripture, therefore, made sense on a surface reading, but

continued to expand in its depth and theological significance with continued
study. It is this admission that brings Paul’s citation technique into close
conformity with his christological and eschatological presuppositions, his
understanding of the nature and intended (continuing) use of canonical scrip-
ture, as well as the varied and dynamic (i.e., growing) apprehension of his
audience[s].
These considerations, then, lead to the discussion of a scholar whose views
on Paul’s use of scripture stand on quite the opposite end of the spectrum as
compared to those of Stanley.

pretive approach. Paul’s apostolic hermeneutic, therefore, creates an essential parallel

between the scriptural narrative of redemption and its realization in the messianic eschato-
logical community to which he wrote. But further, and to the point, the “realized” state of
this eschatological people necessarily includes their movement from redemptive event to
redemptive consummation (described, e.g., through allusion to the Isaianic new exodus
narrative in Romans 8, as building upon both explicit and implicit references to the fall
within the larger context), with this movement itself intimately related to their appropria-
tion of this scriptural narrative.
In the realized eschatological realm created by the manifestation of God’s righteousness
in the gospel, the implied audience, from Paul’s perspective, represents more than a mere
literary figment. Paul wrote to the company of the redeemed, predestined to be conformed
to the image of God’s Son. He wrote about redemption in its grand and sweeping narrative,
and his quotations and allusions can be plotted along a coherent redemptive-narrative
framework. But it is not only Paul’s citations which he plots within this redemptive narra-
tive, but the lives of believers as well. The apostle situates believers within this biblical
narrative with the express, divine intent that they personally appropriate it. (This is con-
sistent with Paul’s understanding of the saving efficacy of the Word of God encapsulated
in the gospel [e.g., Rom 1:16].) In plotting believers onto this great story of redemption, he
describes them as living in the overlap of aeons, journeying out of the death from which
they have been delivered into a life which they even now possess (e.g., Rom 6:1–11),
following the leading of the Spirit in a new exodus based in the definitive and climactic
redemptive moment of the Messiah’s sacrifice for sin and conquest of death in resurrection
(e.g., Rom 4:25–5:5; 8:1ff). It is this recreation-life, “the image of His Son,” which believ-
ers are predestined to fully reflect (Rom 8:29–30), but that they now fully possess (Rom
8:14–16). The consummation of redemption toward which believers are led, therefore, is
held in tension with its present possession. Within this tension, Paul consistently employs
scripture to urge his readers to realize in this fallen era, within their own lives personally
and corporately, the in-breaking of the new, so that this realization is to occur in depend-
ence upon and in conjunction with one’s growing understanding and appropriation of
scripture (e.g., Rom 12:2, 6–7), which bears witness to this reality in Christ. Therefore,
both Paul’s use of scripture and its intended appropriation are best understood as reflecting
and relating to this wider story of redemption.
48 Chapter One: Introduction

(2) Richard B. Hays: The Conversion of the Imagination

Richard B. Hays has had a unique impact upon New Testament studies by
greatly stimulating both recognition of and a resurgent scholarly interest in
the intertextual relation between the testaments. His work has helped bring to
light the depth, complexity, and pervasive manner in which the NT authors
reference the OT scriptures. One of his key contributions is doubtless the set
of criteria he has formulated to discern the presence of scriptural allusions in
the writings of Paul, which have already been extensively discussed in two
previous introductory sections.137 His latest book, however, The Conversion
of the Imagination (2005), holds particular relevance to this thesis in several
respects, and therefore merits an additional, brief discussion.
First, in contrast to Stanley’s rhetorical approach discussed above, this
book reasserts throughout its various chapters the nature of Paul’s quotations
and allusions as evoking their wider, literary-theological contexts. To set the
stage for accomplishing this task, one of the opening chapters expands and
clarifies the criteria for validating allusions set forth in a previous work (Ech-
oes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul), with the intent that “. . . the essay
provides a significant methodological foundation for the other studies that
follow.”138 But second, and more specifically, this particular chapter develops
the above-mentioned criteria by means of a discussion of Paul’s use of Isai-
ah,139 and in so doing helps to provide strong initial evidence for the apostle’s
use of an Isaianic scriptural framework.
As Hays expands upon the criterion of recurrence,140 he notes that it has
relevance not simply with reference to a single verse to which Paul might
allude, but also with reference to larger passages of scripture as well. He
states that in Romans the passage of primary importance is Isaiah 40–55. He
remarks (though quoted earlier, it bears repeating at this point in the discus-
sion), “The parade example of this phenomenon in the Pauline letters . . . is
his use of Isa 40–55. Paul returns again and again to this text, especially in
Romans. Here we find clear evidence of the clustering of citations from one
special scriptural context.”141 Yet this citational density sourced in Isaiah 40–
55 does not necessitate a coherent reading of the texts. Hays notes the theo-
retical possibility that “. . . Paul merely treated Isa 40–55 as a loose anthology
of favorite religious quotations, without considering its overall mean-

137
See above, “Overview of Research on Paul’s Use of Scripture;” and “Methodology
of the Present Study.”
138
Conversion, xi.
139
The chapter is entitled, “‘Who Has Believed Our Message?’ Paul’s Reading of Isai-
ah.” See ibid., 25–49.
140
See the discussion above under “Methodology of the Present Study.”
141
Conversion, 37–38.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 49

ing . . .”142 Therefore, the criterion of thematic coherence becomes vitally

important. Regarding this criterion as applied to Paul’s use of Isaiah, he as-
serts, “. . . when we assemble the evidence, it is possible to mount a strong
argument that Paul is not just randomly proof-texting in his allusions to Isaiah
but that Isa 40–55 is fundamentally formative for his understanding of what
God is doing in the world through the proclamation of the gospel . . .”143 He
concludes,
Thus, there is abundant evidence in Paul’s letters that he read Isa 40–55 as a coherent
prophetic vision . . . Where we see evidence of such sustained and reflective patterned
reading of a particular text, we may assume that other possible echoes of that same text
elsewhere in the same letter are likely to be theologically significant rather than merely the
product of our own interpretive fantasy.144

These various facets of Hays’ argument – his assessment of the nature of

Paul’s quotations, his demonstration of Paul’s extensive and recurring use of
Isaiah 40–55 (regarded as a single passage), and his estimation of Paul’s
coherent use of these references – together lend considerable initial credence
to the thesis here proposed, that Paul employs in Romans a predominantly
Isaianic scriptural framework centering in the proclamation of good news. 145

(3) Frances Watson: Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith

A relatively recent and highly influential work on Paul, considered by many
to be one of the most important studies on Paul’s use of scripture, is Francis
Watson’s Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (2004). Watson proposes that
Paul employs an essentially antithetical hermeneutic derived from the Penta-
teuch, but brought to consummate expression by the prophet Habakkuk in his
assertion that “. . . the righteous man shall live by faith.”146 This prophetic

142
Ibid., 38.
143
Ibid., 39–40.
144
Ibid., 40. In fact, anticipating this conclusion, he had earlier stated (27), “The explic-
it citations are merely the tip of the iceberg; they point to a larger mass just under the
surface, Paul’s comprehensive construal of Isaiah as a coherent witness to the gospel. I
believe that Paul had read and pondered the scroll of Isaiah as a whole, over the years of
his apostolic ministry, and developed a sustained reading of it . . .”
145
There are, nevertheless, significant differences between Hays’ understanding of
Paul’s use of Isaiah and the view that will be presented in this thesis. The differences,
though, are primarily between Hays’ more general perspective (ibid., 45–47), and the more
developed and integrated position advocated here. As this study seeks to demonstrate, the
crucial and central element missing from Hays’ plotline is the sacrifice of the messianic
Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53. It is this central element that the apostle understands as
the essential content of the “good news.” For further discussion, see the final “Conclusion”
at the close of the work.
146
On this antithetical hermeneutic, see, e.g., Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 23,
124–25, 162–63, 200, 206, 208, 275, 322–24, 326, 330, 331, 429, 522.
50 Chapter One: Introduction

pronouncement, then, becomes the foundation and source of Paul’s exposi-

tion in Romans.147 Watson’s work, to be sure, contains a host of very valuable
insights. His basic thesis just recounted, moreover, is in many respects accu-
rate. The essential difficulty, from the perspective of this work, is in over-
statement and lack of nuance, both with regard to the purely antithetical na-
ture of the law as over against the concepts of faith and promise, as well as
with regard to the significance of Paul’s quotation of Hab 2:4 (Rom 1:17)
within the larger section of Romans 1–4.
This thesis asserts that there is indeed an antithetical element in the role of
the law, but that this is by no means the law’s exclusive role. Rather, the
antithetical role falls within a larger revelatory role. This antithetical role
reflects a view of the law stripped of promise, or, in other words, mirrors the
position of one outside the promise; but, in conjunction with this, it also re-
flects and points to the promise itself. It has in itself the nature of promise,
and so bears witness, negatively and positively, to the ultimate disclosure of
the promise in the gospel, a relation Paul derives in large part from Isaiah and
its typology. And while Hab 2:4 indeed plays a crucial and continuing role in
Paul’s exposition – both as an abiding principle of the sole and divinely-
ordained means of appropriating the eschatological saving action of God,
and, in relation to this, as a salvation-historical signpost to the continuity in
the saving promise – it is, nevertheless, a scriptural peg incapable of holding
the full weight Watson seeks to hang upon it from the context of Romans.
There is a larger and overarching theological framework demonstrable
throughout Romans and to which Habakkuk bears witness. As a salvation-
historical signpost to the continuity of the promise and its ultimate realization
(to be appropriated by faith), Hab 2:4 points to the scriptural culmination of
the promise in the Isaianic good news of the fulfillment of eschatological
salvation through the redemption effected by the messianic sacrifice. It is this
Isaianic gospel that (for instance) both opens and closes the section (Rom
1:1–6, 16–17a; 4:25), discloses the actual saving event (Rom 3:21–26), artic-
ulates the necessity of faith in the saving promise as it comes to be fully ex-
pressed in the good news (Rom 1:16–17a; 3:21–26; 4:23–25; 9:27–33; 10:11–
16), and in particular, describes the ultimate fulfillment of the saving promise
recounted in Deuteronomy 32 and Habakkuk (Rom 3:21–26; 11:26–27).148
To describe Watson’s view in a bit more detail, he holds that Paul evi-
dences a reading of the Torah in its larger narrative structure (e.g., Romans 9;

147
Regarding the relative use of Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4 in Romans and Galatians, Wat-
son states (ibid., 522), “As the argument of Romans unfolds, this faith/law antithesis serves
as a hermeneutical grid for the outline reading of the Torah . . . In Galatians, the Habakkuk
citation is subordinated to Genesis 15.6. In Romans, it is Habakkuk who has precedence.”
148
For quotations and allusions to Isaiah in these references, see the Appendix. This
thesis argues for an Isaianic background to (among other texts) Rom 1:1–6, 16–17a; 3:21–
26; 4:25.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 51

Galatians 3), and this reading becomes for Paul the basis of an essentially
antithetical hermeneutic. 149 Paul sees in the Pentateuch a fundamental con-
trast between the unconditional saving act of God for his people, which is
disclosed at the climax of the narrative (Deuteronomy 32) and appropriated
by faith (as paradigmatically exemplified in Abraham; Gen 15:6), and the
conditional nature of the law (Lev 18:5), which inevitably brings the curse
(Deut 27:26). Watson notes that “[t]hese are tensions between books: Genesis
and Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.” 150 This antithetical nature of the
Pentateuch, moreover, is reaffirmed by the prophets, who both recount the
failure of the law in its covenant-condition of life and point to the eschatolog-
ical saving act of God promised in Deuteronomy as the only hope for Isra-
el.151 The prophets further reaffirm that this saving act of God may be appro-
priated solely by faith, so that Hab 2:4 among the prophets preeminently
expresses “. . . the divinely ordained way to salvation with a clarity and brevi-
ty virtually unparalleled in the rest of scripture.”152 Within his conception of
the law as exclusively antithetical to the promise, the law becomes a failed
project, and may be conceived as even deliberately intended to mislead.153
This is a characterization of the law which – while it may be supported by
elements of the narrative sequence in Exodus and Numbers, and expressed
again through the assertions of the curse that will ultimately fall upon Israel
in Leviticus (chapter 26) and Deuteronomy (chapters 30 and 32) – expresses
only part of the truth. This characterization of the law seems to ignore (or
simply pay lip service to) the scriptural portrayal of the law as a gracious

149
See, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 23. The manner in which this antithetical
hermeneutic is developed in the Pentateuch is a major emphasis of Watson’s work, and is
the main topic of chapters 4–10 (167–513). But note esp. pp. 20–21, 23, 206, 275, 354–55,
415–16, 427, 433, 438, 453–54, 464, 470–71, 473, 475, 505, 519.
For an extremely insightful and well-balanced discussion of the question of whether
Paul is indeed “evoking a false legal framework” (i.e., positing an antithetical rather than a
complimentary relation between Lev 18:5 and Hab 2:4), specifically with regard to Gal
3:10–14, see Steve Moyise, Evoking Scripture, 63–77. For the significance of the debate
on this text to the larger dispute within scholarship between the “traditional” and “new”
perspectives, see 76–77. Moyise concludes that while Sanders was certainly correct to
denounce a monolithic understanding of Judaism in terms of legalism or works-
righteousness, Sanders himself is guilty of postulating his own generalization of “covenan-
tal nomism” (“an act of grace is followed by covenant stipulations”), a generalization
which, as Watson demonstrates, mutes those texts which sound a distinctly “conditional”
note.
150
Ibid., 23. See also, e.g., 275–76.
151
On the conditional aspect of the law, see ibid., 319ff.
152
Ibid., 124. See 124–25.
153
For the law as a failed project, see, e.g., 66–70, 124–25, 200–201. On the law as
misleading, see, e.g., 332, 518. Watson describes Deut 30:12–14 as “. . . another text
presumably preordained to mislead . . .” (518).
52 Chapter One: Introduction

revelation, a revelation situated within and essentially related to the larger

pentateuchal context of promise; it is therefore a characterization that, when
expressed and maintained in exclusively negative terms, is ultimately contra-
dictory.154 And, inasmuch as Watson’s understanding of Paul’s gospel is built
primarily upon this fundamental scriptural antithesis, removing significant
aspects of Torah from its witness-bearing role, there emerges (as will be seen
to be the case with Wright) an unnecessarily large disjunction between scrip-
ture and its fulfillment in the Christ event. 155
One primary example of Watson’s view of Paul’s antithetical hermeneutic
is seen in the relation of Deuteronomy 30 to 32. Watson understands these
chapters as contradictory, holding (correctly) that chapter 32 depicts the total
failure of Israel with respect to God’s law together with the ultimate divine
saving action which alone resolves their desperate plight. Yet Deuteronomy
30, on the other hand (according to Watson), teaches that the answer to this
predicament lies in the strict observance of the law.156 Setting aside the inex-
plicably strange phenomenon of such an alleged contradiction within this
single context of Deuteronomy, Watson is in a strait as to how he can justify
this position with respect to Paul. Paul alludes to Deut 30:6 in Rom 2:25–29,
and there clearly employs the allusion to depict the mark of the promised
restoration of Israel in the divine circumcision of the heart by the Spirit of
God. In Romans 10, moreover, Paul uses this very chapter of Deuteronomy
(Rom 10:6–8, 9–10/Deut 30:11–14) to proclaim the righteousness of faith
fulfilled in the Isaianic gospel of Isaiah 52 and 53 (Rom 10:15/Isa 52:7; Rom

154
Watson (ibid., 383–84) seems to admit as much when he discusses the canonical jux-
taposition of Psalms 105 and 106 and the legitimate manner in which they respectively
read the narrative of the exodus generation both positively and negatively. See also, e.g.,
p. 520 in which he discusses the “serious tension” and “prima facie contradictions within
Paul’s view of the law”; or p. 522 where the “alternative soteriology” based on works of
the law is “disowned” by the true voice of the law as expressed through David and Isaiah.
155
See, e.g., ibid., 519. Watson states, “In Romans 4, 7, and 9, Paul’s construal of the
Torah as a whole might seem to leave christology in a relatively marginal position, espe-
cially in comparison to Galatians (cf. Rom. 4.24–25; 7.25a; 9.33). Yet each of these scrip-
tural meditations is followed by a christologically rich sequel (Romans 5, 8 and 10); and
each of them is oriented towards the claims of the gospel from the very outset.” In each of
the cases mentioned above, the “christologically rich sequel” is to a significant extent
dependent upon Isaiah and the prophecy’s intertextual relation to and fulfillment of ante-
cedent scripture (see Appendix, and subsequent discussion of the relevant texts). This not
only brings the scriptural antecedent closer to the saving event which fulfills it, but creates
a continuity between the law and the scriptural promise to which it bears witness in the
Isaianic good news.
156
For Watson’s discussion of these chapters, see ibid., 427, 433, 453–54, 464, 470–71,
473, 475, 505, 519.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 53

10:16/Isa 53:1) as the basis of this promised restoration.157 Both of these texts
from Deuteronomy 30, along with quotations and allusions to Deuteronomy
32 (Rom 10:19/Deut 32:21; cf. Rom 11:11, 14) then come to final fulfillment
when the Isaianic Redeemer comes to Zion and removes ungodliness from
Jacob (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9). Paul, therefore, not only under-
stands Deuteronomy 30 and 32 as complimentary, but as scripturally fulfilled
in the Isaianic good news of redemption.
Contrary to Watson, then (as this thesis will seek to demonstrate), Paul in
Romans 10 alludes to Deuteronomy 30 (vv. 11–14; Rom 10:6–8) to assert the
law’s continuity with the gospel, and thereby condemns a false approach that
pursued the law by works rather than by faith (Rom 9:32); Paul was therefore
censuring, not Judaism as a whole, nor the proper scriptural approach to the
law as manifested in the gospel, but the illegitimate attempt to establish one’s
own righteousness independent of the promise now realized in Christ (Rom
10:3). The law, as in Romans 2, reveals sin and plight, and out of this plight
calls for a response of repentance and faith that stands in continuity with the
gospel. In light of the relation Rom 8:29 (describing God’s purpose to con-
form believers to the image of his Son) bears to the plight of humanity cap-
tive in sin and condemned before God’s law (as described in Romans 1–3, 6–
7; esp. Rom 1:23; 3:23), God’s redemptive act (as described in Rom 3:21–26;
8:1–4ff) entails a recreation of the divine image as a reflection of the glory of
God. According to Paul, then, the giving of the law on Sinai involved (con-
textually in relation to both the promise to Abraham and its fulfillment in the
final restoration of Deuteronomy) a re-inscription of the divine nature. That
is, its thunderous confrontation in earthquake and fire disclosed the loss of
the divine image and the impending judgment upon sin; yet it preeminently
stood as invitation, disclosing more fully the essential significance and intent
of the climactic event of the exodus – redemption from the tyranny of sin and
recreation after the image of God. This re-inscription of the divine nature,
therefore, necessarily required repentance (acknowledging the loss of the
image) and faith (acknowledging the embrace of that image; cf. Rom 8:29).158
This response was essential for the divine image to be redrawn, for the law to
be inscribed upon the heart. To refuse this response was to maintain one’s

157
Which is why Watson must resort to saying that Paul intentionally suppresses the
true meaning of the text (which he asserts is in line with Lev 18:5) in order to cause it to
support the righteousness of faith. He states (ibid., 338), “The Deuteronomy text must be
rewritten so that it testifies to the righteousness of faith, and against the righteousness of
the law as articulated in the Leviticus citation.” See pp. 336–41.
158
The terms “repentance” and “faith,” of course, are inseparably connected, and repre-
sent two ways of viewing the essential faith-response to God; the presence of one, there-
fore, necessitates the presence of the other. When one acknowledges one’s sin and one’s
place outside God’s saving covenant, e.g., and turns from that sin, he or she is necessarily
turning in faith to God.
54 Chapter One: Introduction

position outside of the covenant promise and under the power of the law as
curse, for the individual and the nation.
It is this curse, however, that, in its “handing over” into the power of sin,
reiterates the voice of the law and continues to disclose more fully one’s
spiritual state as fallen, marred, and outside the covenant. This revelatory
dynamic brings individual and nation back to Sinai, back to the self-
disclosure implicit in the law, back to the essence of redemption, which is
from the fall and curse into the recreation of the children of God. Therefore,
the law’s offer of life is real, when understood in the context of and as a
complement to the promise. The law, with its curse, discloses the reality or
absence of the recreation and life promised in the covenant. It separates those
who have embraced the promise from those who have rejected it, moving the
latter through a fuller disclosure of plight in the curse, to likewise embrace
the promise of recreation after the image of God disclosed in the law.159 It is
this continuity between law and promise in its multiple dimensions that Paul
derives in large measure from the grand narrative sweep of Isaiah’s story of
redemption, particularly its typology, a story that runs from creation, through
the fall as mirrored in Israel, to recreation after the image and glory of God.
The Servant as called, justified, glorified (Rom 8:28–34; see Appendix),
through his redemptive sacrifice, becomes the basis of the recreated identity
of his people.
Paul, therefore, does indeed employ an antithetical hermeneutic, but in a
much more nuanced version than Watson allows. In Romans, while this an-
159
Watson, in fact, notes the interpretive connections established in Leviticus 26 (see
vv. 40–45) between the promise to Abraham, the exodus, and God’s ultimate restoration of
His people based on their repentance (ibid., 323–24). Speaking of Lev 26:40–45 Watson
states, “At this point in the chapter, the conditional character of the argument . . . gives
way to a prophetic announcement of a foreordained or foreseen future event of confession
and repentance, to which the Lord will respond by remembering the covenant(s) with the
patriarchs. Even here, it is the human action that is the precondition of the divine. The
covenant is also rooted in the exodus . . .” In Leviticus 26, the purpose of the curse and
captivity is ultimately repentance and restoration (seemingly admitted by Watson). This is
the proper response to the law, one that ends in eschatological life; it is this response that
has been called for since the law’s inception. This end goal and ultimate aim reveals the
law’s design, a design evident in Deuteronomy as well. The divine intention, therefore,
was not to set the people off on a false path, but to rearticulate plight and promise in rela-
tion to the divine nature from the moment the law was thundered from Sinai. And further-
ing this disclosure, if a proper repentant/faith-response to the law is not forthcoming, the
dynamic of the curse plays itself out until the goal of the law is realized. Repentance, then,
is the goal that leads to the blessing of the covenant, and to an obedience which manifests
the divine circumcision of the heart.
Interestingly, Watson (326, note 23) further observes that the term covenant is used
throughout the Pentateuch in connection with both Abraham and Sinai, and that the priestly
stratum “. . . seeks to integrate the two by seeing the Sinai legislation not as a new cove-
nant but as the full realization of the covenant with Abraham.”
 II. Preliminary Considerations 55

tithesis is evident predominantly in the contrast between faith and works of

the law (though see, e.g., Rom 4:15; 5:20; 7:7–11), there is also a significant
emphasis on the salvation-historical continuity in revelation and promise
(into which category the antithesis may be situated), particularly as this is
displayed in the law and the gospel. This, then, leads to Watson’s understand-
ing of Paul’s use of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17.
The crux of Watson’s work in relation to the present thesis is, of course,
his interpretation of the significance of the Habakkuk citation for the first
three chapters of Romans. Because this topic will be thoroughly treated in the
thesis proper, only a few comments will be made here in anticipation of that
discussion. Watson understands Hab 2:4 as the primary scriptural source of
Paul’s argument in Romans 1–3. He rightly holds that Hab 2:4 and Gen 15:6
bracket Romans 1–4. 160 He believes that Hab 2:4 generates not only Rom
1:16–17a, 161 but Rom 1:16–3:31 as well.162 He believes that Paul employs it
as an abstracted and controlling principle representative of the voice of scrip-
ture as a whole,163 a principle from which not only Paul’s argument is derived
but also specific and pivotal articulations of its essence in the form of nega-
tive and positive echoes in texts such as Rom 3:20 and 21.164
One crucial weakness of his position, however, comes by way of apparent
contradiction. It lies in his admission, on the one hand, that Paul’s reticence
to connect faith directly with Christ is due to his use of the Habakkuk cita-
tion, yet his assertion, on the other hand, that this faith “. . . is entirely and
exclusively bound up with God’s saving action in Christ.”165 This disconnect
is even more apparent when one considers that the thematic verses that pre-
cede the citation (Rom 1:16–17a), which Watson claims derive from Hab 2:4,

160
Ibid., 42. Regarding these texts, Watson states, “. . . these two texts . . . mark the be-
ginning and the end of Paul’s exposition of his doctrine in Romans 1–4, bracketing and
enclosing it and ensuring that it operates throughout on scriptural terrain.” Though these
two texts do indeed bracket the section, they are not the “outer bracket” (as will be seen).
161
Ibid., 46–47, 50.
162
Ibid., 158–59, 160.
163
Ibid., 45. Watson asserts, “. . . anonymous citation emphasizes its representative
character. In Romans 1.17, the words, ‘the one who is righteous by faith will live’ are
attributed simply to scripture as a whole . . . It is scripture as a whole that speaks in these
words.” He goes on to say, “. . . the standard [citation] formula presents a citation as a
completed utterance that is definitive and permanently valid.”
164
Ibid., 56, 71.
165
Ibid., 160–61. Watson continues by stating (ostensibly in direct contradiction to the
opening verses of Romans [see continuing discussion]), “The gospel speaks explicitly of
Christ, but scripture does not . . .” Based on this perspective of Watson, there is a signifi-
cant “. . . distinction between gospel and scripture . . .” (161). This distinction, however, is
not as wide as Watson allows, and points to the unnecessarily heavy load he expects the
Habakkuk citation to carry. See also p. 162 where he again emphasizes that Paul uses Hab
2:4 to establish this principle without explicit christological reference.
56 Chapter One: Introduction

are specifically articulating the gospel, and so stand in vital, intertextual rela-
tion both to Rom 1:1–6 and 3:21–26. These texts clearly indicate that the
content of the gospel is centered completely upon the person of the Messiah.
In fact, in Rom 1:2–3 Paul describes the gospel as that which was “. . . prom-
ised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His
Son . . .” This very fact, particularly in light of the strong probability that
“gospel” is the theme of Romans, necessarily limits the role played by Hab-
akkuk throughout Paul’s exposition of his gospel and directs attention to
additional scriptural sources that highlight the gospel’s central messianic
theme.166
This leads to the second major weakness of Watson’s position, the unnec-
essarily heavy thematic load he attempts to hang upon this one citation. When
one looks at the thematic verses themselves, one cannot derive “the gospel as
the revelation of God’s righteousness” from Habakkuk, nor “the gospel as the
power of God unto salvation,” nor “the gospel as directed to everyone who
believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek,” for the term gospel is the
central and controlling term and is itself derived from scripture.167 Yet each
of these terms and concepts is not only vitally related to Isaiah’s redemptive
narrative centered in the proclamation of good news, they are also expressed
throughout Romans by means of explicit quotations of Isaiah. When one adds
to this the nature of the gospel as described in the opening verses of Romans
1 as the messianic conquest of death, and the depiction of the gospel in Rom
3:21–26 as the antitypical, messianic sacrifice for sin accomplishing the
promised redemption, the impossibility of a primary scriptural derivation
from Habakkuk is rendered virtually certain, while at the same time, the ar-
gument for an Isaianic derivation is greatly strengthened.
To this may be added such themes as the typological alignment of Adam,
Israel, and humanity in Rom 1:18–32; the theme of captives condemned be-
fore the pre-eschatological tribunal in chapter 2; the typological role of Israel
in displaying the plight of humanity captive in sin in chapters 2–3; the over-
arching portrayal of a captive and condemned humanity in anticipation of the
revelation of the counter-poised redemptive righteousness of God in the mes-
sianic sacrifice; and in intertextual relation to this, the manner in which Gen
15:6 (Watson’s “partner” verse with Hab 2:4, which he considers to bracket

166
Of course there are interpreters who hold to a messianic reference in the Habakkuk
text, but that is not Watson’s position (and, according to the judgment of this thesis, rightly
so). See further discussion there.
167
As Watson himself states regarding “the righteousness of God” in Rom 1:17, “The
antecedent [of Hab 2:4] does not speak of the righteousness of God in isolation, it speaks
of the disclosure of that righteousness in the gospel” (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith,
52). He also states (49), “If the prophet speaks of a righteousness valid before God, it is the
same righteousness that is revealed in the gospel.” Here Watson seems to speak more than
he knows, for his words point to Isaiah.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 57

the section), quoted and alluded to in Rom 4:3, 9, and 22, is funneled into and
fulfilled by a faith in God’s redemptive work expressed through clear allusion
to the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53. These themes and
others greatly strengthen the likelihood of a predominantly Isaianic scriptural
backdrop. Therefore, even though Habakkuk is the first scriptural citation in
Romans, the Isaianic nature of the gospel in both the opening verses of the
epistle (which are intertextually connected to the Isaianic allusion in Rom
4:25 through the theme of “resurrection”), as well as the thematic verses
(preceding the citation, Rom 1:16–17a), anticipates this larger framework
evident throughout the whole of the epistle and points to Isaiah as the primary
scriptural backdrop to Romans. Therefore, Isaiah’s prominence throughout
the entire section culminating in both the description of the redemptive event
(Rom 3:21–26) as well as its fuller disclosure in the acknowledged allusion to
Isaiah 53 as the present fulfillment of the principle of faith in the saving
promise (advocated by both Hab 2:4 and Gen 15:6; Rom 4:22–25), creates a
more comprehensive “bracketing” framework than that advocated by Watson.
The gospel in Romans is immediately grounded in christology. This is char-
acteristic of Isaiah, and points again to the more limited (though still crucial)
role of Habakkuk in pointing to a continuity in promise and appropriation,
key principles indeed, but principles picked up in Isaiah, in which faith in the
promise comes to its full scriptural expression in the good news of messianic
redemption.
The role of Habakkuk, therefore, is indeed significant as Watson rightly
points out. Its vital role stands as an overarching principle, although in a
manner slightly different from that envisaged by Watson. This thesis will
argue that Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17 is used to create simultaneously a diachronic
and synchronic intertextual dimension through its allusion to both Gen 15:6
and the covenant context of Deuteronomy. This diachronic dimension high-
lights a trajectory and continuity in the salvation-historical disclosure of the
promise that Paul understands as coming to a climax in the Isaianic gospel.
The synchronic dimension of the text emphasizes the consistent principle of
faith as the means of appropriating the promise that has been operative
throughout salvation history, but which comes to clearest expression in the
gospel. This dual dimension, as well as Habakkuk’s relation to Genesis 15,
surfaces most clearly in Romans 4 where it culminates in the allusion to Isai-
ah 53 as the scriptural apex of both synchronic and diachronic aspects of
scriptural continuity (Rom 4:25; see Appendix).

(4) A Note on the New Perspective (Via Watson)

One of the most insightful elements of Watson’s work is his careful and
measured treatment of the new perspective. In Watson’s introductory critique
58 Chapter One: Introduction

of the position of E. P. Sanders in Paul and Palestinian Judaism,168 he ex-

plains that “covenantal nomism,” a title for the soteriological understanding
of 2nd temple Judaism, ironically (in relation to Sanders’ monolithic reading
of the literature of the period), conveys in itself no clear distinction between
the relative role of covenant and law. This title, therefore, in his opinion,
reflects the diverse views within the literature. He states,
. . . the expression ‘covenantal nomism’ leaves open the question as to how precisely
covenant and law observance are related to one another . . . If, for some Jews, law ob-
servance within the covenant was indeed a precondition of divine saving action . . . [t]here
is no reason why Paul should not have said that the way of righteousness is the faith elicit-
ed by God’s prior saving action, rather than those human actions prescribed within the
covenant that may be designated as ‘works of law.’169

He goes on to state,
The first third of Sanders’ book is devoted to early rabbinic (‘Tannaitic’) literature, and it
is here that the ‘covenantal nomism’ model is developed. Turning to earlier material (the
Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, Psalms of Solomon, and 4 Ezra), Sanders is
insistent that the same ‘covenantal nomism’ is evident here, so that – with the exception of
4 Ezra – the entire extant Palestinian Jewish literature from 200BCE to 200 CE is based on
a single soteriological model. Would Sanders have reached the same conclusions if (1) he
had not started out from the Tannaitic period, and (2) he had been more open to the possi-
bility of theological diversity among the texts of the Second Temple period?170

Watson then selects as an example Ben Sira, and demonstrates how the keep-
ing of the law, even in the context of Abraham, was seen as fundamental to
the covenant and the promise of life.171
Watson then seeks to provide insight into Sanders position which he per-
ceives as “informed by an unexamined theological value judgment” in which,
in the proper sort of religion, grace is foundational and works secondary or
consequential. Yet, Watson asserts, this principle is itself derived from Paul
(as understood by Protestant Christianity), “divested of christological trap-
pings” and so retrojected back onto the literature of the period. Thus, Sanders
himself creates a monolithic caricature of Judaism, a pendulum-induced mir-
ror of the Protestant position as a reaction to the widespread Protestant view
of Judaism.172
Watson, perhaps, may be a bit off the mark in characterizing Sanders’ per-
ception of the nature of Judaism as (entirely?) derived from his reaction
against the Protestant view, rather than his perception of the emphasis within
the texts on the grace inherent in the covenant. Nevertheless, in the view of

168
Ibid., 6–13.
169
Ibid., 8.
170
Ibid., 8, note 14.
171
Ibid., 9–13. For his detailed discussion of Jubilees (against Sanders), see 220ff.
172
Ibid., 12.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 59

the present writer, both wholesale characterizations (caricatures) of Judaism

are faulty – the Protestant, legalistic version (as it has at times been termed),
as well as Sanders’ monolithic version – yet together they likely point to the
fact that the literature of the second temple period (including the NT) reflects
both a proper and an improper understanding of the law in relation to the
covenant promise. Sanders’ intentions, perhaps, but certainly Paul’s, were to
convey the significant point that OT scripture, properly understood, stands in
perfect continuity with the gospel. Paul’s further point – and one which is
powerfully conveyed through his quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 as strate-
gically situated within its larger context – is that Adamic humanity, exempli-
fied in the typological role of Israel, reflects an idolatrous rejection of truth
that often manifests itself in an effort to create security for oneself through
one’s own efforts or works. Adamic humanity typified in Israel, therefore, in
and through its captivity, must be re-confronted with its plight and state in
reference to the law in order to appropriate the promise.

(5) N. T. Wright: Paul and the Faithfulness of God

Another recent and extremely influential study on Paul’s use of scripture is
undoubtedly N. T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God (2013). There
are many aspects of Wright’s work that are compelling, and also much that
can support the present thesis. It is only possible here to discuss – and in an
extremely cursory fashion – his basic understanding of the major scriptural
backdrop to Romans as against the view of the present work. 173 To introduce
the discussion, Wright views Paul as dependant primarily upon the great
scriptural narrative of Israel as derived from Deuteronomy 27–32 (within its
wider pentateuchal context), in which the covenant people find themselves
plunged into the curse of exile for their sin, but are then ultimately restored
by God and divinely enabled to keep God’s law through the promised cir-
cumcision of the heart.174 This narrative, engrained in the hearts of the Jewish
people of the first century, is very obviously central to Paul, as Wright so
ably demonstrates.175 The present work, however, argues that this very narra-
tive framework, as understood in the larger context of the Pentateuch (partic-
ularly the Abrahamic promise), is from Paul’s perspective taken up into and
expanded by Isaiah’s grand and epic narrative of redemption. Paul views the
prophet Isaiah as incorporating not only the deuteronomic story of covenant,
curse, exile, and restoration, but its wider story in relation to creation, fall,
and (messianic) promise, culminating in the recreation of the people of God
in a new heavens and new earth. Isaiah integrates these and other significant

173
Wright, of course, treats the entire Pauline corpus, but does focus to a considerable
extent on Romans.
174
See, e.g., Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 495–505 (see esp. 501–4).
175
Ibid., see chapter 2, 75–196.
60 Chapter One: Introduction

scriptural elements – such as the typological role of Israel in relation to the

world, and the prophetic types of the Passover/exodus and the Day of Atone-
ment – in a unique and comprehensive theological framework centering in the
“good news” of salvation through the redemption achieved by the sacrifice of
the messianic servant of the Lord. This more comprehensive scriptural back-
drop, however, in no way negates the framework presented by Wright, but,
rather, completes it, and so brings the prophetic witness of scripture into
closer proximity to the saving event which fulfills it, thereby creating a more
thorough dynamic of mutual interpretation. Wright’s work, therefore, signifi-
cantly strengthens the present thesis by helping to substantiate a scriptural
framework crucial to, and fully integrated into, Paul’s understanding of Isai-
ah.
Wright opens his very substantial work by discussing the significance of
worldviews and the many “world-view narratives” that dominated the Greco-
Roman culture of the first century. 176 Confronting the various pagan, Greek,
and Roman ideologies, particularly the Roman narrative of empire, was the
story of the God of Israel.177 This story, according to Wright, was comprised
of one overarching plot, with three interlocking subplots.178 The major plot is
God’s creation of the world with a purpose to which he entrusted humans,
that purpose being to mirror his image and glory through the dominion of
creation. Humans, however, rebelled and so frustrated that purpose, and con-
sequently God, in faithfulness, determines to restore his creation. 179 The first
and main sub-plot is God’s creation of humans “. . . to bring fruitful order to
the world . . .” through bearing his image. This they failed to do, resulting in
corruption and decay. Therefore, “God intends to restore humankind to its
proper place, resulting in the rescue and restoration of creation itself.”180 The
second and primary sub-plot for Wright in terms of the background of Paul’s
theology is the story of Israel, whom God called to bring blessing and rescue
to the world in fulfillment of his covenant with Abraham. Israel, however,
would fail in its calling, break the covenant, and fall under the curse of exile
(in recapitulation of the story of Adam). From this exile, according to prom-
ise, God would perform his ultimate and final act of redemption in perma-
nently restoring his people from captivity and circumcising their hearts to

176
Ibid., see chapters 2–5, 75–347.
177
Ibid., 75–196, 1271–1319.
178
Ibid., 475–537. For a brief description of the interlocking sub-plots, see 485.
179
Ibid., 475–85, esp. 476.
180
Ibid., 489. For the full description, see 485–94. On 490 he cites what he describes as
a truncated version of this main sub-plot and of Paul’s narrative world as follows:
1. Humans are made for fellowship with God;
2. Humans sin and refuse God’s love;
3. God acts to restore humans to a ‘right relationship’ with himself.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 61

keep his commandments. 181 (In Wright’s view, therefore, Israel’s calling to
bring blessing to the world and subsequent failure necessitated what he de-
scribes as “. . . a rescue operation for the rescue operation . . .”,182 which
becomes the content of the final sub-plot, described further below.)
This second sub-plot Wright considers to be thoroughly grounded in Deu-
teronomy 27–32, particularly chapters 30 and 32. 183 In line with a clear, scrip-
tural, interpretive trajectory, he correctly understands the promised restora-
tion of Deuteronomy 30 and 32 (as a fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise)
to be messianically mediated, as evidenced in later texts such as 2 Samuel 7,
Psalm 2 and Isaiah 40–55.184 This narrative of Israel’s final redemption,
moreover, was understood by the Jews of the first century to stand in relation
to the overarching narrative of the restoration of creation.185 Wright asserts
that this second sub-plot formed the basic worldview for the Jews in Paul’s
day, including Paul himself.
A historical note must be added to this second sub-plot, however. Though
Israel was ostensibly restored from exile as promised in the prophets, this
restoration was understood to be as yet incomplete, for as a nation they were
still “the tail and not the head” (Deut 28:44), and, as evidenced by the post-
exilic scriptural texts, they conceived of themselves as still enslaved (e.g.,
Neh 9:1–38), with the glory of God not yet returned to dwell in the temple
(e.g., [Ezek 43:1–5;] Hag 2:1–9; Mal 3:1). All this testified poignantly to the
fact that the Jewish people had not yet experienced Deuteronomy’s promised
restoration with its attendant circumcision of the heart.186 Further, Daniel’s
confession of national sin and prayer for the restoration of his people, based
on Deuteronomy 27–30 (Dan 9:4–19), is followed by the prophecy of the
seventy weeks of years (Dan 9:1–27) as an extension of the seventy years of
exile foretold by Jeremiah (Jer 25:11–12; 29:10). This crucial chronological
element, rooted in the deuteronomic narrative, reinforced the perceived reali-
ty of Israel’s continuing plight under the curse, and piqued messianic expec-
tation in the first century. 187
181
Ibid., 495–505.
182
Ibid., 504. This interpretation is a necessary corollary to his view that Christ bore the
curse exclusively for Israel.
183
Ibid., 495–505 (see esp. 501–4).
184
Ibid., e.g., 119.
185
Ibid., 482–83. Wright cites Psalm 2 and Isa 11:1–10 as evidence of this awareness.
186
Ibid., 139–63. Wright provides considerable evidence from the Jewish writings of
the intertestamental period and first century for the widespread awareness on the part of
the Jews’ of their continuing position within this narrative of Deuteronomy.
187
Ibid., 142. Wright, against many, understands this plight as continuing exile (see
140–42). Against this concept of continuing exile, see, e.g., Mark A. Seifrid, “Unrighteous
by Faith: Apostolic Proclamation in Romans 1:18–3:20,” in Justification and Variegated
Nomism: Vol. II – The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A.
Seifrid, WUNT 181 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 119, 123.
62 Chapter One: Introduction

This piqued messianic expectation leads to Wright’s third, crucial, and in-
tegrating sub-plot – the story of the life, death, and resurrection of Israel’s
Messiah. It is precisely here that Paul and the majority of his fellow Jews part
company. In this third sub-plot the promised restoration of Deuteronomy 30
and 32 is fulfilled through the Messiah, who in his death for sin and subse-
quent resurrection fulfilled, in Israel’s place, its own narrative of covenant
curse, exile and ultimate redemption. Jesus, Israel’s Messiah, faithfully lived
out the covenant life Israel was to commanded to live, and then bore the curse
of Deut 27:26 in Israel’s behalf, so that the blessing promised through Abra-
ham’s descendents might flow freely to the world.188 This eschatological
saving event, therefore, epitomized in the resurrection, necessarily integrates
the other narratives and “. . . enables the other stories to proceed to their
appointed resolution.”189 This fulfillment of Israel’s narrative of salvation in
the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then, becomes a redefinition
of that narrative in terms of its expected resolution.190 This redefinition is
expressed by Paul through consistently plotting Christ’s life, death and resur-
rection onto the major theological elements of Israel’s narrative: monotheism,
election, and eschatology. Paul portrays the Messiah as coming in the prom-
ised, redemptive role of Israel’s God (monotheism) to reconstitute the chosen
people by virtue of their relation to him (election) through their present expe-
rience of justification and new creation based in the eschatological event of
his death and resurrection (eschatology). 191
Wright’s analysis, along with its historical moorings, is in most of its ma-
jor contours clear and convincing.192 He does indeed establish the signifi-
cance of the narrative of Israel within both the Judaism of the first century

188
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 517–36.
189
Ibid., 517.
190
Ibid., e.g., 772. This redefinition Wright understands as legitimated by the resurrec-
tion, the manifestation of the promised eschatological salvation.
191
A substantial portion of Wright’s work is devoted to this task of reading the story of
Jesus as a fulfillment of these major theological themes of the narrative of Israel. Ibid.,
619–1266.
192
The central concern of this brief evaluation (to compare Wright’s view of the major
scriptural framework standing behind Romans as against the proposal of the present work)
does not allow a detailed critique of Wright’s views on many interpretive issues. Several of
these, which the present writer would interpret differently (as reflected in this thesis),
include, e.g., his conception of Christ bearing the curse exclusively for Israel; his emphasis
in the overarching narrative on God’s creation of man primarily in terms of role rather than
relation (though he acknowledges both), and therefore his articulation of the overarching
narrative in relation to his first sub-plot; God’s self-revelation within the overarching
narrative primarily in terms of faithfulness, as opposed to a more comprehensive concept
of the manifestation of His righteousness, holiness, or glory (which would of course in-
clude His faithfulness); the necessity of a redefinition of Israel’s narrative through the
Messiah, rather than, e.g., a fulfillment of Israel’s narrative through messianic redemption.
 II. Preliminary Considerations 63

and the theology of Paul. This narrative, however, in its essentially

deuteronomic form, creates an unnecessarily large gap between the scriptural
witness and the Christ event. Wright, to be sure, goes some way towards
filling this gap through demonstrating how this narrative was developed and
expanded in the psalms and the prophets, particularly in relation to the Mes-
siah (and in which, incidentally, Isaiah plays a leading role). And yet even
with this development the narrative remains essentially deuteronomic, lacking
a measure of coherence due to its attempt to build upon an unnecessarily
rudimentary (though admittedly accurate) theological framework. A gap
therefore remains, conspicuously surfacing in the narrative’s move from exile
to restoration, a gap that is significantly filled in by Paul’s reading of Isaiah,
with its more comprehensive narrative of redemption centering in the procla-
mation of good news.
Paul employs Isaiah’s good news of the revelation of God’s righteousness
in the sacrificial death of the Messiah as his primary scriptural hermeneutical
key, a key that provides an integrating center for his other scriptural sources.
Paul sees Isaiah as integrating not only Deuteronomy’s narrative of restora-
tion as it is situated within the many and various redemptive themes of the
Pentateuch, but as integrating the continued development of these themes in
terms of both messianic mediation and a nuanced understanding of eschatolo-
gy that recognizes the relation between redemptive type, redemptive event,
and redemptive consummation.
In addition to the several elements of historical plausibility cited above,
evidence for Paul’s use of Isaiah as his scriptural hermeneutical key includes,
for instance, the fact that he consistently reads the Pentateuch in its light.
Both the Abrahamic promise and its relation to the narrative of redemption in
Exodus and Deuteronomy come to fulfillment in the Isaianic good news and
the eschatological redemption it discloses.193 With reference to the narrative

193
This is evident in Romans 1–4 in the progression from world captivity typified in Is-
rael (Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5; Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8), to the fulfillment of redemption
through allusion to the sacrifice of the Isaianic Servant (Rom 3:21–26). This redemption,
then, is framed as the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham (Rom 4:1–25), which
promise comes to be expressed through allusion to Isaiah 53 and the messianic sacrifice of
the Servant of the Lord (Rom 4:25; see Appendix). This relation between the Abrahamic
promise, the deuteronomic curse of captivity to which the promise applies, and redemption
as expressed through Isaiah is seen most clearly in the movement from Rom 9:6–10:16, in
which the Abrahamic promise, along with the “seed of the blessing,” comes to fulfillment
in the Isaianic gospel and the exilic remnant that is formed on the basis of faith in the
messianic Servant. Israel’s longed-for redemption as against the covenant curse is then
realized through the Isaianic Redeemer who atones for sin (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21;
27:9), creating strong intertextual connections with Romans 1–4.
There is a similar complex of thought in Romans 5–8, though focusing on the exodus
narrative as it comes to be fulfilled in the new exodus of Isaiah; see, e.g., chapter two,
footnote 167 below.
64 Chapter One: Introduction

of Deuteronomy, Isaiah is used by Paul both to express the fulfillment of the

covenant curse of exile (Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5), as well as its promised resolu-
tion in ultimate and final redemption; 194 and within this framework its good
news is used to fulfill the law as both answer to its curse and fulfillment of its
promise in the justification granted through the Servant’s sacrifice. In fact,
Paul quotes Isaiah twice in instances in which Isaiah is itself alluding to Gen-
esis, and in a way that conveys a remarkably coherent conception of these
themes. The quotations focus the resolution of the Abrahamic promise and its
seed, within the context of judgment and exile, upon the remnant formed
through faith in the Isaianic Servant and the good news of his saving act
(Rom 9:27–29). Further, Isaiah’s unique concept of messianic sacrifice unites
the later messianic development of the pentateuchal narrative in other parts of
scripture (e.g., 2 Samuel 7; Psalm 2) with the Pentateuch’s major cultic, sacri-
ficial and redemptive themes. The prophecy’s revelation of righteousness in
the messianic sacrifice, issuing in justification and redemption not only inte-
grates forensic and participationist categories, but unites (as mentioned
above) the various facets of eschatological fulfillment and so conveys a nu-
anced eschatological vision.
Paul’s use of Isaiah as his scriptural hermeneutical key, moreover, inte-
grates through its typology not only the various sacrificial and redemptive
types, but – integrally related to this and likewise based in the messianic
sacrifice – Isaiah’s typology integrates the redemption of Israel with the re-
demption of the world.195 Building upon the latent (or implicit) typology of
Deuteronomy’s narrative within its wider pentateuchal context, Isaiah pre-
sents Israel’s exile as both an expression and portrayal of humanity’s captiv-
ity to sin and death as stemming from the primeval curse,196 and so points to

194
Rom 3:21–26 (as against the theme of Israel’s captivity and curse [Rom 2:24/Isa
52:5; Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8]); Rom 8:3–4, 32–35 (see Appendix); Rom 11:26–27/Isa
59:20–21; 27:9.
195
This, as will become evident in the thesis, tells strongly against Wright’s conception
of Christ bearing the curse exclusively for Israel. See, e.g., chapter three, pp. 161–62.
196
As this thesis will argue, this relation is evident throughout Romans. In anticipation,
briefly note, e.g., the expression of this relation in condensed form in Romans 1:1–7, with
the alignment of gospel, Son, and resurrection; in the typological conjunction of Adam,
Israel and humanity in Romans 1:18–32, particularly in relation to the Isaianic expression
of exile in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5; in the plight of Adam as remedied by allusive references to
Isaiah (Rom 5:12–21), within the broader allusive framework of the Isaianic redemptive
return to the glory of God (chapters 5–8; conveyed in large part by the exodus narrative,
but fulfilled in the Isaianic redemption through the sacrifice of the Servant and subsequent
leading by the Spirit [cf., e.g., Isa 63; see Appendix for allusions]); in the universal nature
of the promise to Abraham (as blessing countering the curse, cf. Rom 4:1–12) as it comes
to consummate expression in the Isaianic gospel (Rom 9:1–10:16 [note esp. Rom 10:15–
16/Isa 52:7; 53:1]), and comes to realization for Israel in the Isaianic Redeemer (Rom
 II. Preliminary Considerations 65

the nature of the messianic sacrifice as the fundamental and climactic mo-
ment of redemption for the entire race; and therefore also as the sole basis of
Israel’s final redemption and recreation through the new covenant. Hence, it
thoroughly integrates the various narratives expressed by Wright and creates
through the messianic sacrifice the necessary scriptural bridge that spans the
gap between exile and restoration.
Wright’s work, in fact, adds considerable support to the thesis that Paul’s
primary scriptural framework is based upon Isaiah’s redemptive narrative
centering in the good news. This support may be given in the form of succes-
sive assertions which together point to a coherent and central use of Isaiah.
As a sampling, Wright asserts that: Paul reads Isaiah, particularly Isaiah 40–
55, as a narrative whole;197 the prophetic books, and especially Isaiah, fill out
the narrative of Deuteronomy; 198 the messianic, interpretive trajectory rooted
in the Abrahamic promise and coming to expression in texts such as 2 Samuel
7 and Psalm 2 is reflected in Isaiah 40–55;199 Isa 52:7–12 expresses Israel’s
eshatological hope in divine return and rescue from exile;200 Paul’s gospel is
derived from Isa 40:9 and 52:7 and was central to his theology; 201 Paul’s
apostolic consciousness is derived from Isaiah;202 Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5
in Rom 2:24 both recalls the narrative of covenant curse and exile and points
to the sacrifice of the Servant/Christ in Rom 3:21–26; 203 Rom 3:21–26 has an
Isaianic scriptural backdrop that is contextually related to and includes Rom
4:25.204 In terms of Wright’s own analysis discussed above, Isaiah provides
within its own theological framework a (if not the) primary source of the
scriptural redefinition of monotheism,205 election,206 and eschatology. 207

11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9), in direct intertextual relation within both Romans and Isaiah
with Rom 3:21–26 and Isaiah 53, respectively.
(It is interesting, also, to consider the possible relation of Rom 16:20 to Rom 16:25–26;
that is, the possible relation between the allusive reference to Gen 3:15 and the crushing of
the serpent’s head [in Romans, by believers], and the establishment of believers according
to Paul’s gospel.)
197
Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 846, 905.
198
Ibid., 734–36, 1246–47, 1453–55, 1464–65.
199
Ibid., 119.
200
Ibid., 1051.
201
Ibid., 44, 410–11.
202
Ibid., 557–58, 564.
203
Ibid., 812–14.
204
Ibid., 845–46, 996–1000.
205
Note, e.g., his statement (Ibid., 679), “The God who abandoned Israel at the exile,
because of idolatry and sin, but who promised to return one day, as he had done in Exodus
after the threat of withdrawing his ‘presence’, has returned at last in and as Jesus the
Messiah” (italics his). Then, speaking of Isaiah 40–55, he states (681), “It is, in particular,
a central statement, perhaps the central statement, of the return of YHWH to Zion.” He goes
on (682), “And the ‘servant’, in the final climactic poem, is finally identified as ‘the arm of
66 Chapter One: Introduction

These various considerations point to the possibility that while Wright’s

thesis concerning Deuteronomy’s narrative of covenant, curse, exile and
restoration is indeed prominent, and even foundational in Paul’s thought, Paul
understands Isaiah’s redemptive narrative centering in the proclamation of
good news as a more comprehensive and integrating theological framework,
and so employs that great prophetic text as his primary scriptural source for
understanding and explicating the gospel he so passionately proclaims in
Romans. As Wright himself states, particularly in light of his above asser-
tions,
This is all about the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30 . . . covenant renewal and the end of
exile. It is all about God’s righteousness revealed in the good news of the Messiah for the
benefit of all who believe. That is, after all what Paul had said the letter was to be about,
right back in 1.16–17, itself based on 1.3–5.208

With the thesis stated, the approach to the investigation articulated, and the
historical plausibility of the Isaianic nature of Paul’s gospel asserted, and
having surveyed the recent challenges to understanding Isaiah as the predom-
inant scriptural source of Paul’s redemptive narrative centering in the good
news, the study now turns to the opening of the epistle of Romans itself, in
which a description of Paul’s gospel comes immediately into view.

YHWH, albeit unrecognizable in his shameful and disfigured state (53.1).” See 646–56,
680–89, esp. 681–82.
206
Ibid., see esp. 850–51.
207
Ibid., e.g., 756, 770, 1051.
208
Ibid., 1164.
 Chapter Two

The Isaianic Gospel – Paul’s use of Isaiah in

Romans 1:1–17

Paul opens his great epistle with the words, “Paul, a bond-servant of Christ
Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised
beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures . . .” The character of
this gospel as sourced in scripture is a leading and continuing theme of the
epistle. Paul, however, was not the first to proclaim this “good news.” The
proclamation began with Jesus himself, who, after his baptism and tempta-
tion, “. . . came into Galilee, preaching the gospel (euvagge,lion) of God, and
saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and
believe in the gospel’” (Mark 1:14–15). As discussed above, Paul openly
acknowledged his dependence upon apostolic tradition (e.g., 1 Cor 15:1–4ff),
tradition by and large eventually inscripturated in the four canonical gospels.
Therefore, the likely Isaianic nature of the “good news” as reflected in the
gospels becomes an important initial clue to the nature of Paul’s gospel in
Romans.

I. Romans 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant and

the Conquest of Death
I. Rom 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant
The introductory verses of Rom 1:1–6 present a very condensed summary of
the gospel containing several elements that, in conjunction with the use of the
term itself, recall various facets of the redemptive narrative of Isaiah. The
passage incorporates other scriptural allusions such as 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm
2, yet in these opening verses the gospel discloses the Messiah’s conquest of
sin and death on behalf of his people, 1 so that this message becomes the con-
tent of the subsequent apostolic mission of proclamation (particularly to the
Gentiles) – an integrated set of themes that uniquely reflect Isaiah. These
1
The Messiah’s conquest of sin is implicit in these verses and based upon elements
such as the description of Paul as “set apart” (v. 1) for the gospel; the description of those
embracing this message as “saints” (v. 7); the intertextual connection between Rom 1:4
and 4:25 centering in the resurrection, which in the latter verse is described as the basis of
justification; and so also the relation of this passage to the argument of Romans 1–4 as a
whole. Cf. e.g., Rom 5:12–21; 6:23. See the continuing discussion.
68 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

verses, then, introduce and augment the Isaianic nature of the gospel as more
thoroughly described in both Rom 1:16–17 and 3:21–26.
Paul’s identity in relation to the gospel was that of an apostle (avpo,stoloj,
v. 1), one specifically chosen by the risen Christ and sent (avposte,llw) as a
herald of the good news. This identity, though doubtless derived from his
commission by the risen Christ on the Damascus road, nevertheless finds one
of its primary scriptural sources in Isa 52:7. The text depicts a messenger
carrying the good news to Zion of God’s redemption of his people from cap-
tivity [in Babylon]. Paul in Rom 10:15 quotes this verse specifically as a
scriptural expression of the concept of “being sent” by God,2 yet with several
changes to the text that reflect an adaptation to Christian mission. 3 These
modifications, especially in light of his use of these themes in the opening
verses of the epistle (Rom 1:1–5), point to his deliberate self-identification
with the herald of Isa 52:7 and hence to a primary source for his apostolic
self-consciousness. 4 His use of the term gospel itself, therefore, especially (as

2
pw/j de. khru,xwsin eva.n mh. avpostalw/sinÈ kaqw.j ge,graptai\ w`j w`rai/oi oi` po,dej tw/n
euvaggelizome,nwn Îta.Ð avgaqa,Å
Evans (“Gospel to Gospel,” 687–89) notes several possible allusions to Isa 61:1 in Ro-
mans 10, particularly 10:15 with its combination of the terms khru,ssein and avposte,llein.
Strengthening this allusion, he notes as well the linguistic and conceptual connections
between Isa 61:1 and 52:7 centering on the term euvaggeli,zesqai (employed in the quota-
tion of 52:7), which further anchors the concept of “apostle” in Isaiah.
See also Peter Stuhlmacher, “The Pauline Gospel,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed.
P. Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 149–72. For the argument that the NT’s
concept of “apostle” is sourced in Isaiah, see also F. Hahn, “Der Apostolat im
Urchristentum: Seine Eigenart und seine Voraussetzungen,” KD 20 (1974): 54–77.
3
Paul’s quotation is closer to the MT than the LXX, though this could be the result of
following an LXX version that had been revised to be closer to the Hebrew (so Stanley,
Paul, 134–41; Wagner, Heralds, 170–73). Wagner notes (173) that Paul’s changes include,
for instance, the dropping of the phrase “upon the mountains” in order to be more applica-
ble “. . . to the broader geographical scope of Christian proclamation, which includes
Gentiles as well as Jews.” It includes as well the transformation of the single herald (MT
and LXX) of 52:7 to the multiple ambassadors of Rom 10:15, to depict the many Christian
preachers of the gospel.
4
Regarding Paul’s use of euvagge,lion in Rom 10:16 as an obvious equivalent to the
message of tw/n euvaggelizome,nwn in 10:15, Wagner states (ibid., 174), “That Paul sees his
own ministry of proclamation prefigured in Isaiah 52:7 is further supported by the parallel
he draws between the message proclaimed by the heralds of Isaiah’s oracle and his own
gospel.”
Isa 52:7 as the scriptural source of Paul’s apostolic self-understanding is also supported
by Craig Evans, “Gospel to Gospel,” 687–91. He states (689–90), “The evidence suggests
that for Paul the good tidings of Isaiah, especially Isa 52:7, formed the principal scriptural
foundation of his understanding of the euvagge,lion that he so energetically proclaimed.” See
also N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 557–58, 564.
Richard Hays (Conversion, 4) believes that Paul’s apostolic identity and mission stem
from Isa 49, as seen in Gal 1:15–16 and 2 Cor 6:2. While this might be partially true, the
 I. Rom 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant 69

will be seen) in light of the larger complex of ideas in both the introductory
and thematic verses, seems certainly to be derived from Isaiah.5
His description of himself as “set apart for the gospel of God”
(avfwrisme,noj eivj euvagge,lion qeou; v. 1) is a cultic expression reflecting the
separation of both the line of Aaron (e.g., Exod 29:24–26) as well as the
Levites (Num 8:11) to their priestly/cultic service. The term avf ori,zw (MT:
@wn used in reference to the “wave offering”) is used in these texts to describe
this “setting apart” under the metaphor of an offering, combining the ideas of
self-sacrifice and priestly/cultic service. This fitness of both the priests and
Levites for their holy service was necessarily preceded by a sin offering
(Exod 29:10–14; Num 8:12), a combination of themes reflected in Rom 12:1,
in which the fitness of Paul’s Christian brethren in Rome to present them-
selves as a living and holy sacrifice is based in the sacrifice of Christ.6

allusion to the Servant of the Lord in 2 Cor 5:21 (cf. 2 Cor 5:19–6:2ff), specifically in light
of the co-laborer theme (2 Cor 6:1), points to his self-understanding as derivative, based
upon the Person and work of the Servant (see Gignilliat, Paul and Isaiah’s Servants, 53–
54, 108ff, and above, pp. 12–13). Therefore Paul’s apostolic identity seems situated more
properly in Isaiah 52 with its specific verbal links to the term “apostle” as one who was
sent as a bearer of good news.
5
Concerning Paul’s use of the term euvagge,lion, N. T. Wright states, “There is no doubt
in my mind that when Paul uses it he is evoking the cognate verb in Isaiah 40.9 and 52.7:
the ‘good news’ of Jesus the Messiah is the fulfillment of the ‘good news’ envisaged in
that central prophetic passage” (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 44; see also 410). See
also, e.g., Craig S. Keener, Romans: A New Covenant Commentary, NCCS 6 (Eugene, OR:
Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009), 20.
Ben Witherington recognizes in Paul’s use of the term “gospel” a subtle, anti-imperial
polemic. He states, “In light of the use of this term of emperors at their births or when they
accomplished something dramatic, it is also clear that Paul intends an implicit anti-imperial
sort of rhetoric. The one who really offers salvation and true Good News for human beings
is the God who has sent Jesus and raised him from the dead.” Ben Witherington III, Paul’s
Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, assisted by Darlene Hyatt (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 31–32.
6
On the sacrificial imagery in Rom 12:1, see James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, WBC
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988), 708–12. Dunn (708) notes the contrast
between a rebellious humanity in Romans 1–3 and the redeemed humanity in Rom 12:1–2,
fit for holy sacrifice and service. Cranfield states that the term latrei,a of Rom 12:1 (the
LXX translation of hd'Ab[]), when used in relation to God “. . . almost always in the OT
denotes cultic service” (C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans, Vol. II: Commentary on Romans IX-XVI and Essays, ICC [London:
T&T clark, 1979], 601). This use of the term is clearly reflected in Rom 9:4 concerning
which Cranfield writes (463), “There is no doubt that in referring to h` latrei,a Paul had in
mind primarily the sacrificial cultus, the Temple service of Israel, as the true worship of
the true God, in contrast to all worship devised of men’s own hearts (cf. 1 Kgs 12:33) the
worship appointed and ordered by God Himself, that cultus, which (as Paul understood it)
had from its beginning pointed forward to Christ and His redeeming work.”
70 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

Paul’s use of this cultic metaphor with respect to his apostolic ministry of
the gospel comes out again most notably in Rom 15:16 in which he describes
himself “. . . ministering as a priest the gospel of God, that my offering of the
Gentiles might become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (cf. Rom
12:1–2).7 This priestly ministry, particularly in uncharted gospel territory, is
to fulfill another aspect of gospel proclamation recounted in his quotation of
Isa 52:15 in Rom 15:21, “They who had no news of Him shall see, And they
who have not heard shall understand.” This verse becomes for Paul the scrip-
tural basis of his mission strategy in carrying the gospel to the Gentiles. This
Isaianic mission strategy is reflected in Rom 1:8–15 as the apostle seeks to
secure a base of operations in Rome for his mission to Spain.
Interestingly, a similar priestly metaphor is used in Isaiah just a few verses
before Isa 52:15. It is situated between Isa 52:7 and 52:15, the scriptural
sources for Paul’s apostolic identity and mission strategy, respectively. Isa
52:11 in the LXX reads, “Depart ye, depart, go out from thence, and touch
not the unclean thing; go ye out from the midst of her; separate yourselves
(avfori,sqhte), ye that bear the vessels of the Lord.” The apostle, in fact, uses
this very verse in 2 Corinthians to describe Christians as God’s holy people,
his temple, who now have privileged access to the presence of God through
the sacrifice of Christ (2 Cor 6:17; cf. 2 Cor 5:21/Isa 53:10).8 The verse in the
context of Isaiah creates a contrast not only with the portrayal of Israel cap-
tive in its sin and separated from God in chapters 40–51 (e.g., Isa 50:1), but
within the movement of the prophecy as a whole creates a stark and deliber-
ate contrast with the depiction of the nation in chapter 6. The deliberate na-
ture of this contrast becomes particularly evident through the use of cultic
terminology to depict the standing of the nation before its God. In the earlier,
programmatic chapter, the prophet Isaiah himself, in solidarity with and rep-
resenting his people (including the priests; e.g., Isa 24:2; 28:7), stands undone
in his sin and uncleanness before the glory and holiness of the Lord. In Isa
52:11, on the other hand, redeemed Israel under the metaphor of the priestly
and levitical class is now holy, and therefore called upon to separate them-
selves and touch nothing unclean (cf. Isa 61:6).9 As the prophecy continues

7
Cranfield (ibid., 754–57) here argues for a levitical rather than priestly background to
Rom 15:16.
8
This satisfies Hays’ criteria of recurrence. On Paul’s use of this text, see Ralph P.
Martin, 2 Corinthians, WBC (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986), 205–6. In 2 Cor 6:18 there
are additional allusions to the “sonship” of the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7) as the basis
of the “sonship” of the people of God (cf. Isa 43:6; 54:1, 13; 55:3), similar to Rom 1:3–5;
8:1ff . Martin, moreover, along with other scholars, sees 2 Cor 5:21 as an allusion to Isaiah
53:10 and the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord (157).
9
Though Babylon is in the background here (cf. Ezra 1:7–8), the allusion is to a bond-
age much more fundamental, and the reference to the redeemed people as a whole. See
Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), 406–7;
 I. Rom 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant 71

they are ultimately conceived as both sacrifice and priest (Isa 66:20–21; cf.
Rom 12:1–2).
Essential to the logic of this transition, both within the prophecy itself and
especially within Paul’s reading of its larger redemptive movements, is the
sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord[/Jesus Christ].10 This sacrifice, which
Paul presents in 3:21–26 as the antitypical sacrifice, effects this most funda-
mental cleansing and redemption, and thereby discloses the basis of the sacri-
ficial efficacy of the coal from the altar in Isaiah 6. Paul’s expression “set
apart for the gospel,” then, very likely reflects this priestly/levitical concep-
tion in relation to Isaiah’s proclamation of good news, particularly as far as
that proclamation is understood to convey the true sacrificial efficacy of the
Servant as the basis of atonement and redemption, a sacrifice that renders the
redeemed people fit for both the divine presence and service.11
Rom 1:2 not only establishes the source of the gospel as the OT scriptures,
but characterizes the scriptures as having the nature of promise (cf. Rom 3:2–
3), a promise that in all respects is related to and comes to realization in the
gospel.12 Rom 1:3–4 briefly describes the subject matter of the gospel as
“. . . concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according
to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection
from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord . . .”
In this short space the apostle sets forth a high christology that becomes the

John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998), 371–73; Westermann, Isaiah, 252–53. Westermann writes, “This command to
depart is that to which the entire message of Deutero-Isaiah has been leading up. It started
with God’s call, ‘Comfort my people’ . . . It would be quite wrong to regard its develop-
ment in vv. 11f. as a literal description of the departure from Babylon” (252).
On the metaphorical nature of this priestly and levitical allusion, Childs comments
(Isaiah, 406–7), “. . . there is no mention of Babylon . . . The issue is hardly one of geogra-
phy.” He sees the reference of this allusion to the redeemed people “. . . who bear the holy
name of Yahweh.” He asserts, moreover, the strong coherence of 52:11–12 with both 52:1–
6 and 52:7–10, as well as the manner in which verses 11–12 “. . . draw out the effect of the
hymn of praise in vv. 7–10 . . .”
10
See, e.g., Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 51.
11
In terms of the criteria discussed above, this allusion would have a low degree of vol-
ume, yet its probability as an allusion is strengthened by the criterion of recurrence, as
well as its thematic coherence with both the context of Isaiah and Paul’s continuing use of
the prophecy. In this respect also, it appears to tie into the larger Isaianic framework.
On the content of the gospel as the atoning, redemptive sacrifice of Christ derived pri-
marily from the sacrifice of the Servant of Isaiah 53, see on Rom 3:21–26 in chapter four
below.
12
E.g., John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1997), 4.
This relation, e.g., implicitly connects the OT promise as originally given to Abraham
to the fulfillment of the promise in the Isaianic gospel, a relation that surfaces through
allusion in Romans 4 (see vv. 22–25 and Appendix).
72 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

basis of his soteriology, a soteriology that fulfills God’s covenant promises of

redemption, signified by the resurrection. 13 Paul brings together in these vers-
es messianic and servant theology, as the messianic Son is conceived as con-
quering death in behalf of his people. 14 It is this very connection that points
most clearly to Isaiah as the backdrop to this condensed gospel summary.
The theme of the son of David as God’s Son recalls the Davidic covenant
in 2 Samuel 7 which is reiterated in such significant OT texts as Psalm 2, a
Psalm quoted several times in the NT with reference to Christ’s resurrection
and installation as messianic king at God’s right hand (Acts 13:33; Heb 1:3–5
[cf. v. 13]; 5:5; cf. Acts 2:14–36).15 These themes, however, rooted in the
Abrahamic promise of blessing and restored inheritance, surface preeminent-
ly in Isaiah, particularly in Isaiah 40–55 as it stands in intertextual relation to
the earlier chapters of the prophecy.16
Within the messianic motif of the OT, the term “son” in the Davidic cove-
nant naturally lent itself to a unique relational role that the Messiah sustained

13
This emphasis on christology as the basis of soteriology is characteristic of the NT.
Roland Deines, e.g., points out the essential christological basis of righteousness and
salvation within the theological framework of Matthew’s gospel. See his helpful and per-
ceptive study, “Not the Law but the Messiah: Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of
Matthew – An Ongoing Debate,” in Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Mat-
thew, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 73–75.
14
This bringing together of messianic and servant theology is a common element in the
synoptics. See above, pp. 33–39.
15
In Acts 13 Luke recounts a sermon given by Paul in which the “good news” is simi-
larly described in terms of the resurrection as a fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. To
support the resurrection of the Messiah Paul quotes both Ps 2:7 (Acts 13:33) and Ps 16:10
(Acts 13:35). Yet in this sermon Paul also supports the resurrection from Isa 55:3 which he
quotes in verse 34 (between the above-mentioned Psalm quotes). In light of his use of
euvaggeli,zw in 13:32 (cf. Isa 52:7), these “sure blessings of David” (Acts 13:33/Isa 55:3)
are ostensibly granted by virtue of the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord (Isaiah 53) and
the covenant He mediates through His sacrificial death (Isa 55:3). It appears, therefore, that
in Paul’s sermon as described in Acts 13 the Davidic covenant is taken up and fulfilled in
the covenant inaugurated by the Servant of the Lord. This thesis argues that this same type
of covenantal continuity and fulfillment is presented by Paul in Romans and derived in
large part from Isaiah (and includes the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants).
Cf. also Acts 2:14–36 in which Peter uses Psalms 16 and 110 as a scriptural basis for
the resurrection of the Messiah. On the NT use of Psalm 110 with reference to Christ’s
resurrection, see, e.g., 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 8:1; 10:12; 12:2.
16
See, e.g., N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 119. He states, “The great
single poem we know as Isaiah 40–55 looks back to Abraham in order to ground the prom-
ise that YHWH will again comfort Zion, sending the apparently messianic ‘servant’ and
thereby making the Davidic promises available to all who are thirsty.” He cites Isa 41:8;
51:2; and 55:1–3.
 I. Rom 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant 73

in relation to the Lord that included an ontological dimension.17 This ontolog-

ical dimension surfaces in a remarkable fashion in Isaiah 9 and 11, in which
the Davidic “son” who will sit upon the throne of David is described in sev-
eral phrases which point to his divine nature.18 This royal, divine figure is
then described in chapter 11 as the “root of Jesse” (Isa 11:10) in whom the
nations come to trust, the very verse that Paul uses as his one explicit scrip-
tural citation of the coming Davidic Messiah as the object of Gentile faith
(Rom 15:12).19
This connection with Isaiah is tightened significantly as one observes that
Paul not only draws his messianic concept from Isaiah, he uses Isaiah to link

17
See Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of
Jewish-Hellenistic Religion, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 57–
83 (esp. 64, note 117).
18
On the divine nature of the Messiah in Isaiah 9 and 11, see Childs, Isaiah, 81; John
D. Davis, “The Child Whose Name is Wonderful,” in Biblical and Theological Studies
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912), 91–108; Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 246–48. On the
inadequate attempt by some commentators to evade the divine element in Isaiah 9 by
positing a correspondence to the Egyptian throne names, see Oswalt, 246–47.
N. T. Wright discusses the various proposals for the source of the high christology in
the NT (see Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 646–56), paying rightful homage to “. . . the
late great Tübingen scholar Martin Hengel . . .” for his considerable and ground-breaking
work in this field (647; mentioning the monograph cited in the above note). After consider-
ing, and to an extent concurring, with the possible relative contribution of several scholars,
and offering particular credence to Richard Bauckham’s view of the christology of divine
identity (R. J. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: ‘God Crucified’ and Other Studies
on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity [Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009]), he argues for his own position as a refinement of
Bauckham’s proposal. He states, “The long-awaited return of YHWH to Zion is, I suggest,
the hidden clue to the origin of christology” (654). He then goes on to assert the central
role of Isaiah 40–55 in this regard (see 681–82), stating, “It is, in particular, a central
statement, perhaps the central statement, of the return of YHWH to Zion” (681). He goes on
(682), “And the ‘servant’, in the final climactic poem, is finally identified as ‘the arm of
YHWH’, albeit unrecognizable in his shameful and disfigured state (53.1).”
19
Childs (Isaiah, 100–104) notes the role of Isaiah 11 in drawing together the major
themes of the previous chapters, especially its theological development of the messianic
prophecy of Isaiah 9.
On the link between Rom 1:3–4 and 15:12 in terms of messiahship and resurrection, see
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 818–20. He indicates that the quotation of Isa
11:10 in Rom 15:12 is used by Paul to support the resurrection of Christ, as the root of
Jesse is described as One who “. . . arises to rule over the Gentiles . . .” On this link be-
tween Rom 1:3–4 and 15:12, see also J. R. Daniel Kirk, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection
and the Justification of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008).
Richard Hays, e.g., views, Rom 15:7–13 as the letter’s rhetorical climax (Conversion,
114), which is capped off with Paul’s citation of Isa 11:10 (Rom 15:12). The link between
this text and the letters opening strengthens the argument for the Isaianic nature of the
introductory verses of the epistle.
74 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

the concept of Messiah with that of the Servant of the Lord who dies a sacri-
fice for sin. In Rom 3:21–26 God’s redemptive righteousness mediated
through his Messiah (vv. 22, 24) is achieved through the Messiah’s self-
sacrifice; this sacrifice, it will be argued, allusively recalls the sacrificial
death of the Servant of the Lord. The significance of the redemptive death of
Christ is, in fact, subsequently described in Romans through recognized allu-
sive references to the death of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 (e.g., Rom
4:25 [Ellis, Shum, Wagner, Wilk]; see further in the Appendix). In Rom 8:32
Paul describes the fact that God “did not spare His own Son,” so that it was
God’s Son (cf. Isa 9:6–7; 11:1, 10) who was “delivered . . . up for us all,” a
phrase recalling Isaiah 53 and the Lord’s delivering up the Servant to death
for the sins of his people (53:6 [Shum, Wagner, Wilk]; 53:11–12 [Wagner];
see Appendix).20
Paul’s linking of Messiah and Servant within Isaiah could well have origi-
nated, at least in part, from the prophecy’s use of the term “root” (LXX: r`i,za;
MT: vr,vo) in Isa 11:10 (quoted by Paul in Rom 15:12), a term which is ap-
plied to the Servant in Isa 53:2.21 This ostensible intertextual identification of
the Servant of Isaiah 53 with the messianic Son of chapters 9 and 11,22 how-
ever, is but one aspect of the relationship between these sections of the
prophecy that is much more involved, a relationship that strengthens this
identification. The early messianic chapters of Isaiah 9 and 11 are conceptual-
ly linked with and further developed in Isaiah 40–55, particularly in the so
called “Servant Songs.” This conceptual link and development primarily
involves the messianic mediation of God’s universal, righteous rule, which in
chapters 40–55 is achieved through the Servant of the Lord.23 This link is

20
The closest linguistic connection is with LXX of Isa 53:6, which reads, ku,rioj
pare,dwken auvto.n tai/j a`marti,aij h`mw/n; Rom 8:[31-]32 has [o` qeo.j] . . . u`pe.r h`mw/n pa,ntwn
pare,dwken auvto,n. Yet the context of this “delivering up” in Romans 8, in light of v. 3, is
clearly God delivering up Christ as a sacrifice for sin. Rom 8:3 is itself another likely
allusion to Isaiah (peri. a`marti,aj; cf. Isa 53:10).
On the additional allusion in Rom 8:32 to the sacrifice of Isaac, see Wright, The Faith-
fulness of God, 904–5.
21
Within Isaiah itself, however, several scholars view the identification of the Messiah
and Servant as derived from the description of David as God’s servant. See note 23 below.
22
For this identification via the term “root,” see, e.g., F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the
Old Testament, VII: Isaiah, trans. James Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 [reprint]),
303, 312; J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Down-
ers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 427–28.
23
For the relationship between and identification of the Servant and Messiah in Isaiah,
see Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the
Book,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition,
ed. C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans, 2 vols., VTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 158. Blen-
kinsopp notes the messianic use of the term db,[, particularly with reference to David and
Solomon and the future, ideal Davidic ruler. It is this usage, he states, which “. . . provides
 I. Rom 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant 75

further forged by a similar “high christology” with regard to the Servant of

the Lord, who is described in terms reserved in Isaiah solely for God (Isa
52:13).24
Paul’s understanding of Jesus as messianic Servant in Romans, moreover,
is directly related to his understanding of Jesus’ divine nature. This high
christology in relation to both his messianic identity and his Servant role as
sacrificial substitute is conveyed by two verses (respectively) that are them-
selves echoes and expansions of the thought of the apostle in Rom 1:3–4.
First, Rom 8:1–3 presents Christ as the preexistent Son who was sent by God
“. . . in the likeness of sinful flesh . . . as an offering for sin . . .” This offer-
ing, a likely allusion to Isaiah, provides the basis of humanity’s restoration to
sonship and eschatological glory through resurrection (Rom 8:23, 28–30),

a prima facie justification for those who identify the db,[, of the four Isaian ‘songs’ with a
royal figure . . .” See also H. G. M. Williamson, Variations on a theme: King, Messiah and
Servant in the Book of Isaiah (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1998).
Evans (“Isaiah 53,” 152) likewise understands the messianic interpretation of the Serv-
ant as stemming from the description of David as God’s servant (e.g., Ps 18:1), a descrip-
tion present in Isaiah in the significant transition between the first and second sections of
the prophecy (Isa 37:35).
On the theme of royalty in the “Servant Songs,” see Otto Kaiser, Der königliche Knecht
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962). Others who hold to the identity of the Mes-
siah of chapters 9 and 11 with the Servant of the “Servant Songs” include, e.g., I. Engnell,
“The ‘Ebed-Yahweh’ Songs and the Suffering Messiah in “Deutero-Isaiah,’” BJRL 31.1
(1948): 54–95; Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 109–10.
For discussion of the messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 in the pre-Christian period,
see Hengel, “Effective History,” 75–146. On the messianic interpretation in the Isaiah
Targum in particular, see, e.g., Jostein Ådna, “The Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and
Interceding Messiah: The Reception of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 in the Targum of Isaiah with
Special Attention to the Concept of the Messiah,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in
Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stühlmacher, trans. Daniel P.
Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).
24
As Oswalt observes (Isaiah, 378–79), the phrase “he will be high and lifted up”
( nIw> ~Wry" ) used to describe the Servant of the Lord in Isa 52:13 is used three other times
aF'
in the OT, only in Isaiah (6:1; 33:10; 57:15), and only of God. This phrase used in con-
junction with the description of the Servant as “greatly exalted” (daom. Hb;g") recalls Isa 2:6–
22. The setting is the eschatological reckoning in which God will humble the arrogance
and pride of man, so that “the Lord alone will be exalted in that day.” Verses 11–12 read,
“The proud look of man will be abased, And the loftiness (~Wr) of man will be humbled,
And the LORD alone will be exalted in that day. For the LORD of hosts will have a day of
reckoning Against everyone who is proud and lofty (~Wr), And against everyone who is
lifted up (afn), That he may be abased.”
This exaltation of the Servant, moreover, is believed by scholars to stand behind Paul’s
well-known kenosis passage, in which the deity of Christ as the backdrop to His self-
humiliation is a leading theme. See, e.g., M. Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians,
BNTC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 135–36.
76 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

anticipated now in the recreated life granted by the Spirit (Rom 8:1–11).25
Second, Rom 9:5 presents the Messiah as deriving his human nature from his
Israeli/Davidic descent (cf. Rom 15:12), though he is, in fact, “. . . over all,
God blessed forever,”26 concepts similarly paired in Rom 1:3. So as a man in
the line of the messianic seed of David, Christ mediates and fulfills the cove-
nant promises of salvation to God’s people, but only as he takes the sinner’s
place as sacrificial substitute; as God, however, he could take the place of all
the fallen humanity issuing from Adam, with his atoning sacrifice effecting
recreation. This concept of redemptive recreation through the mediation of
the Servant of the Lord will be seen to be a prominent element of Isaiah 40–
55. In view of the fact that Paul draws both messianic and servant roles from
Isaiah, it would seem likely that Paul’s high christology, which forms the
basis of his soteriology, is likewise drawn significantly from the Great Proph-
et.27
Rom 1:3–4, therefore, presents an intriguing parallelism and historical
progression as the preexistent Son first becomes the incarnate Son in the line
of David, and then is declared or installed Son of God at his resurrection (cf.
Ps 110:1).28 His nature as “. . . born of a descendent of David according to the

25
Ellis views Rom 8:3 as a possible allusion to Isa 53:10 by virtue of the identical
phrase peri. a`marti,aj. See Appendix.
26
On qe,oj in Rom 9:5 as referring to Christ who is by nature “God,” see esp. Murray J.
Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 143–72.
27
These considerations evidence the criterion of thematic development. Paul, following
Isaiah, links the messianic and servant concepts, both of which he clearly draws from
Isaiah in other passages in Romans. This linking of messianic and servant concepts, based
in christology, then becomes the basis of soteriology – Isaiah’s redemptive recreation. In
terms of the criteria for the relative significance of Isaiah, this thematic development of
Isaiah also evidences great theological weight within its quoted context, and [anticipating
much of the study to come] ties into a demonstrable theological framework.
28
The parallelism and progressive nature of the description of Christ in Rom 1:3–4 is
supported, e.g., by Cranfield, Romans, 59–60; L. W. Hurtado, “Jesus’ Divine Sonship in
Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” 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 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 227, 228; Murray, Romans, 5–12. See also
Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 101–2.
Hurtado (221–23) notes the fact that seven of the seventeen references to Jesus as the
divine Son in the thirteen epistles traditionally attributed to Paul occur in Romans (1:3, 4,
9; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32), and four in Galatians (1:16; 2:20; 4:4, 6). “This clustering of refer-
ences in these two epistles suggests that Paul used divine-sonship rhetoric deliberately and
likely in connection with particular themes and emphases . . .” (222). He goes on to sug-
gest further that Paul’s use of divine-sonship language in the opening paragraph of Romans
1, a paragraph replete with the standard messianic title cristo,j (1:1, 4, 6, 7), points to a
“theological intentionality” used to convey Christ’s divine nature (223–224ff).
 I. Rom 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant 77

flesh . . .” (tou/ genome,nou evk spe,rmatoj Daui.d kata. sa,rka) marks the Messi-
ah’s role as the One who mediates the covenant blessing of Abraham (cf.
Rom 4:13; cf. also Rom 16:20), and so reclaims for humanity both sovereign-
ty and inheritance. This messianic seed, though having primary reference to
the covenant mediator (cf. Gal 3:16), has derivative reference to those who
come to faith in the covenant promises (the “blessed seed”), ultimately ex-
pressed within the realized-eschatological era as faith in the sacrificial, re-
demptive death[, burial] and resurrection of Christ/the Isaianic Servant of the
Lord (Rom 4:3–13, 23–25; 9:6–9, 27–33[ff]; cf. Rom 16:20).29 As this thesis
will argue, Paul understands Isaiah’s good news as ultimately dealing with
redemption from sin and death, symbolized and signified by the resurrection
of the Servant/Christ, in which believers now participate (Romans 6 and 8). It
is the resurrection of Christ that marks the fulfillment of this good news
(Rom 4:25/Isa 53:11–12 [Ellis, Shum, Wagner, Wilk]; see the Appendix) as
both eschatological reality and future hope (Rom 8:1–23). This present escha-
tological reality of recreation is expressed in the phrase “the obedience of
faith” in verse 5.30 Paul’s exposition of the saving event itself in the atoning
sacrifice of Christ, therefore, the center and foundation of the gospel, reflects
the Isaianic union of messianic and Servant concepts, both of which are thor-
oughly based in christology. 31
Though space prohibits the treatment of a topic more suited to the use of
Isaiah in Romans 8, the conjunction of the themes of the appointment of
Jesus as messianic Son in power by the resurrection of the dead, together with
the designation of the Roman Christians as “the called of Jesus Christ” (vv. 6,
7), warrants a few suggestions as to a possible Isaianic background. The
themes of sonship, calling, and election are integrally bound in Romans. As
L. W. Hurtado rightly observes, “Between the references to God’s sending of
his own Son in 8:3 and 8:29, Paul develops the theme of the divine sonship of
believers . . . [which] is clearly derivative of Jesus sonship.”32 This divine

For the background and significance of the title “Son of God” in Paul, particularly over
against a possible Hellenistic/pagan background, and with a focus on this very text, see
Hengel, The Son of God, esp. 57–83.
29
Alec Motyer (Isaiah, 427–28) sees these ideas brought together in Isa 53:1–2.
30
See esp. Glenn N. Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4,
JSNTSup 39 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990). Davies (26ff) argues convinc-
ingly for a genitive of origin.
31
For more on christology as the basis of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice, see below,
chapter four, note 111.
32
“Divine Sonship,” 230. On the connection with chapter one, he states (231), “Given
the accumulated scholarly demonstrations of Paul’s fondness for anticipating in letter
openings the themes he later addresses . . . the explicit discussion in Romans 8 is evidence
that the references to Jesus’ divine sonship in the opening chapter of his epistle were in-
tended in part to prepare readers for the more developed discussion later in the letter-body
here.”
78 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

sonship of Jesus, moreover, is inseparably linked to and forms the basis of the
elect status of the children of God, who are “. . . predestined to become con-
formed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many
brethren” (v. 29; see vv. 28–34).33 This relationship between Jesus’ divine
sonship and election becomes most intriguing in the allusions to Isa 50:8–9 in
Rom 8:33–34 (Ellis, Shum, Wilk; Wagner 50:8). In his allusion to this third
of the so-called “Servant Songs,” the apostle alters the first person confession
of the Servant of the Lord and his sure prospect of vindication to an assertion
of the vindicated status of the elect.
What is most interesting about this substitution, especially in light of
Paul’s use of the concepts of “calling” and “election” in 8:28–34, is that the
Servant himself in the first two Servant Songs is the One who is preeminently
the “called”34 and “elect”35 of God. This literary/textual substitution on the
part of the apostle, therefore, expresses the result of the sacrificial substitu-
tion of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53, which Paul alludes to in Rom
8:32 and 34 (Rom 8:32/Isa 53:6 Shum, Wagner, Wilk; Isa 53:11–12 Wagner;
Rom 8:34/Isa 53:12 Ellis), allusions which both immediately precede and
follow the allusions to Isaiah 50. Paul thus creates an allusive interplay be-
tween the Isaianic texts which not only conveys the sacrificial basis of both
the election and justification of believers, but grounds these divine actions in
the election and vindication of the Servant of the Lord, whom he identifies
with the Son of God (v. 32), Jesus Christ (v. 34). 36
Within the context of Isaiah, in fact, there is a narrowing of the concept of
the elect from the nation of Israel as a whole to a remnant within the nation.37
This movement is tersely epitomized in Isa 14:1 (cf. Isa 11:1), which serves
as the introduction to a taunt song against the king of Babylon, the cruel des-
pot to which the nation would be enslaved (v. 3). Arising out of this context

33
Ibid., 229ff.
34
Isa 42:6 MT qd<c,b. ^ytiar"q. hw"hy> ynIa]; LXX evgw. ku,rioj o` qeo.j evka,lesa, se evn
dikaiosu,nh; Isa 49:1 MT ynIa'r"q. !j,B,mi hw"hy>; LXX evk koili,aj mhtro,j mou evka,lesen to.
o;noma, mou.
35
Isa 42:1 MT yrIyxiB.; LXX o` evklekto,j mou; Isa 49:7 MT &'r<x'b.YIw: laer"f.yI vdoq.; LXX
evxelexa,mhn (from evkle,gw) se.
36
On the theme of “sonship” within the redemptive movements of Isaiah, which in-
cludes the theme of recreation, see, e.g., Isa 43:6–7; 45:11; 49:22, 25; 54:1, 13; 60:4, 9.
This theme is set in contrast with that of humanity (“flesh,” “man,” “the son of man;” see,
e.g., Isa 40:6–8; 51:12) as subject to death and dissolution.
37
Blenkinsopp (Sealed Book, 193–97) discusses the manner in which this narrowing of
the concept of the election of Israel gave rise to much of the sectarianism of the Hellenistic
period, including the Qumran community and early Christianity. This modified under-
standing of “the elect” so characteristic of Isaiah 40–66, he asserts, has conferred a dis-
tinctly Isaianic character on both the Qumran texts and the NT.
See also Mark Adam Elliott, The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology
of Pre-Christian Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).
 I. Rom 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant 79

in words reminiscent of Isaiah 40, the prophet declares, “. . . the LORD will
have compassion on Jacob, and again choose (rxb) Israel . . .”38 As Joseph
Blenkinsopp comments, “By speaking of a second election of Israel . . . it
combines the sense of a failed history now at its terminus with the prospect of
a new history. The identity of the bearers of this new history is already an
issue in the book of Isaiah . . .”39 This theme comes to the forefront in Isaiah
40–55 in which God’s chosen people (e.g., Isa 41:8, 9; 43:10, 20; 44:1, 2;
45:4), his remnant (Isa 45:25; 46:3), are ultimately identified as those who
have been redeemed by the Servant of the Lord (42:1ff; 49:1ff; 50:10; 53:10),
God’s chosen (Isa 42:1; 49:7), and so have entered into the covenant center-
ing in his Person and saving work (Isa 55:3). The election of Israel/the people
of God in Isaiah, therefore, is derivative, sourced in the elect status of the
Servant. 40 It would seem highly likely, therefore, that in Paul’s understand-
ing, the elect status of the Servant similarly provides the basis of the elect
status of Israel/the people of God, and so stands behind Paul’s thought in
Rom 1:6–7. 41
38
The concept of election in the OT is conveyed primarily by different forms of the
verb rxb. See, e.g., Jan Bergman, Helmer Ringgren, and Horst Seebass, “rx;B' bāchar,”
TDOT, 2:73–87. For the significance of this term as it informs the NT’s use of evkle,gomai,
see also Gottlob Schrenk and Gotffried Quell, “evkle,gomai,” TDNT, 4:144–68(ff).
39
Sealed Book, 195.
40
In terms of the derivative nature of this election, Blenkinsopp observes the close rela-
tionship between the concepts of election and “servanthood” (ibid., 195, 197; cf. Isa 41:8–
9; 43:10; 44:1–2; 45:4), and notes the link between “the Servant of the Lord” in chapter 53
and the references to “the servants of the Lord” in the last 11 chapters of the prophecy.
This link is forged in large part through the plural reference in Isa 54:17 (198), following
hard on the heels of chapter 53. John Oswalt, in fact, bases the entire structure of his two-
volume commentary on this very idea, that the servant status of Israel is derived from the
redemptive act of the messianic Servant of the Lord (see e.g., Isaiah 1–39, 49–52). On this
derivative concept in Paul’s use of Isaiah, see also Mark Gignilliat, Paul and Isaiah’s
Servants, 112ff.
For a defense of the messianic interpretation of the Servant of the Lord in the “Servant
Songs” in light of the early Church’s identification of Jesus as the Servant of Isaiah 53, see
esp. Christopher R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and
Critical Study (London: Oxford University Press, 19562), 192–219; see also H. H. Rowley,
The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
19652), 51–60.
41
This allusion, then, would evidence a slight volume, but strong thematic coherence,
and tie into Paul’s larger Isaianic framework.
This understanding is consistent, e.g., with 1 Pet 2:6 (quoting Isa 28:16) which follows
the LXX in its use of the term evklekto,j. Peter uses the term here to refer to Christ, the elect
stone laid by God (cf. 1 Pet 2:4) as the foundation of His saving work, and the basis of the
elect status (1 Pet 2:9) of those who believe (1 Pet 2:6–8). The use of the term evklekto,j in
1 Pet 2:9, moreover, is an allusion to Isa 43:20 and God’s redemptive action toward His
chosen people (1 Pet 2:9: u`mei/j de. ge,noj evklekto,n; Isa 43:20 LXX: to. ge,noj mou to.
evklekto,n; MT: yrIyxib. yMi[;).
80 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

With this Isaianic backdrop to the introductory verses of the epistle, the
thematic verses themselves will now be examined.

II. Romans 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive

Narrative of Isaiah
II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah
Romans 1:16–17 picks up and continues the description of the gospel in the
opening verses of the epistle, in which the good news is the message of the
Messiah’s conquest of sin and death in behalf of his people, the content and
basis of the apostolic mission of proclamation. If this gospel, very likely the
overarching theme of the epistle, is indeed Isaianic in nature, one would ex-
pect the thematic verses of Rom 1:16–17 to have a distinctly Isaianic flavor,
and that indeed appears to be the case. Throughout Romans, and in 1:16–17
in particular, the good news is far from a single or isolated concept. It rather
forms the central feature of a rich, theological matrix. In this regard the apos-
tle’s use of the term seems intended to mirror that of the Great Prophet, for
Paul draws not only the concept of gospel from Isaiah but an entire set of
themes that find their center in that concept. In Paul’s reading of Isaiah as
reflected in Romans, therefore, the proclamation of good news is a hub of
theological thought around which much of the prophecy’s theological devel-
opment revolves, a relation uniquely reflected in the thematic verses of the
epistle.42 In this sense, then, the thematic verses may be understood as an

On the differences between Peter’s quotation of Isa 28:16 in 1 Pet 2:6 and the LXX
rendering, as well as the similarities with Paul’s quotation of the same in Rom 9:33, see J.
Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, WBC (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988), 103–4; on Christ as
elect, drawn from Isaiah, as the basis of the elect status of Christians, see 107–8.
For a concise and helpful description of use of Isa 28:16; 8:14 and Ps 118:22 in 1 Pet
2:6–8, particularly as compared to the use of these texts in Rom 9:33; Mark 12:10 and
Luke 20:17–18, see Steve Moyise, “Isaiah in 1 Peter,” in Isaiah in the New Testament, ed.
Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken (London: T&T clark, 2005), 178–81. Moyise
suggests that the description of the people as “chosen” could also reflect the description of
the Servant in Isa 42:1 (180).
42
Though Isaiah uses exclusively the verbal form of the term (Isa 40:9 [twice]; 52:7
[twice]; 60:6; 61:1), Paul in Romans employs both the noun (Rom 1:1, 9, 16; 2:16; 10:16;
11:28; 15:16, 19; 16:25) and verb forms (Rom 1:15; 10:15; 15:20), but clearly equates
them in 10:15–16.
Among the Old Testament writings it is from Isaiah that Paul draws most of the major
theological contours of his gospel, particularly its sacrificial/atoning and redemptive
themes. Of the four major scriptural sources in Romans – Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms,
and Isaiah – the term “gospel” is not used in Genesis or Deuteronomy in either its noun or
verb forms. The verbal form is used in the Psalms, but not with the same theological con-
nections (cf. Pss 40:9; 68:11; 96:2).
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 81

allusive reference to the broader redemptive narrative of Isaiah, especially

chapters 52–53, by means of a clustering of vocabulary uniquely reflecting
that context. 43

The closest the Psalms come to Isaiah’s theological use of euvaggeli,zw is in Psalm 40 in
which the experiences of David, the Lord’s anointed, become typical of the experiences of
the Anointed One. Psalm 40:6–8 is quoted in Heb 10:5–7 as a typological allusion to the
sacrifice of Christ; in Psalm 40:9 David declares, “I have proclaimed glad tidings of right-
eousness in the great congregation.” This proclamation, then, if read with the typological
lens of Hebrews, certainly shares some features of the Isaianic good news. Several central
elements and theological connections of the Isaianic good news, however, such as the
redemptive nature of the sacrificial death of the messianic figure, are either implicit or
missing altogether. On the typological use of this Psalm, see Goppelt, Typos, 161–63, 169.
On the theology of Deuteronomy as the predominant scriptural “worldview” behind
Romans (and Paul generally), see especially N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of
God. But see the introductory section above (“Paul’s Recent Interpreters and the Challenge
to an Isaianic Background”) on the manner in which Wright’s very legitimate proposal of
the significance of a deuteronomic framework both strengthens and is integrated into the
more comprehensive theological framework of Isaiah.
Though Deuteronomy does not contain the term euvaggeli,zw, it nevertheless shares the
very similar concept of God’s salvific word (e.g., Deut 30:11–14), which Paul uses in Rom
10:6–8 to typify the “word of faith” which he preached, i.e., the gospel. The wider context
of this passage (Deuteronomy 29–32), moreover, does have its own theological complex
that stands behind much of the thought of Romans. Its fundamental narrative of covenant,
curse, exile, and restoration is foundational both to the developing prophetic vision in the
prophetic books, and to the NT as well, including Romans. Isaiah, however, in Paul’s
understanding, takes up this framework of Deuteronomy and greatly expands it, providing
especially the crucial link between exile and restoration. Deuteronomy, as Paul employs it,
both overlaps and reinforces, as well as supplements the Isaianic theological matrix. In
terms of overlap, in addition to the salvific character of God’s revealed word mentioned
above, this Deuteronomic complex contains, for example, such Isaianic elements as God’s
judicial blindness on unbelief (Deut 29:4), foreign captivity as judgment upon sin (Deut
30:1), and restoration through repentance (Deut 30:4–5); but it also includes additional
elements such as circumcision of the heart as the result of repentance (Deut 30:6), and the
jealousy motif (Deut 32:21) as one of the means whereby God will bring to fruition the
promise of Israel’s restoration. Therefore, though this set of themes plays a significant role
in Romans, it nevertheless lacks many of the central elements of Isaiah’s gospel complex
that figure so prominently in the epistle, particularly its integrating center in the righteous-
ness of God revealed through the sacrificial work of the Servant.
On the relationship between Deuteronomy and Isaiah in Romans, see Wright, Faithful-
ness of God, 734–36, 1246–47, 1453–55, 1464–65; Hays, Echoes, 162–64. On the signifi-
cance of Deuteronomy in Romans 9–11 and the jealousy motif in particular, see Bell,
Provoked.
43
The criterion of volume, therefore, will be initially used to substantiate this allusion,
reinforced by the criteria of recurrence (in Paul’s explicit derivation of these concepts
from quotations of Isaiah throughout Romans) and thematic coherence. Each of these
terms/concepts, then, will be seen to be anchored into Paul’s use of a larger Isaianic
framework.
82 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

To observe this dependence as it is manifested in the thematic verses of

Romans, a detailed look at the passage is in order, first to determine the de-
gree to which the significant terms and concepts of Rom 1:16–17 are repre-
sented in [LXX] Isaiah as compared to the rest of the OT, and second, to
determine the semantic, theological and contextual continuity in the use of
those terms with their likely Isaianic background, particularly in light of
Paul’s use of these very themes as drawn from his subsequent quotations and
allusions to Isaiah. A primary contention of this thesis is that the unique theo-
logical constellation in these verses renders a background in Isaiah almost
certain; the fact that Paul derives the concepts reflected in these verses from
his quotations and allusions to Isaiah in the rest of the epistle strengthens this
likelihood even further. The manner in which the apostle integrates the con-
cepts drawn from Isaiah both in the thematic verses and in the epistle as a
whole points to his interpretive approach to the prophecy, an approach which
centers on the redemptive sacrifice of the Servant as the content of the proc-
lamation of good news.
The key theological terms and phrases of 1:16–17a all stand in relation to
the term gospel / euvagge,lion. This theological constellation is comprised of at
least eight interrelated concepts expressed in the following terms/phrases:
1) evpaiscu,nesqai, 2) euvagge,lion, 3) du,namij [qeou eivj swthri,an], 4) swthri,a,
5) pisteu,ein, 6) VIoudai,w| te prw/ton kai. {Ellhni, 7) dikaiosu,nh [qeou], and
8) avpokalu,ptein [dikaiosu,nhn qeou]. Setting aside for a moment item (6), all
of these terms and/or their cognates, with the exception of du,namij, appear
together in a single context in only one place in the LXX, Isaiah chapters 49–
55. In Isaiah 52:7–54:4 these terms and/or their cognate forms appear within
the space of 25 verses, and four of them appear twice,44 and in a context that
introduces, describes and announces the redemption accomplished by the
Suffering Servant.45 These terms do not appear in the same context anywhere
else in the LXX, nor do they appear within the space of less than 200 vers-

On vocabulary clusters as allusions to a larger OT narrative context, see Berkley, Bro-

ken Covenant, 61–62. He states (61), “Where clusters of vocabulary correspondence can be
identified in a thematically coherent limited passage, it is more likely that a passage is a
reference. In larger narrative contexts this clustering means that the vocabulary may appear
as groups of words in close proximity to one another scattered over that context.” Fishbane
notes this phenomenon within the OT itself. See his Biblical Interpretation, 291.
44
Isa 52:7 (euvaggeli,zw 2x, swthri,a); 52:10 (avpokalu,ptw, swthri,a); 53:1 (pisteu,w,
avpokalu,ptw); 53:11 (dikaio,w); 54:4 (kataiscu,nw, aiscu,nh). Within the broader context of
Isaiah 49–55, the terms appear many more times. Particularly important is the term
dikaiosu,nh which appears in Isa 51:5, 6, 8 and 54:14 conveying both the anticipation for,
and the result of, the redemptive event (respectively) as a manifestation of God’s right-
eousness.
45
See in chapter two further below, “The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s Righteous-
ness: A Uniquely Isaianic Background.”
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 83

es.46 Moreover, if the term du,namij is substituted for any of the other six
terms appearing in Rom 1:16–17, the resulting constellation of terms does not
appear together in any passage in the LXX.
Though the term du,namij and the phrase VIoudai,w| te prw/ton kai. {Ellhni
are absent from this context of Isaiah, the theological concepts which they
represent in Rom 1:16 are most certainly present. The term du,namij is used
uniformly in the Isaianic literature to represent military forces, be they human
or divine. 47 The concept which this term represents in Rom 1:16, however,
God’s saving power (du,namij qeou eivj swthri,an), is a major component of
this section of Isaiah. It is often expressed by a form of the phrase o` braci,wn
kuri,ou used in conjunction with the exodus motif.48 The term du,namij is itself
used in several passages in the LXX as a semantic parallel to o` braci,wn
kuri,ou to convey this concept,49 though the LXX, and Isaiah in particular,
generally employ ivscu,j with o` braci,wn kuri,ou to express the Lord’s redemp-
tive, saving power.50
This semantic overlap between du,namij and ivscu,j in the LXX (cf. esp.
Deut 3:24) is reflected in Pauline usage as well. In Rom 9:17 Paul quotes
Exod 9:16 and employs du,namij to refer to the manifestation of God’s saving
power in behalf of his people in delivering them from Egyptian bondage,

46
In terms of search parameters, the cognate euvaggeli,zw was sought in place of
euvagge,lion. This was due to the close relation in Paul’s use of the terms and the fact that
euvagge,lion appears only once in the LXX (2 Sam 4:10), while the verbal form
(euvaggeli,zw) is used 23 times, with 6 of its occurrences in Isaiah (40:9[2x]; 52:7[2x]; 60:6;
61:1). Cognate forms were also sought for evpaiscu,nomai for the same basic reason. It
appears only 3 times in the LXX, while its synonymous cognates occur much more fre-
quently. The search for cognate forms of dikaiosu,nh was based upon Paul’s extensive and
interrelated use of this cognate family. If the cognate search was extended to all the terms,
the results are, from a contextual standpoint, substantially the same.
For example, if sw,zw is substituted for swthri,a, the terms appear within 108 verses in
Jeremiah, yet not in the same context, nor with the same theological significance. See, e.g.,
the use of euvaggeli,zw in Jer 20:15, as well as 20:12–18 in which 4 of the key terms or their
cognates occur. (Though note the messianic mediation of righteousness and salvation in
23:5–6 in which cognates of two of the key terms appear.)
47
Isa 8:4; 36:2, 22; 42:13; 60:11.
48
Isa 26:11; 30:30; 40:10–11; 51:5, 9; 52:10; 53:1; 59:16; 62:8; 63:5, 12. The phrase o`
braci,wn kuri,ou is used often throughout the OT to convey the manifestation of God’s
righteousness and saving power in the redemption of His people (e.g., Exod 6:6; 15:6;
32:11; Deut 3:24; 4:34; 5:15; 6:21; 7:8, 19; 9:26, 29; 11:2; 26:8; 2 Kgs 17:36; Pss 44:3;
71:18; 77:15; 79:11; 89:11, 14; 98:1; 136:12; Jer 32:17, 21; Ezek 20:34; Dan 9:15).
49
Deut 3:24; Pss 76:15–16 (Eng. 77:14–15); 88:11 (Eng. 89:10); Bar 2:11.
50
Exod 32:11; Deut 3:24; 9:26, 29; 26:8; 2 Kgs 17:36; Isa 40:10–11; 51:9; 62:8. In ad-
dition to its use with the phrase o` braci,wn kuri,ou, ivscu,j is also used in several other
instances in Isaiah to convey God’s saving power (e.g., 11:2ff; 49:5, 26; 52:1; 63:1, 15).
This saving power of God appears in Isaiah to be mediated to his people through the Serv-
ant of the Lord (e.g., Isa 49:5, 26; 52:1).
84 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

whereas the LXX reads ivscu,j.51 du,namij, then, in Rom 1:16, is Paul’s way of
expressing what Isaiah (who frequently employs the metaphor of redemption
from Egypt) describes as o` braci,wn kuri,ou, or the Lord’s saving ivscu,j, a
fact that will become clearer as the discussion proceeds. This referential shift
away from the phrase “the arm of the Lord” in reference to God’s saving
power is common in the NT as a whole. The phrase appears only three times
(Luke 1:51; John 12:38; Acts 13:17), and in each case it is either a quotation
of or allusion to OT scripture.
The phrase VIoudai,w| te prw/ton kai. {Ellhni does not appear in the LXX;
and neither the correlated terms vIoudai/oj and {Ellhn, nor even the single
term {Ellhn are ever used in the LXX in reference to the Lord’s salvation-
historical priority of the Jews and inclusion of the Gentiles in salvation and
the people of God. 52 This theme, to be sure, is prominent throughout the OT
scriptures, as Paul’s string of quotations in Rom 15:8–12 demonstrates. Inter-
estingly, Paul quotes Isaiah last in this string, specifically citing the prophet’s
name, to drive home this very point. But the theme is particularly relevant to
the overall context of Isaiah 40–55, as will be discussed further below.
More significant than the presence of these terms and concepts within this
section of Isaiah, however, is the fact that Paul draws these very concepts
from his quotations and allusions to Isaiah throughout the course of his epis-
tle, and employs them with a similar theological import. The apostle, moreo-
ver, integrally relates each term or concept to Isaiah’s proclamation of good
news, so that it is uniquely in relation to this gospel of the redemption

51
Stanley (Paul, 109) notes that the NT manuscript evidence in support of du,namij is
uniform, whereas the LXX witnesses are divided between du,namij and ivscu,j . Regarding
this divided witness he states, “The fact that ivscu,j is the most common translation of x;Ko in
the LXX (especially in the Pentateuch) and that du,namij is almost never used in such situa-
tions (not at all in the Pentateuch) makes it likely that ivscu,j is the original reading here”
(note 76). But though he concludes that a Pauline adaptation here is plausible but not
provable due to the divided witness of the LXX, he states that “. . . ivscu,j is never found in
the undisputed letters of Paul (versus nearly three dozen instances of du,namij) and is un-
common in Hellenistic Greek generally . . .”
Whether or not du,namij was part of Paul’s vorlage, the textual situation nevertheless
demonstrates the semantic overlap of the terms, and Paul’s use of the term demonstrates its
referential significance in pointing to God’s redemptive, saving power. Cf. also Eph 1:19;
2 Pet 2:11; Rev 5:12; 7:12.
52
In the LXX {Ellhn is used exclusively as a reference to the Greek people, whereas by
NT times it came to refer additionally both to one who was of the Greek culture ({Ellhn as
opposed to ba,rbaroj, cf. Rom 1:14; so, e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 83–85), as well as to one
who was in a religious sense a “non-Jew,” or “Gentile” (Rom 1:16; so, e.g., Barrett, Ro-
mans, 29–30). “Jew and Greek,” moreover, was a phrase which was formulaic to Jews in
expressing the fundamental division of humanity based on the Law, a division obliterated
in the gospel. See Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, MeyerK 4 (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 88.
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 85

wrought by the Suffering Servant that each theme finds its full significance.
A close comparison of the thematic verses of Romans with Paul’s contextual-
ly-sensitive reading of Isaiah in the rest of his epistle reveals that Rom 1:16–
17 is likely the apostle’s condensation of what he perceives as several of the
main features of this Isaianic gospel.53 Because these verses introduce themes
developed throughout the epistle, particularly the section of the epistle cov-
ered by this thesis, the goal in treating the thematic verses has been to set
forth some of the basic connections that will be explored in more detail as the
thesis unfolds.54
Romans 1:16–17:
16
Ouv ga.r evpaiscu,nomai to. euvagge,lion( du,namij ga.r qeou/ evstin eivj
swthri,an panti. tw/| pisteu,onti( VIoudai,w| te prw/ton kai. {EllhniÅ
17
dikaiosu,nh ga.r qeou/ evn auvtw/| avpokalu,ptetai evk pi,stewj eivj pi,stin(
kaqw.j ge,graptai\ o` de. di,kaioj evk pi,stewj zh,setaiÅ

1. The Gospel as the Basis of Eschatological Vindication

Ouv ga.r evpaiscu,nomai to. euvagge,lion – Paul here is undoubtedly affirming his
resolve to stand for the gospel amidst the various pressures of a godless world
(cf. 1 Cor 1:18–29; 2 Tim 1:8; cf. also Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26),55 and yet this
resolve is grounded in the eschatological realities currently unfolding in the
ongoing preaching of the gospel, realities ultimately fulfilled when “the De-
liverer shall come out of Zion” (Rom 11:26/Isa 59:20).56 That the term
evpaiscu,nomai in Rom 1:16 strongly reflects Isaianic usage is most clearly
evident in Rom 9:30–10:16, in which the themes of “escaping shame” and
“gospel” again come together, both drawn directly from Isaiah. For Paul
(Rom 9:30–33), one who believed on Christ would “not be put to shame”
(Rom 9:33; 10:11/Isa 28:16), a phrase used in Isaiah with eschatological and

53
One scholar who perceives allusions to several Isaianic texts in the thematic verses of
Romans is Richard Hays (Echoes, 36–41; Conversion, 44–45, 94–95). After noting the
verbal overlap between the key theological terms in Rom 1:16–17 and several passages
from Isaiah, he remarks (Echoes, 37), “In Rom. 1:16–17 . . . there is not yet any direct
quotation of these passages, no explicit reference made to the prophecies of Isaiah. Instead,
Isaiah’s vocabulary echoes subliminally in Paul’s diction.” In addition to Isaiah, Hays
believes these verses echo several of the Psalms of Lamentation. See also, e.g., Keener,
Romans, 25.
54
The exception to this is the treatment of the topic of “the righteousness of God,”
which the thematic verses present as revealed in the gospel. Though this finds a conceptual
parallel in 3:21–26, it is explicitly expressed only in the thematic verses.
55
So Cranfield, Romans 1–8, 86–87; Fitzmyer, Romans, 255; Jewett, Romans, 136–37;
Moo, Romans, 65–66.
56
See, e.g., Isaiah 45:16–17, which verses crystallize the Isaianic concept of eschato-
logical shame and vindication that likely stands behind Paul’s thought here. See also the
very pertinent, extended comments on these verses by John Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 217.
86 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

forensic connotations, so that in this context of Romans it becomes the scrip-

tural support and conceptual parallel of attaining righteousness by faith as
expressed in Rom 9:30.57 To “believe in Him,” moreover, is to respond in
faith to the good news (Rom 10:11–16), that is, the Isaianic proclamation of
the good news of salvation wrought by the redemptive death of the Servant of
the Lord (Rom 10:15/Isa 52:7; Rom 10:16/Isa 53:1). 58 For Paul, then, one
escaped the shame of guilt and condemnation at the eschatological judgment
only through belief in the gospel of which Christ is the content – Christ,
through whose sacrificial death God has acted to redeem and save his people
(Rom 3:23–25). For such a one God’s eschatological righteousness is ushered
into the present as he receives the divine verdict of acquittal (Rom 3:24, 26;
5:1).
Paul, in bringing together these sections of Isaiah through his string of
quotations, ties faith in the Lord’s redemptive promise in the face of the Syro-
Ephraimite (Rom 9:33/Isa 8:14), Assyrian (Rom 9:33/28:16) and Babylonian
threats (Rom 10:15/Isa 52:7; cf. Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5) with faith in the ultimate
expression of that promise in the messianic, redemptive sacrifice that forms
the climax of Isaiah 40–55 (Rom 10:15/Isa 52:7; Rom 10:16/Isa 53:1). In this
section of LXX Isaiah, aivscu,nomai and its cognates, generally reflecting the
masoretic vwOb and its cognates, are used to describe and contrast the shame
that is the result of misplaced trust (Isa 42:17; 44:9–11; 45:16, 24; 47:3; so
also, e.g., Isa 1:27–29; 20:4–5; 26:9–12; 30:3–5) with the total absence of
shame, or vindication, that is the result of placing one’s trust in the Lord and

57
The forensic significance of this quotation must seen in light of earlier statements in
Romans, statements which themselves (as will be seen) reflect the courtroom motif of
Isaiah 40–55. The eschatological righteousness of the divine judge would render the one
who believed in Christ neither “accountable” (u`po,dikoj, Rom 3:19) nor “condemned”
(kata,krima; Rom 5:16, 18; 8:1), but rather justified (Rom 3:21–22, 24, 26; 5:16, 18).
This contrast between “shame” and “vindication” in Isaiah, and reflected in Paul, is
such that “to not be ashamed” is the equivalent of being justified. Wagner (Heralds, 339,
note 125) notes this inversion in Isaiah 45 and states, “It is clear that for Isaiah, ‘being
ashamed’ (45:24) is the opposite of ‘being righteoused’ (45:25). Cf. Paul’s similar use of
the idea of ‘not being ashamed’ as he quotes Isaiah 28:16 in Romans 9:33 . . . as a prophe-
cy of God’s determination in Christ to grant ‘righteousness’ to all who ‘believe’ (Rom
10:4) and as he affirms in Romans 1:16 . . .” See Heralds, 150–51, 338–39.
58
On the identification of ‘the proclamation of good news” with the sacrifice of the
Servant in Isaiah 53, see below in this chapter, “The Isaianic Good News: The Revelation
of God’s Righteousness in the Sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord.”
The connection between the granting of righteousness and the sacrifice of the Servant
of Isaiah 53 is substantiated not simply by Paul’s quotations of Isa 28:16 in relation to Isa
52:7 and 53:1. It is based upon allusions to the justification achieved by the Servant for
“the many” in Isaiah 50 and 53 in, e.g., Rom 4:25 and 8:31–34 (see Appendix), as well as
and predominantly by the allusion to Isaiah 53 in Rom 3:21–26. See chapter four, “The
Antitypical Nexus – Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26.”
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 87

his promise and provision of salvation (Isa 41:8–12; 49:23; 45:16–17, 24–25;
50:7–9; 54:4; so also, e.g., Isa 7:9: 28:16;). 59 The term is used in the context
of the revelation of God’s righteousness, both in judgment and salvation, and
so acquires forensic overtones in keeping with the “courtroom motif” preva-
lent in this section of Isaiah (see esp. Isa 50:7–9). 60
Particularly striking is that both aspects of the shame/vindication motif de-
velop in relation to the Servant of the Lord and the “good news” of his re-
demptive work. This is most evident in terms of vindication. The sure pro-
spect of vindication for Israel, for those whose faith is placed in the Lord’s
redemptive promises (41:8–11; 49:23), finds its source in the redemptive
work of the Servant and the salvation he brings (42:1–17; 49:1–13), so that
their justification and righteousness (45:17, 25) issue from him (53:11), and
his vindication (49:7; 50:4–9; 52:13; 53:12) ultimately becomes their own
(50:10–11; 53:11; 54:1–5).61 These concepts of forensic condemnation and
acquittal conveyed in large part by the terms vwOb / aivscu,nomai are, therefore,
deeply imbedded in the theological context of the “proclamation of good
news” of the Servant of the Lord and his redemptive work, and relate inte-
grally within Isaiah to the other terms which appear in these thematic verses
(e.g., 51:4–5; 52:10).62 So for Isaiah as understood by Paul and reflected in
Romans, the status of “not being ashamed,” of vindication at the eschatologi-
cal assize, is intimately connected with the “gospel” of the Suffering Servant.

59
On this contrast between forensic shame and vindication, note esp. Isa 45:16–17, 24–
25.
60
On the courtroom motif of Isaiah 40–55 as reflected in Romans, see under chapter
three, “The trial motif of Isaiah.”
61
On the eschatological justification granted the seed of Israel through the Servant, see
in chapter four, “Romans 3:24;” “The Servant/Christ as the Mediator of Eschatological
Justification.”
On the identity and distinction of Israel and the Servant, it may be pointed out that the
promised “seed” of the remnant of Israel becomes the seed of the Servant (Isa 6:13; 45:25;
53:10; 59:21), and the Servant, though named “Israel,” is both distinguished from and
called to redeem Israel (Isa 49:3–6). See esp. Childs, Isaiah, 382–87.
62
Regarding Rom 1:16 and its echo of Isa 50:7–8, Hays (Echoes, 39) comments that
“Paul transforms Isaiah’s emphatic future negation (“I shall not be ashamed”) into a pre-
sent negation (“I am not ashamed”). The present tense of Paul’s denial corresponds to the
present tense of his declaration that the righteousness and wrath of God are being revealed
(1:17–18); thus, Isaiah’s future hope rebounds through Paul’s voice into a new temporal
framework defined by God’s already efficacious act of eschatological deliverance in
Christ.” On the emphatic future negation of ouv mh. with the aorist subjunctive, “the most
definite form of negation regarding the future,” used, e.g., in Isa 28:16; 50:7 (texts refer-
enced by Hays in the above quotation), cf. BDF ¶ 365.
88 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

2. The Gospel as the Power of God unto Salvation

du,namij ga.r qeou/ evstin eivj swthri,an – Paul states that the gospel is the
power of God for salvation. 63 Though the term swthri,a and its cognates in
both the LXX and the NT denote deliverance from a variety of evils, in Paul
the word group is used exclusively with reference to man’s relations to God
and denotes deliverance from eschatological judgment and enjoyment of
eschatological blessing.64 Many scholars, therefore, in light of the allusive
and typological significance of the terminology, understand h` du,namij qeou/
eivj swthri,an as recalling the scriptural instances, most notably the exodus, in
which God displays his saving power in behalf of his people.65 Other com-
mentators have viewed the phrase against the OT background of the efficacy
of the divine word. 66 Interestingly, in Isaiah these two concepts come together
in the proclamation of good news. The efficacy of the divine word in its re-
demptive capacity, God’s saving word of promise, becomes epitomized in the
proclamation of good news, which in both content and effect is the redemp-
tive, saving work of the Messiah.67
This relationship between “the word of God” and the “proclamation of
good news” is evident in Isa 40:6–11. The evanescent character of humanity
as withering grass and fading flower in 40:6–8 is a recognized intertextual
allusion to Isa 28:1–4, which, together with 28:5–6 create a contrast between
sinful Israel headed for captivity and a restored remnant of Israel in its expe-
rience of eschatological salvation.68 Isa 40:6–8 (cf. Isa 5:24) projects this
contrast onto perishing humanity, “all flesh,” as over against the abiding
word of God as expressed in the redemptive promise. Perishing humanity,
typified both intertextually and contextually by captive Israel, is contrasted

63
Although some have sought a Hellenistic religious background for this phrase, most
commentators recognize the OT as its source. Cranfield (Romans, 88) notes, “The exist-
ence of Hellenistic parallels to Paul’s language here is hardly surprising, since saving
power is naturally what most religions are concerned with.”
64
See F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, trans. Rev. A. Cusin (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1956), 151; Cranfield, Romans, 88–89; Moo, Romans, 66–67; Sanday
and Headlam, Romans, 23–24. Note the reference in Rom 8:16–25 to the anticipated resto-
ration of the “saved” (8:24) to the “glory” of God.
65
E.g., Fitzmyer, Romans, 256; Moo, Romans, 66 (referencing Exod 9:16; Ps. 77:14–
15).
This concept, as noted above, is frequently conveyed in Isaiah with the phrase o`
braci,wn kuri,ou. See the section further below, “The Isaianic Good News: The Revelation
of God’s Righteousness in the Sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord.”
66
E.g., Barrett, Romans, 28; Cranfield, Romans, 87–88. Cranfield references Gen 1:3,
6, etc.; Ps 147:15; Isa 40:8b; 55:10ff; Jer 23:29 (cf. also Wisd 18.14–16).
67
Keener (Romans, 26) notes the parallel use of the term du,namij in Rom 1:4 and 16,
indicating this power unto salvation is related closely to the resurrection. These ideas come
together closely in Isaiah, as the discussion will show.
68
See esp. Childs, Isaiah, 300.
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 89

with the abiding word of the Lord, a word that, in keeping with the redemp-
tive promises in the earlier chapters of Isaiah (e.g. Isa 28:5–6), surfaces ex-
plicitly in the “proclamation of good news” in vv. 9–11. The “word of God”
in 40:8, therefore, though it retains its broader canonical significance, has
particular reference to the Lord’s redemptive, saving promises (cf. Rom 3:1–
3),69 and in this redemptive and saving capacity becomes encapsulated and
epitomized in the “good news.” Further, the “abiding” nature of the word of
God is that which preeminently characterizes the divine promise expressed in
the proclamation of good news, so that this proclamation has not simply an
immediate but also an ultimate redemptive significance. The Babylonian
captivity, then, by means of both the typological role of Israel as well as the
ultimate significance of the good news, immediately becomes a type of the
plight of humanity.70 These verses, therefore, serve as a call to faith in this
word of promise through which the remnant is not merely defined, but
through which they receive an “abiding” status, a status which stands in stark
contrast to the dismal state of transient and perishing flesh.71
This contrast between the transiency of “all flesh” and the eternal nature of
God’s saving promise is picked up again and made more explicit in Isa 51:1–
52:12 in anticipation of the supreme redemption about to be accomplished by
the Servant of the Lord (note esp. 51:12). The accomplishment of this re-
demption, therefore, issues in “the proclamation of good news” which resur-
faces in Isa 52:7, the content and basis of which is the vicarious sacrifice of
the Servant of the Lord (Isa 52:13–53:12). This sacrifice is described as the
revelation of God’s saving arm (note the connection between 40:10–11, 51:5,
9; 52:10; and 53:1) which must be appropriated by faith, so defining the rem-
nant (Isa 50:10; 52:6; 53:1; 55:1–7). This major section of the prophecy (40–
55) is then concluded as it began (Isa 55:10–13), with a reference to the effi-
cacy of the word of the Lord,72 which in the context again characterizes the
good news of 52:7.
In Isaiah 40–55, therefore, the power and efficacy of God’s word directed
toward the salvation of humanity is contextually related to and fulfilled in the

69
So Westermann, Isaiah, 42; R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, New Century Bible (Lon-
don: Oliphants, 1975), 51.
70
On Paul’s typological interpretation of the Babylonian captivity, see pp. 138–44(ff).
71
This contrast is recognized, e.g., by Evans, “Gospel to Gospel,” 655.
Peter draws on this very contrast in his first epistle (1 Pet 1:23–25). See I. Howard Mar-
shall, 1 Peter, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: Intervar-
sity Press, 1991), 61; Michaels, 1 Peter, 78–79; Moyise, “Isaiah in 1 Peter,” 175–77.
72
Regarding the significance of the enduring and efficacious nature of the word of God
in Isa 40:6–8 and 55:10–11, respectively, Westermann (Isaiah, 43) notes that it,
“. . . form[s] the frame within which Deutero-Isaiah’s proclamation is set and mounted.”
Similarly, e.g., Motyer (Isaiah, 301) observes that the theme of the abiding word of God
forms an inclusio around the second major section of the prophecy (chapters 40–55).
90 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

proclamation of good news, which is itself characterized as a proclamation of

salvation (note swthri,an in Isa 52:7, 10; cf. also, e.g. 49:6, 8). Thus, both the
efficacy of the divine word and the manifestation of God’s saving power not
only meet but culminate in this gospel of the suffering Servant. Only in Isaiah
is God’s saving power encapsulated and manifested in the proclamation of
good news whose content is the redemptive, vicarious sacrifice of the Messi-
ah.73 Paul, as it will be seen, understands Isaiah in just this way. For Paul,
God’s saving power is uniquely resident and revealed in the gospel of Christ
crucified and in the lives of those who believe (cf. Rom 15:15–21; I Cor
1:18).

3. The Gospel as Available to All within the Mediatorial Primacy of Israel

panti. tw/| pisteu,onti – Paul states that the gospel is God’s saving power to
everyone who believes. The Greek term pisteu,w and its cognate pisti,j are
used frequently by Paul in Romans, particularly in 3:21–4:25.74 In order for
the gospel message to be God’s effective power unto salvation, it must be met
with faith. “To believe” in response to the gospel is to put one’s absolute trust
in God’s saving message, the content of which is Jesus Christ, through whose
redemptive death God has decisively acted to “justify the ungodly” (cf. Rom
3:23–26).75 Faith, therefore, as the divinely engendered response to God’s
altogether gracious act in Christ, is in Romans consistently contrasted with
works.76 The term panti,, moreover, indicates that this invitation to faith in the
gospel is extended to all, “without exception and without distinction,” a
theme common to Romans. 77
The Isaianic background of the concept of the gospel as the power of God
to salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek
appears to be confirmed by Paul’s use of Isa 28:16 in Rom 10:11–12. These

73
The likelihood of this Isaianic background is strengthened by Paul’s equation of the
“report” of Isa 53:1 with the proclamation of good news of Isa 52:7 in Rom 10:16. See the
section further below, “The Isaianic Good News: The Revelation of God’s Righteousness
in the Sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord.”
74
In addition to the four times these cognate terms are used in these thematic verses,
they appear 57 times in Romans, and 25 times in 3:21–4:25. Another significant clustering
of the cognate terms is in 9:30–10:17 in which they occur 13 times.
75
See Barrett, Romans, 29; Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testa-
ment and Other Early Christian Literature (revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich
and Frederick W. Danker; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 159;
Cranfield, Romans, 89; Godet, Romans, 152; Moo, Romans, 67.
76
E.g., Rom 3:20–22, 27–28; 4:1–8; 9:11, 30–33; 11:5–6; cf. also Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5–14;
Eph 2:8–9; 2 Tim 1:9.
77
So e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 90. E.g., Rom 1:5; 3:9, 12, 19–24; 4:16; 5:12, 18; 8:32;
10:4, 11–13; 11:32; 15:11.
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 91

verses evidence a strong conceptual and linguistic overlap with Rom 1:16.
The linguistic connections are set forth below:
Rom 1:16 Rom 10:11[/Isa 28:16]–12

Ouv ga.r evpaiscu,nomai to. le,gei ga.r h` grafh,\ pa/j o` pisteu,wn

euvagge,lion( du,namij ga.r qeou/ evstin eivj evpV auvtw/| ouv kataiscunqh,setaiÅ
swthri,an panti. tw/| pisteu,onti( VIoudai,w| ouv ga,r evstin diastolh. VIoudai,ou te
te prw/ton kai. {EllhniÅ kai. {Ellhnoj( o` ga.r auvto.j ku,rioj pa,ntwn(
ploutw/n eivj pa,ntaj tou.j evpikaloume,nouj
auvto,n\

Bold type indicates linguistic overlap.

Rom 1:16 – panti. tw/| pisteu,onti( VIoudai,w| te prw/ton kai. {Ellhni
Rom 10:11–12 – pa/j o` pisteu,wn . . . ouv ga,r evstin diastolh. VIoudai,ou te
kai. {Ellhnoj 78
Paul’s quotation of Isa 28:16 and his comments upon it (note the explana-
tory ga,r in v. 12) seem to be clearly reflected in Rom 1:16. In light of these
significant linguistic connections, Paul in chapter 10 is likely expanding upon
and providing scriptural support for the concise statement of this aspect of his
theme in 1:16, and this accords with the conceptual similarities in the passag-
es. In the broader context of this passage (9:30–10:17) Paul is emphasizing
faith as the proper response to God’s mercy and grace extended in the
Isaianic gospel (Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1) as the singular means whereby
God’s righteousness and salvation may be obtained. His quotation of Isa
28:16 is used both to confirm this and to emphasize that this gracious offer is
extended to all. Paul’s explanatory comments on his quotation draw out this
point, stressing the universal availability of the grace of God in Christ as
accessed by faith – “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for
the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him.”
The gospel as God’s saving power to everyone who believes is not unique
to this specific text of Isaiah but resonates strongly throughout the prophecy,
particularly the Servant Songs. As mentioned above, though the Servant is the
manifestation of God’s saving power, this salvation must be appropriated
through faith in the proclaimed good news of the Servant’s redemptive work
(42:16–18; 45:22–25; 49:23; 50:10; 53:1; 55:1–7; 61:1–3). This salvation
appropriated through faith, moreover, is universal in scope, extending to all
nations and reaching to the very ends of the earth (e.g., Isa 45:22), an Isaianic
theme also prominent in the Servant Songs (Isa 42:1–7; 49:1–7; 50:4–9, cf. v.
10; 52:15–53:179). That Paul had this concept in mind with reference to Isaiah
78
On the additional linguistic overlap of evpaiscu,nomai / kataiscunqh,setai see in chap-
ter two above, “The Gospel as the Basis of Eschatological Vindication.”
79
The emphasis throughout the “Songs,” and in 49–55 as a whole, is that God’s prom-
ised salvation is mediated through the Servant and must be appropriated through faith in
His redemptive work. This comes to the fore most notably in 50:4–9 with the following
92 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

seems certain by his repeated reference to Isaiah to substantiate the universal

availability of the gospel. 80 And, as in Romans, salvation as the work of God
alone and received by faith, creates in Isaiah the stark contrast between the
all-sufficient saving works of God, 81 and the abysmally insufficient, corrupt,
and ineffectual works of men. 82
VIoudai,w| te prw/ton kai. {Ellhni83 – Paul’s comments on Isa 28:16 in
chapter 10 stress “no distinction,” and so highlight the universal nature of the
gospel. This is expressed in the equal access for both Jew and Gentile to its
offer of salvation, a theme common to the epistle. In Rom 1:16, however,
there is the added element of Jewish priority that also figures prominently in
the epistle.84 Explicating the preceding panti,, some have considered this
phrase to be little more than a historical reference to the fact that the gospel
was preached, according to Acts, first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. 85 But
such an incidental reference is surely to be discounted in light of the empha-
sis Paul places upon the central role of the Israel in the unfolding of God’s
eschatological salvation (see esp. Rom 11:1, 11–12, 15, 25–29). In Romans
the gospel has unique relevance to Israel because of Israel’s unique status as
chosen of God (Rom 11:28–29). Israel is chosen to be the recipient and heir
of the oracles of God (Rom 3:1–2), the covenants, the law, the temple ser-
vices, the promises (Rom 9:4–5; 15:8), and ultimately salvation (Rom 11:25–

comment in v. 10 (e.g., Delitzsch, Isaiah, 280), as well as in Isa 52:13–15, which connects
intertextually to both 42:1 and 49:7 and presents nations and kings as “seeing” and “under-
standing,” expressions which throughout Isaiah convey spiritual perception and appropria-
tion (cf. esp. Isa 6:9–10). This issue of faith continues from 52:15 to 53:1 and is clearly
central to Paul’s understanding of the prophecy (Rom 10:16/Isa 53:1; Rom 15:21/Isa
52:15).
On the literary and thematic connections between the Songs, and the necessity of inter-
preting them with reference to one another, see esp. Bernd Janowski, “He Bore Our Sins:
Isaiah 53 and the Drama of Taking Another’s Place,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53
in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stühlmacher, trans. Daniel
P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 54–60.
80
See Isa 28:16 in Rom 9:33 and Rom 10:11(-12); Isa 65:1–2 in Rom 10:20–21; Isa
11:10 in Rom 15:12; Isa 52:15 in Rom 15:21. Interestingly, though, Paul explicitly cites
from only one of the Servant Songs in this regard (Isa 52:15/Rom 15:21), which demon-
strates his sense of the continuity of the saving promise that culminates in the “proclama-
tion of good news” in Isaiah 40 and 52.
81
E.g., Isa 5:12; 10:12; 17:7–8; 19:25; 25:1; (note esp.) 26:12; 28:21; 29:15–16, 23;
32:17; 41:4, 20; 43:13; 45:9–11; 60:21; 64:8.
82
E.g., 1:31; 2:8; 17:7–8; 19:15; 29:15–16; 37:19; 41:24, 29; 44:12–19; 57:12; (note
esp.) 59:6; 65:7; 66:18.
83
On the inclusion of prw/ton, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 19942 [19711]), 447.
84
In addition to 1:16, see also 2:9–10; 3:1; 9:1–5; 11:1–5, 11–29 (esp. vv. 25–29);
15:8–12.
85
This appears to be Dodd’s position (Romans, 9).
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 93

27), all of which is fulfilled in and through Christ, and through the gospel
which both reveals and mediates his saving work (Rom 1:16–17; 10:11–16;
15:8, 20–21). This elect status, however, is mediatorial in nature, so that
Israel is made the vessel through which the salvation of God is extended to
the entire world (Rom 9:20–26; 11:1–2, 11–12, 15; 15:8–9) as the Gentiles
come to trust in the root of Jesse (Rom 15:12/Isa 11:10). This elect,
mediatorial role of Israel goes some distance towards removing the oft-
perceived paradox between Paul’s insistence on the VIoudai,w| prw/ton and his
equal insistence that ouv evstin diastolh. (cf. 3:22; 10:12).86
The priority of Israel in salvation is a common theme running throughout
the OT scriptures, and is particularly prominent in the main scriptural sources
for Romans.87 Yet Israel’s priority with reference to the gospel is a uniquely
Isaianic motif. In Isaiah the proclamation of good news comes first to Jerusa-
lem, and from Jerusalem this great announcement of redemption is spread not
only to the nation, but to the entire world (Isa 40:1–11; 52:7–10, 15; 55:1ff).
This historical priority reflects Israel’s typological role, so that both in its
captivity and redemption it mediates the knowledge of God’s righteousness to
the world (as will be seen below). This is commensurate with the role of the
Servant, who, though called to fulfill the covenant hopes of Israel in its re-
demption, takes upon himself the guilt of “all flesh” (Isa 40:6; 53:6, 10) and
so ushers in a salvation that reaches to the very ends of the earth (e.g., Isa
49:6; 55:1ff).88

4. The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s Righteousness

dikaiosu,nh ga.r qeou/ evn auvtw/| avpokalu,ptetai – The strong Isaianic tone of
1:16 is continued in 1:17 as the gospel (evn auvtw/|) is said to be the “revelation
of the righteousness of God.” The terms avpokalu,ptein and its cognate
avpoka,luyij, used often in the LXX with the very literal meaning “to uncov-
er,” have reference throughout the NT to a divine disclosure, and in Paul they
most frequently refer to the eschatological disclosure of God’s redemptive

86
E.g., Murray, Romans, 28; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 28. Roland Deines observes a simi-
lar dynamic within Matthew’s gospel, stating, “. . . the Gospel starts and ends with a uni-
versal perspective, but at the same time it is deeply and inseparably connected to the peo-
ple of Israel” (“Not the Law but the Messiah,” 72).
87
E.g., Rom 4:17/Gen 17:5; Rom 4:18/Gen 15:5; but see esp. Rom 15:8–12 in which
Paul quotes 2 Sam 22:50/Ps 18:49; Deut 32:43; Ps 117:1; Isa 11:10.
88
This is an example of the deep canonical intertextuality of the prophecies of Isaiah, in
which the Servant is seen as the fulfillment of the abrahamic covenant (e.g., Isa 51:1ff).
The promise to Abraham that “in your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed”
reveals that from its national inception Israel was to play a mediatorial role; this theme is
picked up in Isaiah and ultimately fulfilled by the prophecy’s messianic, mediatorial fig-
ure[s].
94 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

plan in the gospel, both in its “realized” and “consummated” expressions.89

The use of the present tense with this verb underscores the fact that in the
ongoing preaching of the gospel the eschatological righteousness of God is
being revealed, thrust into the present as people respond in faith.90

(1) The Righteousness of God: Competing Concepts and Contextual

Considerations
But what is the nature and significance of this dikaiosu,nh qeou/? The question
of the meaning of “the righteousness of God” in Paul and in this verse in
particular is the subject of endless debate. In the Pauline literature, with the
exception of 2 Cor 5:21, the phrase occurs only in key texts of Romans (1:17;
3:5, 21, 22, 25, 26; 10:3 [2x]), which points to its significance in terms of
properly interpreting the epistle. And indeed the phrase has played a central
role in interpreting both Romans and the gospel since the early church.91 The
main views held by scholars are that the phrase has reference to: 1) an attrib-
ute of God; 92 2) a “righteous” status conferred by God; 93 3) the justifying

89
So e.g., James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1988), 43; Käsemann,
Romans, 30. Dunn notes the distinction between the “realized” nature of this eschatological
revelation (see Rom 3:21–26 [though with fanero,w]; Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 1:7; Gal 1:16;
3:23; Eph 3:3, 5 [cf. also 1 Pet 1:12]) and the use of the term in reference to the eschato-
logical consummation (see Rom 2:5; 8:18–19; 1 Cor 3:13; 2 Thess 1:7; 2:3, 6, 8 [cf. also
Luke 17:30; 1 Pet 1:5, 7, 13; 4:13; 5:1; Rev 1:1]).
On this term, see also Dieter Lührmann, Das Offenbarungsverständnis bei Paulus und
in paulinischen Gemeinden, WMANT 16 (Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965), esp.
141–164; Moo, Romans, 69; Murray, Romans, 29–30; Albrecht Oepke, “kalu,ptw, etc.,”
TDNT, 3:556–92 (see 582–86); H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans.
John Richard de Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p 47. On the subjective/objective
nature of this revelation, Murray (29), e.g., states, “When the prophet spoke of the right-
eousness of God as being ‘revealed’ he meant more than that it was to be disclosed to
human apprehension. He means that it was to be revealed in action and operation; the
righteousness of God was to be made manifest with saving effect.”
90
So Cranfield, 91–92; Jewett, Romans, 142; Moo, 69–70. As Murray above (footnote
89), Moo notes that avpokalu,ptein here should be understood in a “historical” rather than
simply a “cognitive” sense (cf. Rom 3:21). The present tense here associated with the
proclamation of the Christian message is based in the use of the perfect tense of the term in
3:21 as referring to the cross as the decisive event through which God established His
righteousness.
91
See A. E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification,
2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987), vol. 1, 51ff.
92
Either understood as His moral rectitude and justice or as His faithfulness to His cov-
enant promises. On this view, qeou/ would likely be a possessive genitive. Some scholars
who hold this position include: P. T. O’Brien, “Justification in Paul and Some Crucial
Issues of the Last Two Decades,” in Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the
World, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 70–78; S. K. Williams, “The
‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” JBL 99 (1980): 241–90 (see 261–62).
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 95

activity of God;94 or 4) any combination of the preceding. 95 Space does not

allow a detailed discussion of the options;96 rather, observations will be made
93
On this interpretation, qeou/ would likely be a genitive of source. Scholars interpreting
the “righteousness of God” as status include: Rudolf Bultmann, “Dikaiosu,nh Qeou/,” JBL
83 (1964): 12–16; John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the
Thessalonians, trans. Ross Mackenzie, Calvin’s Commentaries (London: Oliver and Boyd,
1960), 28; H. Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (London:
SCM, 1969), 214–20; Cranfield, Romans, 95–99; G. E. Ladd, “Righteousness in Romans,”
SJT 19 (1976): 6–17; Godet, Romans, 93–94ff (though Godet seems to hold to a combina-
tion of status and activity); Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia,
Luther’s Works 25 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1972); Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949); A. Oepke, “DIKAIOSUNH QEOU bei Paulus in neuer
Beleuchtung,” TLZ 78 (1953): 263; J. C. O’Neill, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Pelican
New Testament Commentaries (Baltimore: Penguin, 1975); Ridderbos, Paul, 163; M.
Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme,
NovTSup 68 (Leiden: Brill, 1992) 214–15.
94
On this view, qeou/ would be a subjective genitive. Scholars holding this view include:
Bell, No One Seeks for God, 1–2; C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, MNTC
(New York: Harper and Bros., 1932); Godet, Romans, 93–94ff (though see note 123
above); Michel, Römebrief; Murray, Romans, 31; J. H. Roberts, “Righteousness in Romans
with Special Reference to Romans 3:19–31,” Neot 15.1 (1981): 18.
95
As Moo notes (Romans, 72), “. . . every possible combination of the three basic inter-
pretations is found in the literature.” On the combination of activity and status see: Davies,
Faith, 36–38; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 40–41 (though Dunn possibly includes attribute as
well); Godet, Romans, 93–94; Otto Kuss, Der Römerbrief, 3 vols. (Regensburg: Puset,
1963–78), 22; Moo, Romans, 72–75; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 30–31.
The most influential interpretation that views the “righteousness of God” as a combina-
tion of activity and status (though an oversimplification of his position) is likely that of
Ernst Käsemann, who sees the righteousness of God as a power that “. . . brings back the
fallen world into the sphere of [God’s] legitimate claim . . .” (29) through the eschatologi-
cal lordship of Christ. See his Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey Bromiley
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19803), 23–30; see also his Perspectives on Paul, trans. Marga-
ret Kohl, NTL (London: SCM Press, 1971), 74–78.
See also J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theo-
logical Investigation, SNTSMS 20 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 170–
71, 187–88.
Scholars who hold to the “righteousness of God” as a combination of attribute and ac-
tivity include: F. F. Bruce, Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Downers
Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1985), 84–85; Fitzmyer, Romans, 257; D. Hill, Greek Words
and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms, SNTSMS 5
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967); Murray, Romans, 30–31.
Some who view the “righteousness of God” as both attribute and status are: L. Morris,
The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 252; C. A. A.
Scott, Christianity According to St. Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939),
63.
Some who combine attribute, activity and status are: Barrett, Romans, 30; J. H. Ropes,
“‘Righteousness’ and ‘The Righteousness of God’ in the Old Testament and in St. Paul,”
JBL 22 (1903): 225–26; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 24–25.
96 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

first with regard to the context of the passage itself, then with regard to Paul’s
usage, and finally to the OT and probable Isaianic background of this concept
and the possible light it could shed upon this debate.
In the context of Rom 1:16–17, the evidence for the meaning of
dikaiosu,nh qeou/ points in different directions. On the one hand, the strong
connection with faith (God’s righteousness is revealed evk pi,stewj eivj pi,stin)
and the emphasis on the status of righteousness (o` di,kaioj) in the Habakkuk
quotation leads to the conclusion that the status of righteousness granted by
God is in view. On the other hand, the obvious connection between the gospel
as the “power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes” (v. 16b) as
explained by (ga.r) the following phrase “the righteousness of God is revealed
[by] faith” (v. 17a) points to God’s saving activity, as does the parallelism of
structure between “the righteousness of God revealed” in verse 17 with “the
wrath of God revealed” in verse 18. This ambiguity of context with regard to
the meaning of dikaiosu,nh qeou in the thematic verses is further clouded by
Paul’s use of righteousness language in the epistle as a whole.
The “righteousness language” with which Romans is replete, consists pre-
dominantly of the terms dikaiosu,nh, dikaio,w and di,kaioj,97 and comprehends
all of the above interpretational possibilities for the phrase “righteousness of
God” in 1:17. In fact, Paul’s use of the word righteousness/dikaiosu,nh itself
(thirty-four times in Romans, including the occurrences in the phrase “the
righteousness of God”) reflects the broad range of usage evident in the OT.98
It is this broad use of righteousness language in general and his varied use of
the term righteousness in particular that makes interpreting the phrase

96
On the difficulty of dealing adequately with this immense topic in such limited space,
Cranfield notes, “Even those who have devoted whole monographs to the subject of the
righteousness of God in Paul’s thought have been conscious of the difficulty to which we
refer” (Romans, 92, footnote 2).
97
dikaiosu,nh appears 34 times (Rom 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22, 25, 26; 4:3, 5, 6, 9, 11 [2x], 13,
22; 5:17, 21; 6:13, 16, 18, 19, 20; 8:10; 9:30 [3x], 31; 10:3 [3x], 4, 5, 6, 10; 14:17);
dikaio,w appears 15 times (Rom 2:13; 3:4, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30; 4:2, 5; 5:1, 9; 6:7; 8:30 [2x],
33); and di,kaioj appears 7 times (Rom 1:17; 2:13; 3:10, 26; 5:7, 19; 7:12). Note also
dikai,wsij (Rom 4:25; 5:18). Other terms in this cognate family appearing in Romans
include: dikai,wma (Rom 1:32; 2:26; [see esp.] 5:16, 18; 8:4); dikaiokrisi,a (Rom 2:5);
e;ndikoj (Rom 3:8); avdiki,a (Rom 1:18 [2x], 29; 2:8; 3:5; 6:13; 9:14); a;dikoj (Rom 3:5).
98
Most scholars hold that dikaiosu,nh has reference to an attribute of God in either Ro-
mans 3:5, 25 or 26. Likewise, most interpreters would see the term in Romans 4:3ff and
5:17 used to refer to the status conferred by God. Though lacking the same relatively
uncontested usage, dikaiosu,nh [qeou/] as a reference to the justifying activity of God in
such instances as Romans 1:17 and 3:21–22/25–26 has significant and increasing scholarly
support (see notes 94 and 95 above).
In addition it can be mentioned that Romans 6:13 and 18 are viewed by most as a moral
or ethical use of dikaiosu,nh, as referring to that which is pleasing to God as reflected in
His law and covenant.
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 97

dikaiosu,nh qeou/ (dikaiosu,nh auvtou/ in 3:25, 26), used only eight times in
Romans, so notoriously difficult. And this, indeed, is quite understandable,
for the cognate family forms a significant theological family of interrelated
terms both within the Old and New Testaments, and so much so that a partic-
ular use of the phrase as referring to either attribute, status, or activity neces-
sarily implies the others as well.99
That the term dikaiosu,nh frequently refers in Romans to the status of
righteousness is without question, particularly when it is linked to faith (e.g.,
Rom 4:3, 5, 9, 11, 13; 5:17; 9:30). But the phrase dikaiosu,nh qeou/ is em-
ployed four out of its eight times in a theologically dense and highly signifi-
cant section of the epistle, Rom 3:21–26, in which God’s action of justifying
sinners through the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ is the dominant theme.100
In this passage the phrase the righteousness of God appears to be placed in
parallelism with God’s act of justifying. The two occurrences of dikaiosu,nh
qeou/ in 3:21–22 are both negatively introduced (3:20) and positively ex-
plained (3:24) by it. But most telling are the two occurrences of dikaiosu,nh
auvtou/ in 3:25–26. God justifies sinners (dikaiou,menoi, vs. 24) through making
Christ an i`lasth,rion (dia. th/j avpolutrw,sewj th/j evn Cristw/| VIhsou/\ o]n
proe,qeto o` qeo.j i`lasth,rion), which act is further described as a demonstra-
tion of his righteousness. It is in this demonstration of his righteousness (v.
26) that he is at the same time shown to be both just and justifier (pro.j th.n
e;ndeixin th/j dikaiosu,nhj auvtou/ evn tw/| nu/n kairw/|( eivj to. ei=nai auvto.n
di,kaion kai. dikaiou/nta). The righteousness of God, then, in this key passage
of the epistle, appears to refer not only to his saving action in Christ, but also
to the righteousness of his character, from which issued at one and the same
time in the redemptive work of Christ both his judgment upon sin (vv. 25c-
26a, eivj e;ndeixin th/j dikaiosu,nhj auvtou/ dia. th.n pa,resin tw/n progegono,twn
a`marthma,twn evn th/| avnoch/| tou/ qeou/), and his gracious and loving faithfulness
to justify and save.
Though Rom 3:21–26 is richly allusive in its cultic imagery (cf., e.g. Le-
viticus 16), the eschatological nature of its concept of “redemption” effected
through the manifestation of God’s saving righteousness (v. 21, Nuni. de. . . .
dikaiosu,nh qeou/ pefane,rwtai; v. 26, evn tw/| nu/n kairw) points in the direc-
tion of Isaiah as the overarching interpretive framework.101 As these consid-

99
Regarding the decision between activity and status, Cranfield notes, “. . . it is of
course true – and this needs to be emphasized – that a direct reference to either carries with
it an indirect reference to the other,” (Romans, 99, note 1). On the shift in meaning from
activity to attribute in 3:21–22 and 3:25–26, respectively, Moo states, “The jump from the
one to the other is not as great as might at first appear, since always lurking in “righteous-
ness” language is allusion to the character and person of God” (Romans, 219, note 4).
100
As to its use in Romans, dikaio,w occurs five out of its fourteen times in 3:20–30.
101
See Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 34–36; Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans” in Commen-
tary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson
98 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

erations bear upon the nature of the thematic verses, the relation Rom 3:21–
26 sustains with Rom 1:16–17,102 together with the complex of terms found in
the latter, have led several scholars to conclude that a strong Isaianic influ-
ence exists in 1:16–17 as well.103 It is to this OT and particularly Isaianic
background that we now turn to determine its influence on Paul’s concept of
the righteousness of God.
It should be noted summarily at the outset that the only view of dikaiosu,nh
qeou/ to which both the context of Rom 1:16–17 as well as Paul’s use of right-
eousness vocabulary uniformly points is a complex one, though in light of
3:21–26 it appears that God’s saving activity is the dominant thought.

(2) The Righteousness of God: Scriptural Background

Though the term dikaiosu,nh and its cognates were commonly used in secular
Greek,104 Paul’s use of righteousness language stems from the LXX which
predominantly uses this dik[aiosu,nh] family of words to render that of the
qdc family.105 In fact, through this high degree of translation equivalence the
Greek family of terms was so molded by its Hebrew counterpart that “a study
of the one is virtually a study of the other.”106 The root of the qdc family has
the basic meaning of conformity to an ethical norm or standard, which in the
OT is the nature and will of God. 107 The righteousness of God, therefore, as
the moral perfection of his nature and actions, is uniquely expressed in the
law (Ps 36:5–6; 119:142; Isa 42:21). C. E. B. Cranfield states,

(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 619. On the Isaianic background to 3:21–26, see
chapter four below.
102
On this relation, see, e.g., Mark A. Seifrid, “Unrighteous by Faith,” 107. He notes
that the articulations of the gospel in Rom 1:16–17 and 3:21–26 provide the frame around
which 1:18–3:20 is to be understood.
103
See esp. Dodd, Romans, 9–13; but also, e.g., Barrett, Romans, 30–31; Bell, No One
Seeks for God, 1, note 2; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 41; Hays, Echoes, 36–37; Murray, Romans,
29; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 30–31.
104
For an excellent overview of the usages of this cognate family in secular Greek, see
Cranfield, Romans, 93–94.
105
Ibid., 95.
106
Moo, Romans, 81; for a very helpful discussion of the righteousness language in
Paul, see pp. 79–90.
107
On the inseparable connection between OT righteousness language and the concept
of a norm (as over against various merely relational conceptions), and that norm being
none other than God and his works, see esp. Mark A. Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness
Language Against Its Hellenistic Background,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism:
Vol. II – The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid,
WUNT 181 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 43–44. See also Harold G. Stigers, “qdec'
(ṣādēq),” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols., ed. R. Laird Harris,
Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 752–55 (here-
after rendered TWOT).
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 99

The basic idea of the noun ṣeḏeḳ seems to have been that of conformity to a norm. Where
ṣeḏeḳ is used in connection with the conduct of persons, it refers to the fulfillment of the
obligations arising from a particular situation, the demands of a particular relationship. As
far as Israel was concerned the supremely important relationship was the covenant between
God and His people; and ṣeḏeḳ in the OT is to be understood in the context of the Cove-
nant.108

Mark A. Seifrid, however, has argued that “. . . the righteousness language in

the Hebrew Scriptures (as in the Ancient Near East generally) has its basis in
creational theology rather than in the framework of covenantal ideas.”109
Seifrid rightly argues for the world-wide relevance of the establishment of
God’s righteousness as against the more narrow understanding of God’s
“covenant faithfulness” to Israel, particularly in light of Pauline usage. 110 And
yet God effects this righteousness as a reclamation of creation through his
covenant with Israel (Gen 12:1–3; 15:6), within which the law becomes a
reassertion of divine sovereignty over creation; through Israel the Lord typo-
logically reflects his relation to the world, not only in terms of Israel’s sin and
exile, but also in terms of his intent to reinscribe the divine image and nature
upon a fallen humanity. The covenant, then, as expressive of the nature and
will of God, may be conceived as the framework within which most of the
righteousness language of the OT should be understood, but only insofar as it
is conceived in a universal (i.e., “creational”) sense, a sense largely conveyed
and constrained by the typology of Israel.
The term “covenant,” then, can refer to the larger theological framework of
the Pentateuch which is bounded by both the Abrahamic promise and God’s
promise of final redemption in the closing chapters of Deuteronomy (chapters
30, 32); but also, and inseparably related to this, the covenant can refer to the
law itself as a reflection of the character and will of God, with its potential of
blessing and curse. This “covenant tension” between promise and demand,
related to the tension in the biblical portrayal of God’s righteousness (dis-
cussed below), will be seen to come together in Paul’s understanding of
God’s redemptive righteousness in the prophecy of Isaiah.111

108
Cranfield, Romans, 94.
109
“Paul’s Use,” 40. See his fuller discussion in “Righteousness Language in the He-
brew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. I – The
Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A.
Seifrid, WUNT 140 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 415–42.
110
Seifrid insightfully comments (“Paul’s Use,” 40), “That God acts first on behalf of
Israel (and against Israel) may be said to arise from his covenantal relationship with the
nation. What he enacts, however, is that right order between himself and the world which
constitutes its salvation” (italics his). He then continues, interestingly, to quote Isa 45:3.
111
Seifrid states (ibid., 44), “The ultimate hope of the Hebrew Scriptures, we may sug-
gest, is that ‘righteousness’ – presently still unseen – shall be realized finally by God
himself through his Anointed . . .”
100 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

From this broader, covenantal framework, then, a framework thoroughly

sourced in creational theology, issues the largely forensic nature of usages for
this word group. So, for instance, the term righteousness (qd,c, / hq"d"c. //
dikaiosu,nh) when applied to persons can describe the quality of being in
conformity with the nature and will of God, generally as it is expressed in the
Lord’s covenant with Israel (e.g. Job 29:12–15; Deut 6:25; 24:13; 25:1). The
adjective righteous (qyDic; / di,kaioj) could refer to one who was in some way
characterized by this righteousness, and the verb justify, as a further example
(qdc / dikaio,w), out of its many uses may denote such things as “being right-
eous,” or “to justify/declare righteous/acquit” (Exod 23:7; Deut 25:1).112
God’s righteousness in the canonical context of the OT (in keeping with
the covenant tension noted above) takes two somewhat different trajectories.
On the one hand the moral perfection of his character issues in law, judgment,
and condemnation, as God is presented as the supremely righteous judge,
meeting out absolute justice (e.g., Deut 32:24; Ps 11:7; 97:2; 119:37; Isa
5:16); therefore he will not acquit the guilty and no one is justified in his

112
The overwhelmingly forensic nature of this terminology indicates that dikaio,w and
its cognates (when used with reference to justification) should be understood in the sense
of acquittal, or the conveying of a righteous status, rather than moral transformation. See
esp. Godet, Romans, 154–59; Morris, Apostolic Preaching, 224–74.
This covenantal framework for the righteousness language of the OT, moreover, goes
some way toward reconciling two main views on the basic meaning of the root qdc, as
either “conformity to a norm,” or “fulfillment of relational claims.” A prominent example
of an interpreter holding one form of the former position would doubtless be Francis B.
Watson (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith), who holds that “the righteousness of God”
refers to a status conferred by God with respect to his law (e.g., 49–53). N. T. Wright, on
the other hand, is an example of one who holds a more nuanced view, though some, in-
deed, would consider his position to fall within the latter category. In Paul and the Faith-
fulness of God, he holds that God’s righteousness is His covenant faithfulness (see esp.,
796–804), though he does acknowledge within this principle significance a definite and
necessary forensic component (e.g., 934–46). For Wright, therefore, “to be righteous” is
equivalent to being in the covenant (e.g., 848–49, 856). It seems, perhaps, that what are
obviously co-extensive categories (i.e., one who is “righteous” is “in the covenant,” and
vice versa) are illegitimately being rendered equivalent categories. It seems also that the
more comprehensive category would be the nature and character of God from which
flowed the covenant in its various expressions.
See further Ziesler, Righteousness, 36–39; Moo, Romans, 79–80. See also the survey in
John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–
23, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 82–83.
This brief description and what follows in the next three paragraphs is meant simply to
be suggestive of some of the most basic contours of the topic of righteousness in the OT as
a backdrop for the continuing discussion of Isaiah. For a helpful survey of qdc in the OT,
see Harold G. Stigers, “qdec' (ṣādēq),” TWOT, 2:752–55. For a concise description of the
usages of this word group as the background for Paul’s righteousness vocabulary, see
Cranfield, Romans, 94.
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 101

sight (Exod 23:7; Josh 24:19–20; Ps 1:5; 143:2). Yet on the other hand God’s
righteousness is revealed in his gracious and compassionate character (e.g.,
Deut 24:13; Ps 4:1; 37:21; 112:4; 116:5). It is this aspect of God’s righteous-
ness – his gracious love, and purposed faithfulness to forgive, save and re-
store – that is appealed to as the basis for mercy, cleansing and restoration
(e.g., Ps 31:1–5ff; 32:1–11; 51:1–19 [esp. v. 14]; 143:1–3ff).
These disparate trajectories result in a tension that is epitomized in several
passages in the OT. In Exod 34:5–8 the Lord’s revelation of his glory to Mo-
ses is an interesting juxtaposition of these two aspects of his righteous charac-
ter as he “. . . forgives iniquity . . . yet He will by no means leave the guilty
unpunished . . .” (v. 7), a juxtaposition, therefore, which points in the direc-
tion of the covenant promise of redemption for the resolution of the inherent
tension. Similarly, in the life of David as expressed in Psalm 51 (cf. Rom
3:4/Ps 51:4; cf. also Rom 4:6–8/Ps 32:1–2), David acknowledges his guilt
and God’s just sentence of condemnation for his two capital crimes (v. 4), yet
it is to God’s righteousness that he appeals for full and free acquittal (v. 14).
Righteousness, then, has in certain OT texts the gift quality of a judicial status
freely conferred (e.g., Ps 4:1; 32:1–11; 35:27–28; 37:6), a gift and status
arising out of God’s covenant promise. 113
The cult, moreover, though ostensibly pointing in the direction of an an-
swer to this tension (Ps 51:7), in reality provides no actual solution (Ps
51:16); and though repentance/faith is necessary, the tension lingers, even in
the face of the promised resolution in the covenant. This continuing tension,
therefore, points throughout the OT to the need for and promise of a decisive
event, for though the seed of the woman had been promised, the head of the
Serpent was not yet crushed and man was still cast from the garden; though
this redemptive promise was reaffirmed to Abraham through divine covenant,
the world-wide blessing that would remove the curse had not yet been real-
ized; and though God had gloriously redeemed Israel out of Egypt, their sin
had left them yet in the dessert, separated from God by the curtains of the
tabernacle.
This tension, portrayed in God’s revelation to Moses and epitomized in the
experience of David, is also depicted in the life of Isaiah (Isa 6:1–7). In Isaiah
6 the prophet, representative of the nation (v. 5; cf., e.g., 1:2ff; 42:21–25;
50:1–2; 59:1–15; etc.), stands undone before the glory of the Lord, guilty and
helpless in his sin, yet is mysteriously fitted for divine service through a coal
from the heavenly altar. It is only within the further theological development
of Isaiah’s prophecy, however, that this mysterious tension comes to climac-

113
Though it is certainly true that people in the OT are described as righteous even in
reference to God’s law, yet it is also true throughout the OT that this righteousness or
capacity to obey the law is somehow conceived as originating in God (cf., e.g., Deut 10:16;
30:6; Isa 32:15–17; Jer 4:4; Ezek 36:25–27; Hos 10:12).
102 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

tic resolution as the righteousness of God is revealed in the Servant of the

Lord, whose sacrifice becomes the source of the efficacy of the heavenly
altar, and who himself becomes the basis of God’s eternal covenant. It is this
revelation of divine righteousness that forms the scriptural backdrop for Rom
1:17a. But before this backdrop can be sketched, the specific link to Isaiah
must be demonstrated.

(3) The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s Righteousness: A Uniquely

Isaianic Background
Though the phrase “the righteousness of God” appears only once in the He-
brew OT, and not at all in the LXX manuscripts, several semantically equiva-
lent expressions are prevalent, predominantly in the Psalms and Isaiah, being
conveyed by the term “righteousness” together with a pronoun whose ante-
cedent refers to God.114 In the Psalms and Isaiah almost exclusively is this
“righteousness of God” frequently coupled with the term salvation.115 As was
noted above, many scholars recognize that Paul’s concept of “God’s right-
eousness” is derived from these OT passages, which refer most often to
God’s eschatological, saving vindication of his people in fulfillment of his
covenant promises. In Isaiah alone, however, among the OT and
intertestamental writings, is this righteousness of God not only closely related
to the proclamation of good news, but in the proclamation itself is this right-
eousness revealed. This gospel as the revelation of God’s righteousness be-
comes clearly apparent when one examines the web of interrelated terms in
this section of the prophecy.
In Isaiah 40–55 God’s righteousness (dikaiosu,nh / qd,c,, hq'd'c.) is particu-
larly and uniquely wrought through the redemptive, sacrificial death of the
Servant of the Lord.116 This connection is made in large part by the use of the
phrase “the arm of the Lord,” which is first set in parallel with the righteous-
ness of God and then described in terms of the sacrifice of the Servant. These

114
Though the phrase hw"hy> tq:d>ci appears in Deut 33:21 within the overall context of es-
chatological salvation, it is situated within Moses’ prophetic blessing upon the tribe of Gad
and so has a more specific reference to the role of that tribe. The prevalence and theologi-
cal similarity of the semantically equivalent expressions in Psalms and Isaiah render it
more likely that the source of Paul’s conceptions are to be found there. The same would
obtain for the two occurrences of the phrase h` dikaiosu,nh tou/ kuri,ou in 1 Sam 12:7 and
Mic 6:5.
115
In the LXX: swthri,a / swth,rion // dikaiosu,nh; in the MT: hqdc / qdc // h[wvt /
h[wvy / [vy (e.g., Pss 24:5; 51:14; 65:5; 98:2; Isa 45:8; 46:13; 51:5, 6, 8; 56:1; 59:16, 17;
61:10; 62:1). Note, e.g., the close correspondence of the terms in the LXX of Psalm 98:2,
“evgnw,risen ku,rioj to. swth,rion auvtou/ evnanti,on tw/n evqnw/n avpeka,luyen th.n dikaiosu,nhn
auvtou/,” or in the MT of Isa 56:1, “tAlG"hil. ytiq'd>ciw> aAbl' yti['Wvy> hb'Arq.-yKi.”
116
E.g., Isa 42:6–7; 45:22–25; 49:5–9; 50:4–10; 51:1–11; 52:7–10; 53:1, 11.
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 103

associated ideas surface most clearly in the contextual setting of Isa 52:7–10
as it anticipates the message of Isa 52:13–53:12.
Isa 52:7–10, as the proclamation of God’s accomplished salvation, is situ-
ated uniquely within the prophecy to both herald the reality of the salvation
the Lord has accomplished for his people as well as to introduce the descrip-
tion of the redemptive event in the sacrifice of the Servant. 117 Through
intertextual links with Isa 40:1–11 (esp. vv. 9–11) it marks the fulfillment of
the promised comfort, forgiveness, and redemption of the prologue, which
itself recalls these key promises from the first section of the prophecy.118
Isaiah 40 further sets the stage for the ultimate significance of this redemption
through its parallel between the captivity of Israel and the captivity of all
flesh to corruption and decay,119 so that the redemption of Israel from Baby-
lon through Cyrus prominent in chapters 40–48 becomes a metaphor or type
of the redemption accomplished through the Servant of the Lord in chapters
49–55.120 In chapter 49 both the figure of the Servant together with the escha-
tological salvation he mediates is brought to the forefront, and remains the
focus through chapter 55. 121

117
On Isa 52:7–10 as a literary unit, see, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 406; Paul D. Hanson,
Isaiah 40–66, Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995), 148;
Westermann, Isaiah, 249–50. Oswalt (Isaiah 40–66, 340, 365, 368, 371) views the unit as
extending from 52:7–12, though he sees this larger pericope as divided into two subsec-
tions of 52:7–10 and 52:11–12.
118
On the commonly acknowledged intertextual link between Isa 52:7–10 and Isaiah
40, see Childs, Isaiah, 406; Geoffrey W. Grogan, “Isaiah,” in EBC, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1986), 297; Motyer, Isaiah, 419; Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 367; Westermann,
Isaiah, 250. On the intertextual links between the prologue of Isaiah 40 and the first major
section of the prophecy (chapters 1–39) as well as the manner in which the prologue (Isa
40:1–11, so Childs) draws together and affirms these earlier redemptive promises, see esp.
Childs, 295–303.
119
On this parallel, see in chapter three below, “The Typology of Isaiah as the Source
of Paul’s Thought.”
120
This thesis supports the view that this is Paul’s interpretive approach to Isaiah in
Romans (see the discussions in chapter three below, “Warrant for Viewing a Broad
Isaianic Influence on Romans 1:18–3:20,” “Isaiah 52:5/Romans 2:24 in the Context of
Romans 1:18–3:8,” “Paul’s Understanding of Isaiah as Answering the Fall”). For this
approach among commentators on Isaiah, see esp. Motyer, Isaiah, 289, 352–53, 383, 420–
23; Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 287, 351, 371–73. On the [partly] metaphorical nature of the
redemption depicted in Isa 52:11–12, see also J. Muilenburg, “The Book of Isaiah:
Chapters 40–66,” in IB, vol. 5 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956), 613; Westermann Isai-
ah, 252–53.
121
This shift in the redemptive focus from Cyrus in chapters 40–48 to the Servant in
49–55 is noted by many commentators. See, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 352.
Isaiah 40–55 as a major section of the prophecy, as well as the main division within this
major section between chapters 48 and 49, is almost universally accepted by commenta-
tors. On the unified nature of chapters 40–55, see, e.g., Westermann, Isaiah, 28. The rela-
104 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

The basic scheme of chapters 49–55 and the place of Isa 52:7–10 may be
described as follows: In chapter 49 the Servant is reintroduced as the princi-
pal figure in God’s redemptive purpose for Israel and the world (49:1–13; cf.
42:1–7).122 The subsequent complaint and despair of Israel due to the misper-
ception that she has been forgotten by God (49:14) are overcome in the next
segment by strong assertions of divine fidelity to the Lord’s promises to re-
deem the covenant nation (49:14–26), promises that will come to fulfillment
even in spite of the power of Israel’s captor (vv. 24–26). This redemption,
necessitated by the sin that separated Israel from her God (50:1–3), will be
accomplished by the Servant, who responds to God’s call for an intercessor
(50:4–9; cf. 50:2; cf. also 53:12); yet this redemption will be granted only to
those whose faith is in the Servant as the agent of redemption (50:10–11).123
In Isa 51:1–52:12,124 pentateuchal allusions to redemptive types, covenant
promises and the restoration of creation create a literary atmosphere of piqued
anticipation for the in-breaking of the longed-for eschatological salvation.

tion between Isaiah 40–48 and 49–55 and their respective redemptive movements is well
expressed by Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 7–10.
The relatively current scholarly resurgence of the recognition of the compositional and
theological unity of Isaiah 40–55, and of the prophecy as a whole, is evidenced, e.g., in the
works of Walter Brueggemann, “Unity and Dynamic in the Isaiah Tradition,” JSOT 29
(1984): 89–107; Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Lon-
don: SCM Press, 1979); Biblical Theology; Isaiah; R. E. Clements, “The Unity of the Book
of Isaiah,” Int 36 (1982): 117–29; J. J. M. Roberts, “Isaiah in Old Testament Theology,”
Int 36.2 (1982): 130–43. See also, e.g., John E. Goldingay, The Theology of the Book of
Isaiah (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2014).
122
The central role of the Servant understood in a messianic, redemptive role within
49–55 is held, e.g., by Childs, Isaiah, 382–87, 390. Concerning the uncertainty with regard
to some of the larger sections within Isaiah 49–55, Childs writes (390–91), “Formal liter-
ary indices that mark the boundaries of the larger sections within the cycle [Isaiah 40–55]
are often indistinct. This structural issue is not as important as frequently suggested by
commentators since the continuing movement within the chapters is often unaffected.” The
following analysis, therefore, reflects the contextual movement within the commonly
acknowledged smaller units, though there is disagreement over some of the larger units
within Isa 49:1–52:12.
123
One primary element of Childs’ treatment of Isaiah 49–55 is his emphasis on a divi-
sion within Israel that centers on the issue of faith in the Servant and the redemption he
mediates. That theme comes to the surface again in Isa 50:10–11, and, as Childs asserts
(ibid., 395–96, 402), takes in the larger literary context that moves toward and culminates
in the confessing community of Isaiah 53, which is the remnant, identified in terms of
understanding and acceptance of the redemptive role of the Servant’s suffering. On the
individual Servant becoming the embodiment of national Israel and so forming the nucleus
of the remnant, see pp. 381–87.
See also, e.g., Blenkinsopp, “Sealed Book,” 193–97; “The Servant,” 155–75.
124
Most scholars recognize this as a major sub-segment of Isaiah 49–55 (Childs, Isaiah,
401).
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 105

What has come to be called the fourth Servant Song, Isa 52:13–53:12, 125 then
discloses the basis of the redemptive event in the sacrifice of the Servant,
which is followed in chapters 54–55 with the universal invitation to both the
covenant people as well as “anyone who thirsts” (Isa 55:1) to enter into this
newly accomplished salvation.
Isa 52:7–10, then, forms the climax to the growing anticipation begun not
simply in chapter 51, or even 49, but to the promised and imminent return of
God with his redeemed people announced in chapter 40, an echo of the earlier
Isaianic promises. 126 Following the exhortation in 52:1–6 for Jerusalem to
awake, cast off her chains and enter by faith into the deliverance that the Lord
has provided his people, Isa 52:7–10 dramatically portrays the fulfillment of
this redemptive hope: the watchmen over a devastated Jerusalem, straining
their eyes and ears in anticipation, catch sight of a lone herald proclaiming
the good news of salvation, that God by his mighty arm has accomplished
redemption for his people and established his reign. Isa 52:11–12, then, by
means of both allusions to the exodus and promises that surpass it, form a
concluding exhortation to appropriate this redemption. Recalling the tenor of
52:1–6, Israel is commanded, “Depart, depart, go out from there . . .”
Yet it is not simply Israel who is commanded to arise, depart and follow
the Lord in the redemptive way toward home, inheritance and restoration.
The universal scope and significance of this proclamation of salvation is
evident in that 52:7–12 is set within the eschatological orientation of the
fulfillment of the promised salvation for both Israel and the nations. 127 There-
fore, while the redemption from Babylon lingers as a metaphorical specter in
the background, the reference is to full and final deliverance, the reign of God
in eschatological renewal, vouchsafed to the many through the sacrifice of the
Servant.

125
Even Whybray, who divides 52:13–15 from 53:1–12 for interpretive reasons (view-
ing the first section as referring to the nation and the second to Deutero-Isaiah), acknowl-
edges that “The great majority of commentators support the view that these verses are part
of a larger whole, the fourth ‘Servant Song’, 52:13–53:12.” On Isa 52:13–53:12 as a unit
see, e.g., Westermann, Isaiah, 255–56; Childs, Isaiah, 411. Childs notes, “There is wide
agreement going back to the first century A.D. that the unit extends from 52:13 to 53:12,
thus correcting the traditional chapter division . . .”
For a thorough criticism of the view, held widely since Duhm, that the “Servant Songs”
originated apart from their current literary context in the prophecy, see Tryggve N. D.
Mettinger, A Farewell to the Servant Songs: A Critical Examination of an Exegetical
Axiom, trans. Frederick H. Cryer, Scripta minora 1982–1983.3 (Lund: Gleerup, 1983).
126
Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 367. Childs (Isaiah, 302) asserts that these allusions to the
promises of both judgment and salvation in the first section of the prophecy are intended as
an affirmation that “the word of our God stands forever” (Isa 40:8).
127
E.g., Isa 45:22–25; 49:6; 51:1–6; 52:10, 15; 53:11–12; 55:1–7, 12–13.
106 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

(4) The Isaianic Good News: The Revelation of God’s Righteousness in the
Sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord
Within this contextual framework, the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in
Isa 52:13–53:12 is depicted as the supreme revelation of God’s saving right-
eousness, often by means of the typological heightening achieved through the
use of the redemptive types of the Egyptian and Babylonian deliverances.
These types are often recalled, and the climactic nature of the antitype re-
vealed, through the use of the phrase the arm of the Lord (e.g., 40:10; 51:4–
11; 52:10; 53:1). This phrase, then, denoting the exertion of divine power to
both save his people and judge his enemies (Is 30:30; 48:14), becomes a close
conceptual parallel to the righteousness of God.
The closeness of this parallel becomes starkly apparent in Isa 51:1–11 in
which heightened expectation begins to build towards a climax in light of the
imminent establishment of the righteousness of God (note the repetitive men-
tion of the synonymous terms qd,c,, and hq'd'c. in vv. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8). In verses 5–
9, and in verse 5 in particular, the arm of the Lord is made the semantic coun-
terpart to God’s saving righteousness. Isa 51:5 reads,
My righteousness is near, My salvation has gone forth, And My arms will judge the peo-
ples; The coastlands will wait for Me, And for My arm they will wait expectantly.

This growing anticipation of the soon-to-be-revealed righteousness of God

becomes in 51:9 an anticipation of the arm of the Lord:
Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; Awake as in the days of old, the
generations of long ago. Was it not Thou who cut Rahab in pieces, Who pierced the drag-
on?

As this section of Isaiah unfolds the integration of these two concepts be-
comes more and more apparent, linked more tightly by the good news of the
redemptive death of the Servant of the Lord. In Isa 52:7–10 the arm of the
Lord as the visible manifestation of God’s redeeming, saving power that
ushers in God’s reign becomes the content of the proclamation of good news;
yet in 53:1 this saving arm – God’s redemptive righteousness – is revealed
(LXX avpokalu,ptw / MT hlg) in the vicarious death and subsequent exaltation
Servant of the Lord. It is this sacrificial death of the Servant, then, which
forms the content of the “report,” a report which is thereby contextually iden-
tified with the “good news” of 52:7.128 Therefore, as the particulars of this

128
This interpretive connection established between Isa 52:[7-]10 and 53:1 on the basis
of the phrase “the arm of the Lord” is recognized, e.g., by Grogan, “Isaiah,” 302; Motyer,
Isaiah, 427; Muilenburg, “Isaiah,” 619; Oswalt, Isaiah, 382; John D. Watts, Isaiah 34–66,
WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2005 [revised]), 230; Williams, “Testimo-
ny,” 121. Williams writes, “The presence of common vocabulary (the Lord’s arm, the
nations, reveal), even the same verbal forms (o;yontai), suggests that Isa 52:10 and 52:13–
53:1 LXX lent themselves to be interpreted with reference to each other: the holy arm of
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 107

message (Isa 53:2–12) and its results (Isa 54:1–55:13) are set forth, though
couched in cultic and redemptive imagery, their meaning and significance are
explained with reference to the fulfillment of the promised and now revealed
righteousness of God (Isa 53:11–12; 54:14, 17; [56:1; 59:16–21ff;] cf. Isa
45:25; 50:7–9; Rom 8:31–34; see Appendix).
The arm of the Lord, then, as a typological depiction of God’s redemptive,
saving power is in Isaiah 40–55 the expression or manifestation God’s right-
eousness. This typological portrait comes to antitypical fulfillment in the
good news or report (Isa 52:7/53:1) of the substitutionary and sacrificial
death of the Servant of the Lord through whom the remnant is justified. It is
specifically and uniquely in this death, therefore, that the arm of the Lord, the
saving righteousness of God, is revealed (Isa 53:1). 129 Or, to put it another
way, the good news is [the message of] the revelation of God’s redemptive
righteousness in the sacrificial death of the Servant of the Lord.130
Because this interpretive connection bears significantly upon the under-
standing of Rom 1:17a, additional support for this view of the relationship
between the passages seems warranted. The identification of the report of Isa
53:1 with the proclamation of good news in 52:7 is both represented in the
interpretive tradition of late antiquity and acknowledged by scholars. 131 Paul

the Lord to be revealed to the nations can be identified with the Servant who will be exalt-
ed and glorified.”
For this interpretive linking of the Servant and the arm of the Lord in LXX Isaiah, see
Eugene Robert Ekblad, Jr., Isaiah’s Servant Poems According to the Septuagint: An Exe-
getical and Theological Study, CBET 23 (Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 197–98.
129
See especially Isa 1:27 as the initial announcement of the coming “redemption
through justice/righteousness.” The integration of these concepts is not typical throughout
OT scripture, though they are associated. “Righteousness” for Israel was understood in
terms of keeping the Law of God (e.g., Deut 6:25), but the presence of the sacrificial sys-
tem for sin/unrighteousness implied that this “righteousness” was in some sense provision-
al or incomplete, that redemption and atonement were in some ways as yet unfulfilled. Pss
49:7–9, 15; 130:3–8 give evidence of this understanding, bringing together redemption and
atonement concepts and pointing to their ultimate significance in terms of sin and death.
This appears to be carried further in the Isaianic integration of redemptive and atonement
types with their antitypical fulfillment in the righteousness of God, which becomes a prom-
inent concept for Paul in Romans 3:21ff. See chapter four below.
130
See, e.g., Gignilliat, Paul and Isaiah’s Servants, 81, 100. Regarding the identity of
the implied narrators of Isa 53:1 (“our report”) he states (81), “These servants of the Serv-
ant retrospectively observe and herald the significance of the work of the Servant who was
despised and rejected. Contextually, these servants of the Servant are linked with the
heralds of 52.7 who announce the coming reign of God.”
131
In addition to the clear interpretive connection mentioned above via the phrase “the
arm of the Lord” (see note 128 above), others who hold to the identification of “the proc-
lamation of good news” of Isa 52:7 with the “report” of Isa 53:1 include, e.g., Evans,
“Isaiah 53,”147–49; Wagner, Heralds, 174, 179–80; Watts, Isaiah, 782. Evans discusses
this connection between 52:7 and 53:1, stating (148), “. . . there are at least four indications
108 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

makes this identification himself in Rom 10:15–16 by means of his succes-

sive quotations of Isa 52:7 and 53:1, in which his intervening comments serve
to equate the content of “the proclamation of good news” in Isa 52:7 (Rom
10:15) with the “report” of Isa 53:1 (Rom 10:16; cf. Acts 10:36, 43).132 In
addition to the concept of “the arm of the Lord” which joins Isa 52:7–10 to
53:1 (mentioned above), there are several other verbal, thematic, and contex-
tual connections that unite the passages, and likely led the apostle to under-
stand the content of the good news of 52:7 to be based in the vicarious, sacri-
ficial death, burial and (implied) resurrection of the Servant of the Lord in
Isaiah 53.
The chart on the following page illustrates some of the verbal and thematic
connections between 52:7–10 (specifically vv. 7 and 10), 52:15, and Isa 53:1.

that in late antiquity Isaiah 52:7 was understood as linked in some way to the Suffering
Servant hymn: (1) first-century preachers and writers Peter and Paul linked 52:7 with the
hymn; (2) the Great Isaiah Scroll of Qumran appears to mark 52:7 as the beginning of a
lection that includes the hymn; (3) the masoretic tradition (esp. Codex Leningrad) appears
to make 52:7 the beginning of a lection that includes the hymn, with the hymn clearly
indicated as a complete unit; and (4) the Targum creates a link between 53:1 and 52:7 by
making the former refer to ‘good news,’ which is announced in the latter.”
On Peter’s linking of Isa 52:7 to 53:1, see Peter’s address to the household of Cornelius
in Acts 10:34–43, esp. vv. 36 and 43.
132
Wagner (Heralds, 174) notes that Paul uses the term euvagge,lion in Rom 10:16 for
the first time since 2:16. In light of Paul’s consistent use of the phrases “the word of
Christ” or “the word of faith” in Romans 10 to describe his message (10:8, 17), Wagner
asserts that Paul’s use of euvagge,lion here is a deliberate attempt to create a connection with
oi` euvaggelizo,menoi of Isa 52:7 (Rom 10:15). Paul then equates to, euvagge,lion with h` avkoh,
h`mw/n of Isa 53:1 (VAllV ouv pa,ntej u`ph,kousan tw/| euvaggeli,w |Å VHsai<aj ga.r le,gei\ ku,rie(
ti,j evpi,steusen th/| avkoh/| h`mw/nÈ). See also Peter Stuhlmacher, “The Pauline Gospel,” 162.
Concerning this second connection Wagner comments (Heralds, 179), “Paul allows
Isaiah to speak in his own voice about the rejection of ‘our message.’ It is of tremendous
significance for understanding Paul’s appropriation of the Book of Isaiah to recognize that
this quotation assumes a fundamental correspondence between Paul’s apostolic proclama-
tion and Isaiah’s message.”
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 109

Isa 52:7 “How lovely on the mountains

Are the feet of him who brings good news,
Who announces peace And brings good news
of happiness, Who announces salvation, And
says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’”
Isa 52:10 “The LORD has bared His holy Isa 53:1 “Who has believed our message?
arm In the sight of all the nations, That all the And to whom has the arm of the LORD been
ends of the earth may see The salvation of our revealed?”
God.”
Isa 52:15b “. . . For what had not been told
them they will see, And what they had not
heard they will understand.”
~yrIøh'h,-l[; Ww“aN"-hm; Isa 52:7
rFEïb;m. ~Al±v' [:ymióv.m; rFeªb;m. yleäg>r:
%l:ïm' !AYàcil. rmEïao h['_Wvy> [:ymiäv.m; bAjß
`%yIh")l{a/ Wnte_['muv.li !ymiÞa/h, y.miî Isa 53:1
[;Aråz>-ta, ‘hw"hy> @f:Üx' Isa 52:10 `ht'l'(g>nI ymiî-l[; hw"ßhy> [;Arïz>W
‘War"w> ~yI+AGh;-lK' ynEßy[el. Avêd>q'
`Wnyhe(l{a/ t[;îWvy> taeÞ #r<a'ê-ysep.a;-lK'
‘~h,l' rP:Üsu-al{) rv,’a] yKi Isa 52:15
`Wnn")ABt.hi W[ßm.v'-al{) rv<ïa]w: Waêr"
Isa 52:7 w`j w[ra evpi. tw/n ovre,wn w`j po,dej
euvaggelizome,nou avkoh.n eivrh,nhj w`j
euvaggelizo,menoj avgaqa, o[ti avkousth.n poih,sw
th.n swthri,an sou le,gwn Siwn basileu,sei
sou o` qeo,j Isa 53:1 LXX ku,rie ti,j evpi,steusen th/|
Isa 52:10 kai. (avpokalu,yei) ku,rioj to.n avkoh/| h`mw/n kai. o` braci,wn kuri,ou ti,ni
braci,ona auvt ou/ to.n a[gion evnw,pion pa,ntwn (avpekalu,fqh)
tw/n evqnw/n kai. o;yontai pa,nta ta. a;kra th/j
gh/j th.n swthri,an th.n para. tou/ qeou/
Isa 52:15b o[ti oi-j ouvk avnhgge,lh peri.
auvtou/ o;yontai kai. oi] ouvk avkhko,asin
sunh,sousin
Isa 52:7 “as a season of beauty upon the
mountains, as the feet of one preaching glad
tidings of peace, as one preaching good news:
for I will publish thy salvation, saying, O Sion,
thy God shall reign.” LXX Isa 53:1 “O Lord, who has believed our
Isa 52:10 “And the Lord shall reveal his report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord
holy arm in the sight of all the nations; and all been revealed?” LXX
the ends of the earth shall see the salvation that
comes from our God.” LXX
Isa 52:15b “. . . for they to whom no report
was brought concerning him, shall see; and
they who have not heard, shall consider.” LXX

Underline = verbal connections centering on various forms of the terms [mv and avkoh,,
which in 52:7 are set in parallel with rfb and euvaggeli,zw, respectively.
Double Underline = the phrase “His holy arm”/“the arm of the Lord”
Broken Underline = the prominent theme of divine revelation, inherent in the proclama-
tion of good news; a conceptual connection strengthened in the LXX by the future tense of
avpokalu,ptw, corresponding to the aorist in 53:1 (see parenthesis)
110 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

As mentioned above, Isa 52:7 and 10 as forming the beginning and end of
this given literary unit are to be understood together, so that the good news of
the arrival of God’s salvation in 52:7 is the same as the good news of the
revelation of the Lord’s holy arm that brings salvation in 52:10. In 52:10 the
revelation of the saving arm of the Lord forms the more specific content of
the good news by describing the Lord’s exertion of his mighty power for the
salvation of his people. This arm of the Lord, the content of the good news
and the semantic equivalent of God’s saving righteousness (Isa 51:5), is then
definitively and climactically revealed in Isa 53:1 as it anticipates and encap-
sulates the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. This message of God’s mighty
arm, then, is set forth in 53:2–12 by means of the above contextual and lin-
guistic links between 52:10, 52:15 and 53:1, which together serve to intro-
duce the Servant’s sacrificial work.
In both the MT and the LXX, Isa 52:7 and 10 linguistically link this good
news of God’s salvation with Isa 53:1. In the MT of 52:7 the hiphil participle
of [mv (NASB “to announce”) is twice used synonymously with the piel
participle of rfb (NASB “to bring good news”) to convey the initial procla-
mation of salvation to Zion. The verb ([mv) is then employed in reference to
the nations who come to embrace what they have “heard” with regard to the
Servant (52:15), while the cognate noun (h['Wmv.) then appears in 53:1, signi-
fying the “report” of God’s deliverance and reign through the Servant initial-
ly proclaimed to a disbelieving Israel. So what begins as a proclamation of
deliverance and salvation to Israel (Isa 52:7; 53:1) becomes a proclamation to
the nations (Isa 52:15; cf. Isa 42:1–7; 49:1–9).
This contextual and linguistic connection between the proclamation of
good news in Isa 52:7 and the report of 53:1 is made stronger in the LXX.
There the proclamation of good news in 52:7 is a “report of peace” (w`j po,dej
euvaggelizome,nou avkoh.n eivrh,nhj – “. . . as the feet of one preaching good
news – tidings of peace . . .”), the very word used in 53:1, “Lord, who has
believed our report” (ku,rie ti,j evpi,steusen th/| avkoh/| h`mw/n). The seemingly
redundant nature of avkoh.n in 52:7 appears to be a deliberate interpretive con-
nection with 53:1, 133 a connection likely strengthened further by means of the
future avpokalu,yei in 52:10 corresponding to the aorist avpekalu,fqh in 53:1.
The message of salvation and deliverance that God would reveal to the na-
tions had first been revealed to Israel.

133
What is in the Hebrew a linguistic connection between the hiphil participles and the
cognate noun, strengthening the contextual connection (cf. also 52:15), apparently be-
comes an interpretive identification in the LXX, which is followed by Paul. The term avkoh,
is used in LXX Isaiah only 3 times: 6:9; 52:7; and 53:1.
As mentioned above (note 131), the Targum of Isaiah makes the same interpretive iden-
tification, reading in Isa 53:1, “. . . who has believed this our good news . . .”
Note also in 52:7 the cognate avkousth.n.
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 111

The strong linguistic and contextual connections between 52:7–10 and

53:1 are further reinforced thematically. The emphasis on hearing the good
news in 52:7 gradually shifts throughout the pericope to an emphasis on see-
ing this salvation as it is divinely revealed in the saving message in 52:10.
This dual emphasis picks up the themes of faith, obduracy and unbelief prom-
inent since Isaiah 6, themes metaphorically represented by the ability or judi-
cially incurred inability to perceive with the senses. These themes are contin-
ued in the introductory verses to the fourth Servant Song (Isa 52:15), and
become prominent in 53:1, as hearing and seeing (Isa 52:15) are used to rep-
. i !ymia/h, ymi; Isa 53:1) in God’s saving act through the
resent faith (Wnte['muvl
humiliation and exaltation of his Servant. 134 The Servant, as the personifica-
tion of the Lord’s saving arm, is set forth as “. . . the object of seeing, as the
content of divine revelation.”135 Ironically, however, at least in its initial
proclamation, the report of 53:1 – intended “to be heard” in the truest sense –
is in fact, by many in Israel, snubbed and disbelieved; and the divine manifes-
tation of God’s saving arm through the Person of the Servant, evocative to the
soul in a manner that eclipses the dramatic visual imagery of the exodus, is,
tragically, not even perceived.
The report of Isa 53:1, then, is the proclamation of good news of 52:7 (cf.
also 40:9; 60:6; 61:1) the content of which is the saving arm of the Lord. And
the revelation of this saving arm in 53:1, anticipated both in the immediate
(e.g., 51:5–9; 52:7–10) and wider context (Isa 40:10) of this section of the
prophecy as the revelation of God’s righteousness (Isa 45:25; 50:7–9; 51:5–9;
53:1, 11; 54:14, 17[; 56:1; 59:15–21]), is none other than the [message of the]
sacrificial death and subsequent exaltation of the Servant of the Lord as the
basis of God’s redemptive act for both Israel and the world. Succinctly stated,
in Isaiah’s proclamation of good news, God’s saving righteousness is escha-
tologically revealed in the sacrificial death of the Servant of the Lord.
Yet the Isaianic proclamation of good news as the revelation of God’s
righteousness occurs in the prophecy in two phases – the redemptive event in
the sacrifice of the Servant, and, issuing from this event, the redemptive con-
summation in eschatological judgment and salvation. This understanding of
the prophecy and its good news is evident in Paul’s use of Isaiah; and in re-
gard to this dual revelatory role as understood by Paul, Isa 56:1 in the MT
becomes a clear linguistic and conceptual link to the thematic statement of
Rom 1:16–17 and its theological outworking throughout the epistle.

134
Childs (Isaiah, 413) notes the chiastic construction between 52:15b and 53:1. On the
various thematic and interpretive connections between Isa 6:9; 52:7, 10, 15 and 53:1, as
well as the manner in which the LXX strengthens these links, see esp. Ekblad, Isaiah’s
Servant Poems, 194–98.
135
Williams, “Testimony,” 121.
112 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

In Isaiah, the dual revelatory significance of the good news as including

the consummation of redemption is evident both within the broad scope of
Isaiah 40–55, as well as in the relation of Isaiah 40–55 to the final section of
the prophecy, a relation expressed most forcefully in Isa 56:1, the opening
verse of the final section. First, then, within Isaiah 40–55 this dual aspect of
the good news is made apparent, e.g., through such interrelated themes as the
initial characterization of the good news as redemption from sin, corruption
and death in chapter 40; the world-wide nature of this redemption in chapters
42 and 49; justification in the eschatological judgment in Isaiah 45 as ulti-
mately based in the sacrifice of the Servant in Isaiah [50 and] 53; and, in
chapters 54–55, the invitation to Israel and “anyone who thirsts” to enter into
the saving covenant based in the Servant’s redemptive work, which includes
the promise of future and ultimate restoration within the context of the re-
moval of the curse. These various themes throughout Isaiah 40–55 demon-
strate that an essential aspect of the revelation of God’s righteousness in Isai-
ah’s good news is not simply the redemptive event of the sacrifice of the
Servant, but also its intended and necessary correlate –the consummation of
redemption.
Secondly, therefore, this consummation of redemption based in the sacri-
fice of the Servant becomes a key theme of the last major section of the
prophecy (Isaiah 56–66).136 The Lord’s impassioned cry (Isa 56:1), “. . . My
salvation is about to come And my righteousness to be revealed”
(tAlG"hil. ytiq'd>ciw> aAbl' yti['Wvy> hb'Arq.-yKi), immediately recalls the revelation of
God’s righteousness in the sacrifice of the Servant just recounted in chapters
40–55 and projects its necessary end in the consummation of that revealed
righteousness in eschatological judgment and salvation. Isa 56:1, therefore,
becomes a significant thematic bridge between these major sections of the
prophecy which unites these dual aspects of the revelation of God’s right-
eousness in the gospel. This becomes clearer in the continuing thematic
movements of this last major section. The revelation of God’s righteousness
in eschatological salvation reemerges powerfully in chapter 59, in which the
Lord again bares his holy arm – in intertextual reference to the Servant of
Isaiah 53 – and exacts a vengeance and redemption that restores Israel to the
presence and glory of God (Isa 60:1–22).137 Isa 61:1–3, then, by means of
various intertextual allusions to both Isaiah 40–55 and 59, reinforces this dual
nature of the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel by retrospective-

136
On the consummation of salvation in this section, see Isaiah 56:1–8; 57:13–14 [18–
19]; 59:15–60:22; 61:1–11; 62:2–5, 8–12; 63:1–6; 65:8–25; 66:5–24. On the consumma-
tion of salvation in Isaiah 56–66 as based in the sacrifice of the Servant, see pp. 159–160,
261–66 below, which discusses the intertextual relation between Isaiah 59 and 40–55
focusing on the Servant of the Lord as the agent of redemption.
137
Again, and also with reference to the key transitional role of Isa 56:1, see pp. 262–67
below.
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 113

ly characterizing the proclamation of good news of Isaiah 40–55 as including

both the redemptive event of the sacrifice of the Servant, as well as the con-
summation of redemption in eschatological judgment and salvation. 138
Isa 56:1, therefore, as a key transition between these two major sections of
the prophecy, becomes a powerful expression of the nature of the good news
as the revelation of God’s righteousness in terms of both redemptive event
and redemptive consummation. 139 But also, as part of the allusive matrix of
the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel referenced by Paul, it
provides strong linguistic and conceptual links to Rom 1:16–17 (Isa 56:1:
tAlG"hil. ytiq'd>ciw>; Rom 1:17: dikaiosu,nh ga.r qeou/ evn auvtw/| [i.e. the gospel]
avpokalu,ptetai) and its thematic and theological development throughout the
epistle which follows. 140
To conclude the larger discussion, then, it is highly probable that Rom
1:16–17 reflects this Isaianic conception of the gospel as the revelation of
God’s righteousness.141 With reference to the earlier question of the nature of

138
On this intertextual nature of Isa 61:1–3 as understood by Paul, see in chapter four
below, “The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the Fulfillment of the Day of Atonement.”
139
This is precisely why the gospel is immediately and tersely described in terms of re-
demptive consummation as expressed in Christ’s resurrection (Rom 1:1–6), which theme
frames the opening section of Romans through allusion to Isaiah (Rom 4:25; see the Ap-
pendix). See above in chapter two, “Romans 1:1–15: The Gospel of the Messianic Servant
and the Conquest of Death.”
140
This understanding of Isaiah on the part of Paul is evident in Romans in several re-
spects, which may be briefly summarized as follows (and all of which is canvassed more
thoroughly throughout the work): 1) The gospel is presented as the revelation of God’s
righteousness in terms of both salvation (Rom 1:16–17) and wrath (Rom 1:18), climaxing
in the eschatological judgment “according to the gospel” (Rom 2:16); 2) Paul’s description
of the saving event in the sacrifice of Christ and its appropriation by faith (Rom 3:21–4:25)
is followed by Romans 5–8 and the discussion of necessary relation between present ap-
propriation of the gospel and its final consummation; 3) Paul’s description of the consum-
mation of redemption in Romans 8 is based in the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in
Isaiah 53 (see Appendix); 4) Paul’s interlacing of Isaiah 52/53 and 59 in both the early and
later sections of the epistle, and particularly the manner in which the plight of Isaiah 59 is
in each case resolved through the Servant of Isaiah 53. Note also Paul’s likely allusion to
Isa 61:1 preceding his quotation of Isa 52:7 in Rom 10:15; see above in footnote 2 of this
chapter.
141
This probability is strengthened greatly in Rom 3:21–26, in which the righteousness
of God is revealed explicitly in redemption through the sacrifice of the Messiah, through
which act He justifies the many. The combination of these themes occurs only in Isaiah.
On Rom 3:21–26, see chapter four below.
As additional support for the above interpretive connection it may be added that Paul
throughout Romans clearly draws the theme of the justification of sinners from recognized
allusions to and quotations of Isaiah. The most significant allusions are those which draw
on the justification language of Isaiah 50 and 53 (Rom 4:25/Isa 53:4–5, 11–12; Rom 8:31–
34/Isa 50:8–8; 53:11–12; see Appendix).
114 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

this righteousness, it must necessarily include each aspect of attribute, activi-

ty, and status. It is God’s righteous character as reflected in the law that sepa-
rates Israel and humanity from God, brings the curse, calls forth his judg-
ment, and so warrants the absolute necessity for a saving righteousness (e.g.,
Isa 1:[1–]27; 6:5; 24:1–6; 28:17; 42:21–25; 50:1; 59:1–2). So while God’s
righteousness in Isaiah 40–55 has reference primarily to the activity of his
saving, eschatological vindication in and through the Servant, this activity is
bound inseparably to his righteous character (attribute), and issues necessari-
ly in a righteous status (e.g., Isa 53:11). As will be seen, in the proclamation
of good news these three elements are essentially bound and ultimately re-
vealed. It is this dynamic sense of the righteousness of God – one which has
primary reference to his saving activity, but necessarily includes and implies
the elements of attribute and status – that likely stands behind Paul’s thought
in Rom 1:17a.
Therefore, there appears to be a very high probability that Rom 1:16–17a,
the thematic verses of the epistle, constitute through their verbal and concep-
tual complex an allusion to Isaiah 40–55.142 This allusion within the thematic

Rom 9:30–10:16 directly connects the attainment of righteousness to four passages

from Isaiah, all of which are integrally related within the prophecy as a whole to God’s
saving righteousness in the gospel of the Servant (Rom 9:33/Isa 8:14; 28:16; Rom
10:11/Isa 28:16; Rom 10:15/Isa 52:7; Rom 10:16/Isa 53:1). In fact, in this crucial section
of Paul’s argument in which he is particularly concerned with the attainment of righteous-
ness, he quotes from only two other OT passages (Deut 30:12–14; Joel 2:32). Though in
none of these quotations is the word “righteousness” itself used, Isa 28:16 (which he
quotes twice) uses language of vindication, which implies God’s saving righteousness, and
Isa 52:7 and 53:1 in context relate directly to the revelation of God’s righteousness in the
Servant of the Lord. This strongly suggests that Paul’s concept of God’s righteousness is
derived in large measure from what he perceived to be Isaiah’s broader theological struc-
tures, particularly in relation to Isaiah’s “gospel” of the Suffering Servant (cf. Rom 1:16–
17; 10:15–16).
142
These verses, therefore, fulfill the criteria for an allusion first in terms of its vol-
ume – the sheer number of clustered vocabulary/themes that are not only found in Isaiah
40–55 (though more specifically chapters 52–53) but integrated with reference to the
proclamation of good news. But this allusion is rendered more certain through the addi-
tional criteria of recurrence (as the various terms and concepts are subsequently drawn
from explicit quotations to Isaiah) and thematic coherence. With reference to the relative
priority of Isaiah, the theological “weight” of [this] biblical reference within its quoted
context, that context being the thematic verses of the epistle, points to a central role for
Isaiah within Paul’s scriptural exposition. Rom 1:16–17a also points to Paul’s use of Isaiah
within demonstrable theological framework, a redemptive-narrative framework that centers
in Isaiah’s messianic sacrifice for sin, which surfaces explicitly in Rom 3:21–26. The
acknowledged relation between Rom 1:16–17a and 3:21–26 in terms of the manifestation
of God’s righteousness in the gospel strengthens this proposal.
As will be seen in the continuing discussion, Paul will set the stage for this Isaianic re-
demption through an Isaianically conceived plight in Rom 1:18–3:20, in which he presents
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 115

verses of the epistle also strongly suggests an overarching Isaianic theological

framework for the epistle as a whole. In keeping with Paul’s emphasis in
these verses, moreover, it further suggests a framework particularly centering
in the Isaianic good news of God’s saving righteousness effected through the
vicarious, redemptive work of the Suffering Servant. But before this thesis is
further tested in the main sections of the epistle, it will prove valuable to see
if this probable Isaianic backdrop can shed any light on the last two notori-
ously disputed segments of Rom 1:17.

5. The Gospel and Its Salvation-Historical Continuity

evk pi,stewj eivj pi,stin – The meaning of the phrase “from faith to faith” has
been the subject of interpretive speculation since the patristic period.
Cranfield lists about a dozen possible meanings,143 and doubtless many more
have been suggested.144 The phrase “evk . . . eivj . . .” however, is far from
cryptic. It is an expression very common in the LXX, but present in the NT as
well, that refers to movement from one destination or realm to another.145 The
phrase can often refer to the repetitive and/or progressive cycle of days,
years, or generations, 146 but the basic idea of movement from one destination

humanity as captive and condemned in anticipation of God’s redemptive righteousness in

the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ.
143
Romans, 99–100.
144
In their respective commentaries on Romans, for example, Barrett has the meaning
“faith from start to finish” (31); Bruce understands the meaning, in line with the marginal
reading of the NEB, as “based on faith and addressed to faith” (85); Barth interprets it as
God’s faithfulness to man’s faith (Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn C.
Hoskyns [London: Oxford University Press, 1933], 41); Calvin says it refers to the ad-
vance in faith (28); Cranfield understands it as an emphatic equivalent of evk pi,stewj (100);
Godet, “. . . in this righteousness faith is everything, absolutely everything . . . It is a right-
eousness of faith offered to faith” (161); Käsemann understands the phrase to indicate
movement in the life of the individual or in salvation history (31); Murray, “by faith to
everyone who believes,” along the analogy of Romans 3:22; Sanday and Headlam view the
phrase as referring both to deepening faith as well as its spread in the world (28).
145
E.g., Exod 12:37; Josh 10:29, 31, 34; Judg 11:40; 24:19; 1 Sam 13:15; 2 Sam 2:12; 1
Kgs 2:41; 2 Kgs 24:15; 1 Esd 2:14; Ezra 1:11; 1 Mac 10:67; Pss 84:7; 104:13; Job 10:19;
18:18; Sir 29:24; 36:26; Isa 36:2; Jer 9:3; 28:6 (LXX 35:6); 48:11 (LXX 31:11); Lam 2:1;
Luke 10:7; Rom 5:16; 6:17.
A virtually synonymous expression is “avpo. . . . eivj . . .” E.g., Esth 9:22; Matt 23:34;
Luke 10:30; Acts 8:26; 26:18; 2 Cor 3:18.
Dunn (Romans 1–8, 43), e.g., writes, “The idiom is clearly one denoting some sort of
progression, where evk refers to the starting point and eivj the end . . .” See also, e.g., Jewett
(Romans, 143) who states, “The parallels to this sequence of prepositions make clear that a
progression, transformation, or movement is intended.”
146
Of days: 1Chr 16:23; 2 Chr 21:15, 19; Jer 52:34; of years: 1 Sam 1:3, 25; 2:19; of
generations: Prov 27:24; of the life/death cycle with an allusion to the curse of Gen 3:19;
Sir 41:10.
116 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

or realm to another has in several Old and New Testament passages the added
dimension of movement toward consummation. 147 Of particular significance
is Paul’s own use of the phrase twice in 2 Cor 2:16 and his use of the synon-
ymous phrase “avpo. . . . eivj . . .” less than twenty verses later in 3:18.148 In
each instance (“from death to death,” “from life to life,” “from glory to glo-
ry”), particularly the last (3:18), it appears highly likely that Paul is using the
phrase to refer to movement towards consummation, or perhaps, movement
from inception to consummation. 149 It is in this sense that the phrase “from
faith to faith” seems to receive the strongest corroboration both from the
immediate and larger context of Romans, and from the Isaianic background
as well.
“From faith to faith,” then, would go beyond the assertion that God’s
righteousness is revealed “by faith,”150 an assertion essentially made in verse
16. It would have reference to the continuity of faith from inception to con-
summation, in terms of both appropriation and content.151 It would also,

147
E.g., Ps 84:7 (LXX 83:8); Jer 9:3 (LXX 9:2); 2 Cor 2:16; 3:18.
148
This movement toward consummation as well as the synonymous nature of the
phrases “evk . . . eivj . . .” and “avpo. . . . eivj . . .” is evident in Sir 41:10. Additional uses of
the synonymous phrase “avpo. . . . eivj . . .” include, e.g., Esth 9:22; Matt 23:34; Luke 10:30;
Acts 8:26; 26:18.
149
Commentators uniformly acknowledge this in 2 Cor 3:18, particularly as
“avpo. . . . eivj . . .” stands in relation to the preceding present tense verb metamorfou,meqa;
e.g., Philip E. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1962), 117–21; Martin, 2 Corinthians, 72, 74; Margaret E. Thrall, The Second
Epistle to the Corinthians, Vol. I: Introduction and Commentary on II Corinthians I-VII,
ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 285–86.
Though somewhat more removed grammatically, the repeated phrase “evk . . . eivj . . .”
(oi-j me.n ovsmh. evk qana,tou eivj qa,naton( oi-j de. ovsmh. evk zwh/j eivj zwh,n) in 2 Cor 2:16
likewise stands in close relation to the progressive nature of the present participles in 2:15
(evn toi/j sw|zome,noij kai. evn toi/j avpollume,noij), a relation created by a widely acknowl-
edged chiastic structure (see Thrall, Corinthians, 203):
(o[ti Cristou/ euvw di,a evsme.n tw/| qew/|)
A evn toi/j sw|zome,noij
B evn toi/j avpollume,noij
B’ oi-j me.n ovsmh. evk qana,tou eivj qa,naton
A’ oi-j de. ovsmh. evk zwh/j eivj zwh,n
The progressive nature of the phrase “evk . . . eivj . . .” in 2 Cor 2:16, parallel with the
thought conveyed by the present participles in the previous verse, is held, e.g., by Murray
J. Harris, “2 Corinthians,” in EBC, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 333 (though
Harris holds this as one of two possible options); Hans Lietzmann, An die Korinther 1/2,
HNT 9 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 19313), 108–9; Alfred Plummer, A Criti-
cal and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Ed-
inburgh: T&T Clark, 1915), 71–72.
150
Or that “God’s righteousness by faith” is revealed.
151
This would receive a significant measure of indirect support from Francis Watson’s
view of pi,stij VIhsou/ Cristou/ in Rom 3:22. He holds that the phrase is a combination of
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 117

therefore, have a salvation-historical import, signifying continuity both in the

divine promise as well as in its sole means of appropriation, an appropriation
that itself continues to consummation. “Faith” implies both the dependence
upon, as well as the saving promise itself,152 so that the continuity from in-
ception to consummation could well have reference to both concepts. 153
In terms of faith’s appropriating activity, this idea of continuity from in-
ception to consummation is supported in the immediate context both before
and after the phrase “from faith to faith.” In 1:16 both the present participle
“believing” (pisteu,onti) together with the term “salvation” point to the con-

a genitive of origin and an objective genitive. God’s manifestation of righteousness in the

gospel is the origin and intended object of the faith which it evokes. As the eschatological
disclosure it is the basis of, creates, and invites faith. (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith,
75–76. See more on the discussion of Rom 3:22 below [“Exegetical Overview of Romans
3:21–26 in Relation to Its OT Background.”])
This understanding of “the faith of Jesus Christ,” therefore, has direct relevance to the
significance of the phrase evk pi,stewj in Rom 1:17, which will be further corroborated in
the discussion of the Habakkuk citation. James Dunn, e.g., acknowledges the significance
of these interrelated phrases when he writes, “. . . like Watson I see the ek pisteōs phrase as
the key which unlocks the pi,stij Cristou/ phrase . . .” (remarked in the “Foreword” of
Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, eds., The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical,
Biblical and Theological Studies [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009], xviii).
This view, moreover, may be understood to receive additional support from a nuanced
understanding of what has come to be called “the third view,” a phrase used to reference an
alternative to the options of objective/subjective genitive in the phrase pi,stij VIhsou/
Cristou/ (e.g., Rom 3:22). (See the discussion of this view in Preston M. Sprinkle, “Pi,stij
Cristou/ as an Eschatological Event,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical
and Theological Studies, ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle [Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2009], 166–84). It postulates that the phrase has reference to
either the “content of the gospel (the Christ-event),” “the message of the gospel (the mes-
sage about the Christ-event),” or “the sphere of salvation created by the gospel” (175).
Watson’s view, however, appears to make more sense, incorporating elements of “the third
view” while deftly integrating the manifestation of righteousness in the gospel with its
intended correlate, the reception of the gospel message by faith.
152
So, e.g., Dunn, Romans 1–8, 43. But see esp. Otto Kuss, Römerbrief, 131–54.
153
Of course “faith” understood as including [or implying] the concept of the divine
promise would also then, by further implication, include the concept of God’s faithfulness
to that promise as it is fulfilled in Christ. On the various uses of pi,stij in Paul, and par-
ticularly its use as a reference to dependence upon the divine promise culminating in Jesus
Christ, see Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 31–34.
This particular understanding seems to come closest to the thought of Käsemann, who
understands the phrase as referring to either faith’s “movement” in the individual Christian
or in salvation history (Romans, 31). This view should be distinguished from those inter-
preters who see simply a reference to a deepening faith, for while that aspect is certainly
present, it is the movement toward consummation of the hope born of faith that seems to
be in view here (cf., e.g., Rom 5:1–5; 8:24–30).
118 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

tinuing nature of faith which eventuates in eschatological salvation. 154 In the

Habakkuk quotation, regardless of the modifying referent of evk pi,stewj, the
overall context of the prophetic oracle emphasizes continuing in faith (or
faithfulness) unto eschatological life. This emphasis on the continuity of faith
from inception to consummation, moreover, is a prominent theme of the epis-
tle. It is a vital characteristic of Abraham’s faith in chapter 4 and linked with
the believer’s resurrection hope; the entire section of chapters 5–8 emphasiz-
es the continuance in faith to consummation, or hope unto glory, particularly
in chapters 5 and 8;155 and it is a prominent theme in chapters 12–15. In Isai-
ah, this continuity surfaces in the relation between the justification and sub-
sequent glorification granted the believing remnant through the Servant,156 a
relation likely reflected in the transition between the first two major sections
of the epistle (Rom 4:25–5:2).157
The salvation-historical continuity in terms of faith’s content is also sup-
ported in the immediate context, not only in that the gospel was “promised
beforehand by His prophets in the holy scriptures” (Rom 1:2), but also in the
fact that Paul substantiates that gospel with a quote from Hab 2:4, which is
itself likely alluding to Gen 15:6.158 This salvation-historical continuity of the
gospel is evident throughout Romans as Paul consistently anchors this gospel,
or various facets of it, in the OT scriptures, and presents it as “fulfillment” in
terms of covenant, typology, and eschatology. This continuity in terms of
both typology and eschatology are particularly prominent in Rom 3:21–4:25
(and includes the element of appropriation). Paul’s most detailed description
of the saving event in Christ (Rom 3:21–26) is grounded typologically in the
richly allusive theological matrix of the Isaianic new exodus, which subsumes
such significant motifs as the Passover and Day of Atonement.159
In terms of the concept of covenant, the salvation-historical continuity in
the content of the gospel is evident in that the gospel is presented as the ful-

154
Though Paul can describe “salvation” as both having occurred (Rom 8:24; Eph 2:5,
8) and as a present possession (Rom 10:9–10; 2 Cor 6:2), salvation for Paul is ultimately
and truly eschatological (Rom 5:9–10; 13:11; 1 Cor 3:15; 5:5; Phil 1:28; 2:12; 1 Thess
5:8–9; 2 Thess 2:13).
155
On Romans 5–8 as a unit, with the theme of “hope unto glory” as bracketing the sec-
tion (5:1–11//8:18–39) and providing the overarching motif, see esp. Moo, Romans, 292–
95.
156
E.g., Isa 4:2 (LXX); 24:23 (fitness to be in God’s glory; cf. 6:1–5); 43:4 (LXX);
44:23; 49:3 (of the Servant), 5 (LXX); 45:25; 50:4–10; 52:13 (of the Servant); 53:11;
54:17; 55:5; 60:1ff (following 59:20–21, which Paul employs to recount Christ’s redemp-
tive [and atoning, Isa 27:9] work).
157
Cf. Rom 8:30. In relation to Rom 8:30, cf. also Rom 8:1–3, 17–21, 31–34; and Ap-
pendix.
158
See further on Hab 2:4, below, pp. 120–36.
159
See chapter four below, “The Antitypical Nexus – Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans
3:21–26.”
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 119

fillment of God’s saving word of promise which culminates in the Isaianic

[new] covenant of atonement for sin (Rom 1:1–4; 4:13–25; 9:6–9, 27–33;
10:1–16; esp. 11:26–27). References to the various covenants in Romans, as
in Isaiah, point to and find their true significance in this covenant of atone-
ment effected by Christ (Rom 3:21–26; 11:26–27). So, for instance, in Rom
1:1–4 and 15:8–12, Paul describes the gospel as the fulfillment of God’s
saving promises particularly with reference to the Davidic covenant, Rom
10:1–10 with reference to the Mosaic, and Rom 4:13–25 and 9:6ff with refer-
ence to the Abrahamic. In conjunction with this, and particularly significant,
is that in Rom 9:6–10:16 Paul traces a salvation-historical continuity in God’s
saving word of promise that culminates in the gospel of Jesus Christ (cf. Rom
10:9–10), but which culminates in terms of its scriptural antecedent in Isai-
ah’s good news of the redemptive work of the Servant of the Lord (Rom
10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1).160 In both Isaiah and Romans this Isaianic good
news has as its content God’s redemptive act of atonement through his Mes-
siah with its ensuing covenant (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9; cf. Rom
3:21–26), a covenant which thus brings to fulfillment all previous covenant
formulations and so forms the basis of the apostolic mission of proclamation
(Rom 15:21/Isa 52:15).
The phrase “from faith to faith” as understood in terms of both faith’s ap-
propriation and content come together in Paul’s discussion of Abraham in
Romans 4. Here the saving event is presented as the fulfillment of the Abra-
hamic covenant and is again linked with the Isaianic [new] covenant inaugu-
rated by the Servant of the Lord. This link is accomplished both through the
quotation of Ps 32:1–2, which characterizes the promised blessing of the
Abrahamic covenant as centering in the forgiveness of sin (Rom 4:6–9), to-
gether with the assertion of the basis of this forgiveness by means of allusion
to Isa 53:4–5, 11–12 in Rom 4:25 (Ellis, Shum, Wagner, Wilk; cf. Isa 55:3).
In Romans 4, the gospel of God’s saving righteousness that has now come
to fulfillment in Christ is itself verified by the prior experience of Abraham
(Rom 4:1–25; cf. Isa 51:1–3), who enters by faith (as opposed to works) into
God’s saving word of promise. Abraham’s initial faith, moreover, develops
(vv. 18–20) in respect to the essence of the promised blessing now fulfilled in
the gospel: that God would overcome sin, grant righteousness (vv. 3–8) and
thus bring life out of death (vv. 17–22), so that he becomes a pattern to “those
who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was
delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our

160
Within this progression of thought, Paul quotes Isaiah at a point in the prophecy in
which Isaiah is itself alluding to the abrahamic promise in Genesis (Rom 9:27/Isa
10:22/Gen 22:17), pointing to the fact that his construct of continuity is at least partially
derived from the great prophet. On Paul’s use of this intertextual feature in Isaiah, see
under chapter three below, “Paul’s Understanding of Isaiah as Answering the Fall.”
120 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

justification” (Rom 4:24–25). Abraham’s faith, then, ultimately comes to its

divinely intended realization and consummation in the gospel, which itself
culminates in the resurrection of Christ (vv. 23–25; cf. Rom 8:11–23, 29–30).
Paul’s use of Abraham, therefore, points not simply to continuity in the con-
tent of God’s saving word of promise as fulfilled in the gospel, but to the
continuity of the initial act of faith with the life of faith which issues from it,
in which faith deepens, perseveres, and eventuates in hope made sight – es-
chatological salvation, based in [the good news of] the redemptive sacrifice
of the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 5:1–5; 8:23–25).
This interpretation of the phrase evk pi,stewj eivj pi,stin, therefore, both
points to and is strengthened by a particular understanding of Paul’s quota-
tion of Habakkuk, which itself bears a vital and illuminating connection with
the allusion to Isaiah 53 in Rom 4:25.

6. The Gospel and Habakkuk – The Consummation of the Saving

Promise and Its Appropriation by Faith
kaqw.j ge,graptai\ o` de. di,kaioj evk pi,stewj zh,setai – The question may just-
ly be posited as to why, if the thematic verses reflect an allusion to the re-
demptive narrative of Isaiah with its theological complex centering in the
proclamation of good news, the apostle quotes Habakkuk rather than Isai-
ah.161 One must exercise care here, in that, while seeking to establish the
scriptural priority of Isaiah one does not thereby diminish the very significant
role played by Habakkuk.

(1) Introduction: The Relation between Habakkuk and Isaiah in Romans

Determining the relation between Habakkuk and Isaiah in Romans is not as
simple as saying that Paul never quotes Habakkuk again, whereas he quotes
Isaiah eighteen times, more than any other OT book, though this is certainly
true.162 Paul employs this citation contextually, and its vital principle of ap-
161
This same basic issue is astutely raised by Steve Moyise with reference to the ques-
tion of whether or not Paul is evoking an Isaianic framework in his citation of Isa 52:5 in
Rom 2:24, particularly in light of this initial citation of Habakkuk. See Evoking Scripture,
33, 44 (and the full discussion in pp. 33–48).
162
See p. 3, note 7 for statistics on Paul’s frequency of citation in Romans. Richard
Hays (Conversion, 181) notes the fact that Habakkuk is used only once, and indicates that
Hab 2:4 cannot be the crucial text for Paul in Romans based on citational frequency.
Steve Moyise (Evoking Scripture, 49) rightly notes that Hab 2:4, “Coming shortly after
Paul’s opening statement that ‘the gospel of God’ was ‘promised beforehand through his
prophets in the holy scriptures’ (Rom. 1.2) . . . occupies a pivotal position in Romans . . .”
But he especially notes the significance of the phrase evk pi,stewj, which is “. . . a favorite
of Paul’s in Romans and Galatians, precisely those letters where Hab.2.4 is quoted.
Hab.2.4 is also the only verse in the LXX where the phrase is found. Either Paul was
attracted to Hab.2.4 because it contained one of his key phrases or Hab.2.4 has been influ-
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 121

propriating the saving promise by faith expressed within the thematic verses
of the epistle continues to exert its influence upon the epistle as a whole.163

ential in Paul’s formulation of the gospel message” (50). He later states, “. . . it is unlikely
that Paul formulated his gospel . . . and only later discovered that Hab. 2.4 is the only
Scripture to use the phrase ek pisteōs” (62).
Moyise proceeds to helpfully survey the views of Dunn, Hays, and Watson, all of whom
consider the Hab quote highly significant, but for very different reasons (see 49–62 and
summary on 53).
Dunn sees Paul’s quotation as evoking the tradition history of the Habakkuk verse, so
that his textual move in dropping the personal pronoun (from the MT and LXX) is intended
to draw out as much meaning as possible, in keeping with common Jewish exegetical
practice (Romans 1–8, 44–46).
Richard Hays thinks that Paul’s quotation of Hab 2:4 is primarily intended to evoke the
theodicy motif, and holds that “the righteous one” is messianic. He views Rom 1:16–17a as
evoking a number of OT passages and themes, including Isaiah. For Hays, God’s faithful-
ness is the issue, and the themes evoked in 1:16–17a, together with the Habakkuk citation,
assert that God’s faithfulness to his saving promises has now been fulfilled in Christ.
Similar to Dunn, he believes that Paul’s omission of the pronoun allows the dual reference
to God’s faithfulness and man’s faith, as in the phrase evk pi,stewj eivj pi,stin. See Echoes,
36–41.
On Watson’s antithetical hermeneutic centering in Hab 2:4 see Paul and the Hermeneu-
tics of Faith, 33–163; see also the introductory section on his work above, as well as the
following discussion.
163
Francis Watson (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith) notes that Paul’s use of the
phrase evk pi,stewj as derived from Hab 2:4 (46–48) is reflected in Rom 1:17 preceding the
citation, as well as throughout Romans (Rom 3:26, 30; 4:16; 5:1; 9:30, 32; 10:6; 14:23).
He argues that Habakkuk is foundational to Paul’s argument in that it generates an antithet-
ical hermeneutic reflected in such passages as Rom 3:10 and 20 (55–56). As against the
negative statement of 3:20, it is positively reflected in Rom 3:21 (71) so that it becomes the
basis of Paul’s entire argument (71, 76–78). He states (71), “. . . the Habakkuk citation
may be seen as the foundation for Paul’s entire argument thus far. Its significance is con-
firmed by the long-delayed resumption of the language and conceptuality of Romans 1.17
in 3.21–31.”
Rom 3:21 states that the righteousness of God apart from the law (i.e., the works of the
law) is witnessed by the law, which (against Watson’s strict antithesis) points to its dual
nature of both disclosing sin and promise. (Watson admits of the dual nature of the law,
but views the law as having two distinct and contradictory voices.) The resumptive nature
of Rom 3:21–26 in relation to 1:16–17 is much more reflective of Isaiah than Habakkuk, as
the central role of redemption through the sacrifice of the Messiah demonstrates. There is a
broader scriptural conceptuality evident in Isaiah that encompasses the principle of Habak-
kuk but goes beyond it. The principle remains central and vital as an interpretive key to the
OT, yet the fullest scriptural disclosure of the principle is in the Isaianic gospel. This is
evident from the fact that Paul, throughout the epistle, draws all the elements of the the-
matic verses – including Habakkuk’s principle of faith in the saving promise – from his
quotations of Isaiah.
Therefore, though Watson may bemoan the practice of commentators discussing Rom
1:16–17a in a sequential approach, perhaps referencing other scriptural antecedents before
coming to the Habakkuk citation and thereby missing (in his view) the exclusively-
122 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

Nevertheless, the citation plays its vital role precisely as it is situated within a
larger and demonstrable scriptural framework to which it points. Paul em-
ploys Hab 2:4 to direct attention to this overarching framework, not only
through the aforementioned principle of appropriation, but by succinctly
creating through allusion a salvation-historical trajectory in the saving prom-
ise itself, a trajectory which reaches its full scriptural expression in Isaiah.
The scriptural framework within which the Habakkuk citation is situated,
and to which it bears witness, is a framework centering in Isaiah’s proclama-
tion of good news.164 This framework spans the entire first section of the
epistle (chapters 1–4), from its opening verses to the final allusion to Isaiah in
Rom 4:25. It is created by a network of textual links informed by a typology
of plight that together point to its antitypical resolution in the Isaianic depic-
tion of the Messiah’s sacrifice for sin as the basis of redemptive recreation.
The outer elements in this scriptural framework are connected through the
themes of the good news of the Messiah’s conquest of death in behalf of his
people by virtue of his resurrection (Rom 1:1–4). This good news, “promised
beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures” (Rom 1:2), comes to
scriptural expression through the allusion to the resurrection of Jesus as the
messianic Servant of Isaiah 53 in the final verse of the section, Rom 4:25.165
The Isaianic nature of the gospel in the introductory verses, therefore, is con-
firmed by and creates an overarching Isaianic framework through its
intertextual connection with its scriptural expression in 4:25.
The connection between the outer elements of this framework is then rein-
forced through a series of intervening and interlocking texts. The gospel in-
troduced in the opening verses is further developed in Rom 1:16–17a, which
is itself an allusion to the redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55 (particularly
chapters 52–54, as discussed above). The gospel, there described as the
“revelation of God’s righteousness,” is then subsequently reintroduced under
this heading (Rom 3:21: “But now . . . the righteousness of God has been
manifested . . .”) and brought to full expression in Rom 3:21–26, as the Mes-
siah, in fulfillment of Israel’s scriptures, dies as the antitypical sacrifice for

generative nature of the citation in relation to the preceding (53), most scholars view the
matter differently. As against this particular aspect of Watson’s view, N. T. Wright, e.g.,
asserts, “I do not think that this or any other reading of the verse must be allowed to deter-
mine how we read Romans 1.17a” (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1471).
164
The thematic connections and Isaianic allusive background cited in this discussion
are further established in the relevant sections of the thesis (as the foregoing discussion has
already demonstrated in part). Therefore, the following is simply a brief summary intended
to convey the perceived overarching Isaianic framework supported by the thesis as a
whole, particularly in relation to Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk.
165
On the possibility of a messianic allusion in the Habakkuk citation, see further be-
low.
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 123

sin,166 and thereby provides the basis of justification for all who believe. This
unique combination of themes in Rom 3:21–26 constitutes an allusion to the
sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53, an allusive reference then
picked up in Rom 4:25, as the section climaxes with its own allusion to Isaiah
53 in the description of Jesus as one who “. . . was delivered over because of
our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.”
Within this allusive network of texts that recall and develop the Isaianic
gospel, Paul strategically employs two explicit quotations from Isaiah to
depict, through the typology of Israel, the essential plight of humanity as
captive in sin and condemned before God (Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24; Isa 59:7–
8/Rom 3:15–17), a plight which characterizes Rom 1:18–3:20 as a whole
(Rom 3:9, 19–20). But this Isaianic typology of plight is also used to allude to
and so anticipate its Isaianic resolution in its counter-poised redemption and
justification achieved through the messianic sacrifice (Rom 3:21–26). And
further still, these Isaianic citations (and allusions) are employed to join Isai-
ah’s redemptive narrative in the first section of the epistle to the subsequent
sections, creating an overarching Isaianic narrative framework for the epistle
as a whole. 167

166
This also thematically links back with Rom 1:1–4 through the concept of the Messi-
ah’s death (implicit in the resurrection) in fulfillment of the scriptures.
167
In Romans 5–8, the initial verses of the new section carry over the concepts of justi-
fication and its resulting eschatological life from the Isaianic allusion in 4:25, as Isaiah’s
new exodus narrative of redemption, with its return to (/hope of) glory, becomes the domi-
nant and framing theme (see, e.g., Moo, Romans, 292–95). This “framing” characteristic is
evident in the relation between the hope of glory which opens the section (Rom 5:1–5), and
the identical theme in Rom 8:16–25, situated as it is within the allusions to Isaiah’s sacri-
fice of the Servant (Rom 8:3, [28–30,] 31–34; see Appendix). Reflecting Isaiah, this sacri-
fice is portrayed as the fulfillment of the typologically conceived exodus narrative, to
which the passage also alludes (e.g., Rom 8:1–4, 14–17).
But the clearest example of the manner in which the Isaianic framework of the opening
section of the epistle is tied into the subsequent sections is seen in the intertextual relation
Paul creates between Romans 1–4 and 9–11 by means of his two quotations of Isaiah. As
mentioned earlier, Paul employs his quotations of Isaiah chapters 52 and 59 in Romans 2
and 3 (respectively: Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24; Isa 59:7–8/Rom 3:15–17) first to depict Israel and
humanity’s plight, and then uses these same chapters of Isaiah in Romans 10 and 11 (re-
spectively: Isa 52:7; [53:1/Rom 10:15–16;] Isa 59:20–21/Rom 11:26–27) to depict the
solution to this plight in divine redemption. The fact that Paul quotes these same chapters
of Isaiah to portray both plight and solution within the broader theological argument of
Romans strongly suggests that he conceived of them as reflecting a crucial and coherent
redemptive narrative, a narrative, therefore, which remains prominent throughout his larger
argument. Additionally, the redemption disclosed and offered in the Isaianic good news in
Romans 10 becomes the basis of Israel’s actualized redemption in Romans 11, with the
Isaianic redeemer who takes away Israel’s sin (Rom 11:26–27) anchored intertextually in
the Messiah’s propitiatory sacrifice as expressed in Rom 3:21–26 (as Isaiah 59 is itself
anchored intertextually in Isaiah 53). Thus, the Isaianic framework in Romans 1–4 is
124 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

Paul’s citation of Habakkuk in Rom 1:17b, therefore, is situated within a

larger scriptural framework centering in the Isaianic gospel. Within the the-
matic verses themselves, the Isaianic nature of Rom 1:16–17a, together with
both the salvation-historical significance of the phrase “from faith to faith,”
and (as will be seen) Paul’s use of Hab 2:4 in intertextual relation with his
use of Gen 15:6 and Isaiah 53 in Romans 4, suggests that the citation of Hab-
akkuk is used to highlight a trajectory in the saving promise that comes to
scriptural fulfillment in Isaiah. The phrase “as it is written” (Rom 1:17b),
therefore, would point to the Habakkuk quotation as affirming the salvation-
historical development of the saving promise, as well as the principle of ap-
propriation, both of which come to full scriptural expression in the Isaianic
gospel. Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk remains a vital principle of appropria-
tion, particularly in antithetical relation to the concept of works. Yet its allu-
sive environment evokes a dual covenantal framework (both the covenant
promise to Abraham, and Deuteronomy’s covenant context of blessing and
curse) that points to a nuanced understanding of law in relation to promise
that extends beyond the purely antithetical, and points to a continuity con-
veyed and fulfilled in Isaiah.

(2) The Citation of Habakkuk 2:4 Textually and Contextually Considered

Paul’s understanding of Hab 2:4b seems to be partly conveyed by the form in
which he quotes the text. His quotation as compared to the MT and LXX
versions is as follows: 168

MT: hy<x.yI Atn"Wma/B, qyDIc;w>

LXX: o` de. di,kaioj evk pi,stew,j mou zh,setai

Rom 1:17: o` de. di,kaioj evk pi,stewj zh,setai

integrally related to a much larger and overarching theological framework for the epistle as
a whole.
The final section of the epistle (chapters 12–16), like chapters 5–8, focus on the realized
nature of this Isaianic redemption, which, e.g., becomes the basis of the formation of God’s
holy, eschatological people after the pattern the Servant (Rom 12:1–2), and the content and
basis of the apostolic proclamation of good news (Rom 15:20–24 [Rom 15:21/Isa 52:15]).
168
The relevant textual data, including variants and versions, is set forth concisely in
Moo, Romans, 76–77. For detailed discussion of the textual issues surrounding Hab 2:4,
see also, e.g., W. H. Brownlee, “The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk,” JBL 82.3 (1963):
319–25; J. A. Emerton, “The Textual and Linguistic Problems of Habakkuk ii.4–5,” JTS 28
(1977): 1–18; J. A. Fitzmyer, “Habakkuk 2:3–4 and the New Testament,” in To Advance
the Gospel: New Testament Studies (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 236–45.
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 125

Given the acknowledged semantic overlap between hn"Wma/ and pi,stij

(“faith”/“faithfulness”), together with the possibility of mou as an objective
genitive, the LXX can be understood to be a very close rendering of the He-
brew. It is generally thought, however, that the LXX, by means of the shift in
the personal pronoun, interprets or refocuses the text on the prominent con-
textual theme of God’s faithfulness (e.g., Hab 2:3) rather than man’s
faith/faithfulness.169 In addition to the question of the appropriateness or
accuracy of the rendering in the LXX, the original sense of the Hebrew hn"Wma/
as either “faith” or “faithfulness” has, of course, been the subject of long
debate. With regard to the personal pronoun and the question of Paul’s Vor-
lage, the apostle’s intriguing textual move is to drop the pronoun entirely, so
that evk pi,stewj is left to “hang,” as it were, without definitively modifying
either o` di,kaioj or zh,setai, so that Paul’s quotation appears to stand closer to
the MT.170
Based upon the perspective of Paul’s contextual use of scripture, it seems
that to understand somewhat of the significance of the apostle’s quotation, it
must be situated within the prophetic sweep of the oracle. The prophecy is a
theodicy, defending the faithfulness of God toward his covenant people in the
face of circumstances that on the surface would seem to deny such a claim.171
The historical context of the prophecy is the widespread lawlessness of Judah

169
Several manuscripts of the LXX (most notably A), however, place mou after di,kaioj,
a variant reflected in Heb 10:38, where the emphasis lies on God’s righteous one living by
faith. See, e.g., Leon Morris, “Hebrews,” in EBC, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1981), 111–12. Other than Hebrews, this passage is also cited by Paul in Gal 3:11 in which
it occurs in the same form as Rom 1:17.
Interestingly, even in the MT the pronominal suffix (A) has been taken by some to have
!Azx' as its antecedent, with the sense “its faithfulness,” i.e., the faithfulness of the vision,
which is fairly close to how the LXX is often interpreted. See 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 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 11–12.
170
On Paul’s understanding and use of Hab 2:4, see, e.g., H. C. C. Cavallin, “The
Righteous Shall Live by Faith: A Decisive Argument for the Traditional Interpretation,” ST
32 (1978): 33–43; Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 49–51; A. T. Hanson, Studies in
Paul’s Technique and Theology (London: SPCK, 1974), 40–45; Hays, “Echoes,” 36–41;
Faith, 134–41, 179–81; Conversion, 119–42; Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 229–32;
Moyise, Evoking Scripture, 49–62; D. Moody Smith, “Ho de dikaios ek pisteōs zēsetai,” in
Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, ed.
B. L. Daniels and M. J. Suggs, SD 29 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967), 13–
25; Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 33–163; Watts, “Ashamed,” 3–25;
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1466–71.
171
The nature of Habakkuk as theodicy, as well as its use by Paul to defend and assert
the righteousness of God particularly in relation to the theme of the inclusion of the Gen-
tiles, is discussed, e.g., by Hays, Echoes, 36–41; Conversion, 137–38; Watts, “Ashamed,”
3–4ff.
126 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

in the period preceding the exile, a situation which evokes Habakkuk’s vexa-
tion, fear and complaint at the apparent lack of divine intervention toward the
covenant-breaking people (1:1–4). The Lord’s response, however, seems
even more staggeringly unjust than his apparent lack of intervention, for the
Lord informs Habakkuk that his judgment on the covenant people would be
meted out at the hands of the treacherous and idolatrous Chaldeans (1:5–11).
Habakkuk, then, questions God’s justice again (1:12–2:1), both in his use of
the Chaldeans as an instrument of judgment, and with regard to the uncertain
future of the covenant people who are now destined for captivity (1:9–10, 14–
15).
The Lord’s second response to the prophet (2:2–20) immediately affirms
both the certainty of the prophetic vision (2:2) as well as its ultimate fulfill-
ment in spite of delay (2:3). The contents of the vision, however, are expand-
ed, so that the dismal events soon to unfold are caught up into, and so in-
clude, the Lord’s ultimate redemptive purposes for his people. The vision,
then, takes in not only God’s judgment on Judah (1:5–11) and the overthrow
of the wicked Chaldeans (2:5–20), but discloses God’s final salvation for his
people (3:3–15; which includes judgment upon the wicked, see esp. 3:12–13),
a salvation described through allusion as a fulfillment of both the deliverance
of the exodus and of the Lord’s saving covenant promises in Deuteronomy. 172
Hab 2:4 follows the Lord’s introduction to his second response (2:2–3), an
introduction which points to the covenantal (2:2) and eschatological (2:3)
significance of the expanded vision. The covenantal significance is conveyed
in 2:2 through subtle allusion, in which an unspoken parallel is created be-
tween Habakkuk’s careful copying of the prophetic vision and the careful
copying of the law during periods of covenant renewal.173 This vision, then,
by implication, stands in thorough continuity with the covenant, so that in its
promised judgment and deliverance the promises of the covenant will be
fulfilled. Hab 2:4, therefore, is clearly a pivotal verse in the prophecy. It pre-
sents a contrast that highlights one of the fundamental theological assertions
of the book, the criterion which divides those destined for eschatological
judgment with those destined for the eschatological life of God promised to

172
On this broad scope of the vision and the relation of the judgments of the first two
chapters with the eschatological character of chapter 3, see C. F. Keil, Minor Prophets,
trans. James Martin, vol. 10, Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1989 [repr.]), 92–96. For the allusion to Deut 33:2 and the Song of Moses in Hab 3:3, as
well as the significant allusions to various Psalms (esp. Psalm 77) used to recount the
future, climactic deliverance under the motif of the exodus, see 96–97ff.
173
Watts, “Ashamed,” 7–8. Watts observes the use of the plural tAxLu (“tablets,” from
x:Wl; e.g., Exod 24:12; 27:8; etc.) as opposed to the singular, which elsewhere refers to the
Law. Similarly, the command to “record [the vision] distinctly” (raEb'W [!Azx'] bAtK.) in Hab
2:2 is an expression used only in reference to the copying of the law (Deut 27:2–3, 8).
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 127

Israel in the covenant: “Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right
within him; But the righteous will live by his faith.”
The meaning of Hab 2:4b in the context of the prophecy centers on the
meaning of the term hn"Wma/ as referring to either the concept of “faith” or
“faithfulness.”174 The term connotes “firmness, fidelity, steadiness,” so that
when applied to God it refers to his absolute trustworthiness and fidelity to
his covenant promises. In describing a person, though the term can indeed
refer to the fidelity of one’s words and actions, when used to depict one’s
relation to God it has reference to “firm attachment to God, an undisturbed
confidence in the divine promises of grace . . .”,175 or, in other words, “faith.”
This is particularly the case in the present instance, in which the emphasis lies
both on the covenant fidelity of the prophetic vision as well as upon the right-
eous waiting for its promised fulfillment (2:2–3). hn"Wma/ as “faith” in Hab 2:4b
is further confirmed by the immediate contrast in which it is found, in which
the idolatrous pride of the Chaldeans (cf. 1:6, 11, 16) is compared with the
humble reliance of the righteous upon the word of God.176 In the context,

174
Scholars, of course, are divided on the issue. Though James Barr (The Semantics of
Biblical Language, [London: Oxford, 1961], 173 note 1, 201) acknowledges that the term
generally has reference to “faithfulness,” he sees in this text a possible reference to faith.
Watts (“Ashamed,” 12–13) sees a double reference to both God’s faithfulness and man’s
faith (which is how he takes evk pi,stewj eivj pi,stin). O. Palmer Robertson (“‘The Justified
(by faith) shall live by his steadfast Trust’: Habakkuk 2:4,” Presbyterion 9 [1983]: 60)
argues for “faith.”
175
Keil, Minor Prophets, 73.
176
In considering this notoriously difficult issue, it is certainly interesting to note that
both Francis Anderson and Gerald Janzen, e.g., understand hn"Wma/ as referring to “faithful-
ness,” and together with the article signifying the faithfulness or reliability of the vision.
Yet they both further emphasize that this provides the basis of the human response of faith
called for in the passage, communicated primarily through the concept of “waiting.” It is
this faith-response, moreover, that is characteristic of “the righteous.” See Francis I. An-
dersen, Habakkuk, AB 25 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 215; J. Gerald Janzen, “Habak-
kuk 2:2–4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances,” HTR 73 (1980): 61–62, 65–78.
Anderson states, “The oracle is addressed to God’s people and will evoke disbelief or
trust. Only those who have faith (or who trust in the reliability of God or of his word) will
live. To that extent, the Greek versions, including Heb 10:38, have the gist of it.” Janzen
states, “It is in the nature of the literary use of language that by the deft use of various
conventions a speaker or writer is able to present several images, themes, and even com-
plex structures and contexts of meaning, simultaneously to the reader or hearer, and there-
by to present to that recipient a microcosmic ‘semantic world’ or ‘field of meaning’ whose
parts co-inhere. The present passage, I submit, is a case in point.” Perhaps this is just what
Paul perceives; perhaps the expression Atn"Wma/B, brings together the faithfulness of the
prophetic promise with the faith which the promise evokes. The righteous (characterized in
the context by faith in the vision) by the faithfulness of the vision will live; and the (ones
made) righteous by faith in the vision (characterized as reliable in the context) will live.
128 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

then, the term refers to the faith of the righteous which maintains its claim on
the divine promise until its eschatological realization.177
This understanding of hn"Wma/ as “faith” is reinforced by the recognized al-
lusion in 2:4b to Gen 15:6 (a passage Paul cites in Rom 4:3, 9, 22),178 which
shares the significant cognates !mIa/h, and hq"d"c.. This highly significant pas-
sage describes Abraham’s initial appropriation of God’s covenant promise by
faith, with the result that God “reckoned it to him as righteousness.” Regard-
ing the significance of this allusion, C. F. Keil points to the fact that in the
noun hn"Wma/ are brought together the ideas of both the niph‘al (!m'a/n<) and
hiph‘il (!mIa/h,) of the verb !ma. He states,
“. . . in ’ӗmūnâh the primary meanings of ne’ӗmân and he’ӗmīn are combined. This is also
apparent from the fact that Abraham is called ne’ӗmân in Neh. ix. 8, with reference to the
fact that it is affirmed of him in Gen. xv. 6 that hw'hyB; !mIa/h,, ‘he trusted, or believed, the
Lord;” and still more indisputably from the passage before us, since it is impossible to
mistake the reference in hy,x.yI Atn"Wma/B, qyDic; to Gen. xv. 6, ‘he believed (he’ӗmīn) in Jeho-
vah, and He reckoned it to him litsedâqâh.’”179

This allusion, then, appears to be drawing together the inherent connection

between faith’s initial and faith’s continuing appropriation of the promise,
which eventuates in the righteous inheriting eschatological life.180 Further,
and significantly, the allusion to Gen 15:6 highlights the continuity of the
covenant promise given to Abraham with Deuteronomy’s covenant promise
of restoration from the curse of exile;181 both are fulfilled in Habakkuk’s
prophetic vision of judgment and eschatological redemption with the prom-
ised covenant blessing appropriated through faith. Habakkuk, then, aligns the

177
So also, e.g., Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia,
trans. Henry Zylstra (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 124. See also Ridderbos, Paul, 172.
178
Keil, Minor Prophets, 73; Watts, “Ashamed,” 13. Watts mentions the “still pertinent
comments” of Keil (note 50); see Keil, Minor Prophets, 73–74.
179
Ibid., 73.
180
This, of course, by no means blurs the distinction between justification and sanctifi-
cation in the prophecy. Through the allusion to Gen 15:6, Hab 2:4b presupposes the deci-
sive and paradigmatic moment of justification in the life of Abraham, so that in the diffi-
cult circumstances of Habakkuk’s day “the righteous” would, like Abraham, “. . . with
respect to the promise of God . . . not waver in unbelief, but [grow] strong in faith, giving
glory to God . . . being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able also to per-
form” (Rom 4:20–21). Paul, similarly, though seeing a definite continuity between initial
saving faith and the continuing life of faith (e.g., Rom 4:3–8, 18–22), nevertheless also
maintains a definite distinction between believers “having been justified by faith” (Rom
5:1) and their “introduction by faith into this grace in which [they] stand . . . exult[ing] in
hope of the glory of God” (Rom 5:2; cf. Rom 8:23–25). See Cranfield, Romans, 252–54;
Michel, Römerbrief, 176–77; Moo, Romans, 290–95.
181
See on Hab 2:2 above, p. 126. Interestingly, Watts (“Ashamed,” 8) sees a possible
allusion to Deuteronomy 32 (vv. 4, 20, 21) in Hab 1:12; 2:2–4. Though possible, most of
the common terminology appears in Deut 32:4, which is describing God.
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 129

faith-response of Abraham with the response of repentance called for in Deu-

teronomy.
Habakkuk teaches that God is faithful to his covenant despite the unbelief
of his people, faithful even through judgment and exile (cf. Rom 3:1–4). This
theme is prominent not only in the immediate and larger context of Hab 2:4,
but in the prophecy’s various allusions to Deuteronomy. God’s covenant
wrath (which comes upon Israel and nations182), in light of these allusions, is
at least in part designed to turn his chosen people back to himself and to the
sure refuge found in the saving promise. Within this covenant judgment it is
only those who are made righteous by faith – and therefore continue in de-
pendence on the promise – who will live. Faith, as demonstrated by Abraham,
lays hold on the promised life; and, as demonstrated by Habakkuk (and Abra-
ham, cf. Romans 4), continues steadfastly anchored in the promise unto es-
chatological realization. All these themes (captivity arising out of a covenant
context, God’s saving righteousness, the necessity of faith in the promise) are
taken up in Paul’s reading of Isaiah and so come to center in the redemption
accomplished by the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ in whom the saving
promise comes to full expression. The prophecy of Habakkuk, therefore, has
a basic theological structure that in several respects is similar to Isaiah, and
so dovetails with the overarching Isaianic framework; it becomes a profound
scriptural introduction and segue into the more comprehensive redemptive
narrative of Isaiah.183

(3) The Role of Habakkuk within the Isaianic Framework

Paul’s contextual use of Habakkuk, then, points to a salvation-historical tra-
jectory in the promise that comes full expression in the Isaianic good news.

182
Watts, “Ashamed,” 20.
183
This phenomenon of the quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 within a more thoroughly
Isaianic context appears also in Hebrews 10–13 (quotation in 10:38). See Paul Ellingworth,
The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 555. The theological
relationship between Isaiah and Habakkuk in Rom 1:16–17 is noted also, e.g., by Hays
(Echoes, 36–41), though he includes allusions to several Psalms as well (Pss 25:2/LXX
24:2; 44:9/LXX 43:10; 98:2–3/LXX 97:2–3).
On the theological relationship between Habakkuk and Isaiah stemming from Habak-
kuk’s dependence upon the great prophet, see, e.g., Gerald Janzen, “Habakkuk 2:2–4,” 53–
78 (esp. 72–78); Walter Dietrich, “Habakkuk – ein Jesajaschüler,” in Nachdenken über
Israel, Bibel, und Theologie: Festschrift für Klaus-Dietrich Schunck zu seinem 65.
Geburtstag, ed. Herman Michael Niemann, Matthias Augustin, and Werner H. Schmidt,
Beitrage zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums, Bd. 37 (Frank-
furt: Peter Lang, 1994), 197–215.
Regarding these central verses in Habakkuk, Janzen summarizes much of his thought by
stating (76), “I propose that the content of the vision is presented, in nuce, in 2:2–4, and
that it comes as a fresh reactualization of the Isaianic message for the age of Habakkuk.”
130 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

Habakkuk, again, brings to light the interlocking narratives of the Pentateuch,

both the promise of blessing to Abraham and the promise of restoration from
the covenant curses of Deuteronomy. Habakkuk clarifies that this promise is
in answer to the curse, taking up as it does the judgment theme of Deuteron-
omy as a reiteration of the fall and answering it with a faith that issues in
righteousness. In taking up the covenant context of Deuteronomy, it focuses
attention on the requirement of faith to enable one to enter into the promised
restoration of the covenant. Hence, as mentioned above, Habakkuk implicitly
brings together the theme of repentance within the covenant context of Deu-
teronomy, and unites it with faith in the promise first given to Abraham. This
is precisely what Isaiah does on a large scale, tracing the promise as answer
to the primeval fall and curse, through its messianic elements, to its fulfill-
ment in the Servant. In Isaiah the repentant remnant restored from the
Deuteronomic curse of captivity evoked in the opening chapter is ultimately
funneled into those whose faith is in the Servant, as the Servant himself bears
the curse of sin and exile not simply for Israel but for all people, thus ful-
filling the promises to Abraham. The specific manner in which Paul evidenc-
es this relation between Habakkuk and Isaiah, between the salvation-
historical trajectory of the promise and its culmination in the Isaianic gospel,
may be observed in the relation between Paul’s quotation of Hab 2:4 and his
quotations of Gen 15:6 in Romans 4 (vv. 3, 9, 22).
The relation between these OT texts (Hab 2:4/Gen 15:6) is evident both in
the manner in which Paul employs them together to bracket the first major
section of his epistle,184 as well as in the fact that he echoes the diction of Hab
2:4 (evk pi,stewj) to describe the faith of Abraham (Rom 4:16) as a pattern for
those currently embracing the gospel. These two elements together serve,
again, to emphasize the continuity in both the promise and its appropria-
tion. 185 But this tandem use of the texts also helps to clarify the significance
of the Habakkuk citation both with reference to the identity of o` di,kaioj as
referring to one who is made righteous by faith (as against a messianic allu-
sion),186 as well as the nature of evk pi,stewj as denoting faith in the promise

184
So, e.g., Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 42.
185
The fact that Paul uses these texts in tandem supports the allusive nature of Hab 2:4
as recalling Gen 15:6. Cf. Gal 3:1–14 (vv. 6, 11).
186
Against a messianic allusion in Rom 1:17, see e.g., Wright (Paul and the Faithful-
ness of God, 1470–71) and Francis Watson (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, e.g., 50–
52). Regarding the messianic interpretation Wright states (1470), “Certainly nobody could
guess that from the context of Romans 1.1–17. When Paul does eventually unveil ‘the
righteousness of God through the faithfulness of the Messiah’ in 3.22 the latter is, as it
were, subsumed under the former . . .” Similarly, in light of the relation Paul’s citation
bears to the preceding portion of the thematic verses, Watson states (52), “. . . if Paul had
understood his citation along christological lines, we would have expected a reference to
christology in the antecedent – a clarification that Habakkuk’s ‘righteous one’ really is to
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 131

(as opposed to the Messiah’s [or God’s] faithfulness).187 As Paul moves his
argument from introduction to conclusion in this first major section of his
epistle his point is essentially the same. Paul’s assertion that Abraham “be-
lieved God” (evpi,steusen VAbraa.m tw/| qew/|) in Rom 4:3 is clearly equated with
the phrase evk pi,stewj of the Habakkuk citation in reference to Abraham in
verse 16, a fact that is clarified both through the transition to the nominative
form of pisteu,w (pi,stij) in Paul’s second quotation of Gen 15:6 (v. 9), as
well as in the alternating uses of the noun and verb forms throughout the
chapter.
But as Paul directs his argument to its climax, the promise of Gen 15:6, to-
gether with its echoes of Habakkuk, come to a scriptural crescendo in his
allusion to Isaiah 53 (v. 25). He does this in a way that brings his argument
full-circle through intertextual reference both to the “resurrection of the dead”
in the opening verses of the epistle (v. 4) as well as to the “righteousness” and
“life” (“the righteousness of God revealed,” “the righteous man shall live”)
announced in the thematic verses. Paul, therefore, presents the saving promise
as distilled to its scriptural essence in the Isaianic gospel. Paul writes (Rom
4:22–25),
Therefore also it was reckoned to [Abraham] as righteousness. Now not for his sake only
was it written that it was reckoned to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be reck-
oned, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was
delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

The promise of righteousness (as constituting the blessing of Abraham, cf.

Rom 4:6–9) issuing in eschatological life in the Habakkuk citation is fulfilled
in Jesus’ death for sin and subsequent resurrection from the dead, a reality
understood by Paul to have been scripturally conveyed by Isaiah. Paul’s use
of Habakkuk, therefore, points to a continuity in the promise that he under-
stands as fulfilled in Isaiah. The o` di,kaioj / evk pi,stewj of Hab 2:4, then, is
fulfilled in one who believes (i.e., trusts in God’s saving promise) that God’s

be identified with ‘Jesus Christ the righteous’ (cf. 1 Jn. 2:1).” He goes on to note, “The
absence of any explicit Pauline attestation of this ‘christological title’ . . .” (note 59).
Richard Hays, however, argues for the probability of a christological reference in Paul’s
citation (Conversion, 119–42). Hays asserts that o` di,kaioj “was a standard epithet for the
Messiah in early Jewish Christian circles, and . . . Paul’s citation (in Rom 1:17 and Gal
3:11) of Hab 2:4 . . . presupposes an apocalyptic/messianic interpretation of that text”
(120–21). See also Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure
of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 20022), 134–41, 179–81.
187
Interestingly, Francis Watson (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith) argues for the
significance of “faith” in Paul’s Habakkuk citation (158–59), though this, in his view, runs
against the contextual meaning of “God’s faithfulness” (128). And yet (as Andersen and
Janzen assert above [note 176]) he also sees Paul’s understanding as consistent with the
wider context of Hab 2:4, in which the emphasis on “waiting” and on the faithfulness of
the vision clearly convey the concept of faith (154–55).
132 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

eschatological redemptive act was fulfilled when God “delivered over [Je-
sus/the Servant] because of our transgressions, and . . . raised [him] because
of our justification” (Rom 4:25/Isa 53:4–6, 11–12; see Appendix; cf. Rom
10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1).188 This “raising” in Isaiah is conveyed through the
Lord’s glorification of the Servant subsequent to his sacrificial work (Isa
52:13; 53:12), which therefore becomes the basis of believers’ present (Rom
6:4; 8:1–10) and ultimate share in this very resurrection life and glorification
(Rom 5:1–5; 8:1–4, 14–24).189 The Servant himself, then, becomes the para-
digm that brings the principle of Habakkuk to its fulfillment. According to
Paul, the entire world has been “handed over” into the power of sin leading to
eschatological judgment, portrayed most poignantly by the typology of Isra-
el.190 Christ enters into the full measure of this eschatological judgment by
bearing sin unto death, in order to release humanity into the full and free
vindication and life promised in the covenant.
This relation that Paul develops between Habakkuk and Isaiah, therefore,
creates a bit more subtlety and nuance than is often realized. There is a strong
intertextual relation between the two, between Habakkuk’s principle of ap-
propriation which discloses the developing line of the promise, and the ful-

188
In Romans 9–10 the diction of Habakkuk reappears (Rom 9:30, 32; 10:6), and Paul
evidences a similar train of thought, bringing this principle of faith in the promise to its full
scriptural expression in Isaiah. In these verses the “by faith” principle of Habakkuk is
again the standard and criterion for appropriating the divine righteousness, and, as in
Romans 4, is reestablished by means of the Abrahamic narrative. In Romans 4 the focus is
on faith in the promise, leading to the Isaianic allusion. In Romans 9, though this emphasis
on faith remains, the larger emphasis is on the promise itself, as the allusion to the Abra-
hamic promise which opens the chapter is reiterated in v. 27 by means of the quotation
from Isaiah (which itself alludes to the Abrahamic promise; Isa 10:22/Gen 22:17) and
narrowed down to the messianic stone of Isaiah in v. 33 (Isa 28:16; 8:14). This refining
and clarification of the redemptive promise, coextensive with the redefinition of the
Isaianic remnant in reference to the Servant, is continued in chapter 10 and brought to final
expression in the Isaianic good news (Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1). Therefore, again, the
continuity of the promise as appropriated by faith in the Habakkuk citation, particularly as
it brings together through allusion the promise to Abraham with the promised restoration
from the curse of exile in Deuteronomy (Rom 9:27/Isa 10:22/Gen 22:17 [Isa 10:22 speak-
ing of the return from exile]), is clearly taken up and fulfilled by Isaiah.
189
Romans 5–8 as noted above, drawing upon the allusion to the sacrifice of the Serv-
ant in Rom 4:25 (Rom 5:1–5), appears to be expressed through the conceptual framework
of Isaiah’s new exodus with its redemptive return to the glory of God, themes which both
open and close the section. This becomes most apparent in chapter 8, which itself both
opens and closes with multiple allusions to the sacrifice of the Servant as the basis of final
redemption/glorification portrayed, as in Isaiah, through allusion to the exodus. See in
chapter four below, “Isaiah (53) as the background to Rom 3:21–26.” For the Isaianic
allusions in Romans 8, see the Appendix.
190
As will become clearer in the discussion of Rom 1:18–32, in which Isaiah’s typology
of Israel plays a vital role.
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 133

fillment of the promise by the messianic Servant of Isaiah 53, and appropriat-
ed by those who believe.191 The first allusively combines the covenant prom-
ise of righteousness from faith (Hab 2:4 in allusive relation to Gen 15:6) as it
arises out of the covenant curse of captivity for transgression of the law (Hab
2:2–4 in allusive relation to Deuteronomy 28–32); the second recalls these as
well, and fulfills both aspects of this covenant promise as the Servant of the
Lord “was delivered over because of our transgressions, and raised because
of our justification.” Paul, therefore, views Isaiah as the integrating center of
the allusive dual context of Habakkuk, of covenant promise and covenant
law/curse.
Therefore, with respect to the significance of the Habakkuk citation, while
the reference in Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk is to one who is made right-
eous by faith in God’s covenant promise, the nature of the relationship be-
tween the citation in 1:17b and the allusion in 4:25 points to a possible sec-
ondary reference, an implicit messianic reference. Paul describes an intimate
and vital connection between the righteousness of believers and the right-
eousness of Christ/the Isaianic Servant, who achieves this vindication for his
people by virtue of his sacrificial work. 192 It would seem possible, then, that

191
Rom 4:24 is very possibly an allusion to Isa 28:16 and 53:1; cf. Rom 9:33/Isa 28:16;
8:14; Rom 10:11/Isa 28:16; Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1.
The relevant text of Rom 4:24 reads “. . . toi/j pisteu,ousin evpi. to.n evgei,ranta
VIhsou/n . . .” Rom 9:33 and 10:11 read “. . . o` pisteu,w n evpV auvtw/| . . .” Rom 10:16 reads
“. . . ti,j evpi,steusen th/| avkoh/| h`mw/n.” Paul’s allusion to Isaiah 53 in Rom 4:25, in light of
his focus on the necessity of belief in the good news of messianic redemption in Isaiah (cf.
Rom 10:15/Isa 52:7), points to a likely allusion in 4:24 as well.
192
Paul repeatedly describes this intimate connection between the righteousness of be-
lievers and its basis in the divine judgment and vindication through the sacrifice of Christ
by means of allusion to the Servant of Isaiah. See, e.g., Rom 3:21–26; 4:25; 5:1, 6, 8, 19;
8:3, 31–34; 11:26–27.
As noted above, Richard Hays argues that o` di,kaioj “. . . was a standard epithet for the
Messiah in early Jewish Christian circles, and . . . Paul’s citation (in Rom 1:17 and Gal
3:11) of Hab 2:4 . . . presupposes an apocalyptic/messianic interpretation of that text”
(Conversion, 121). He goes on to give evidence of the title’s messianic significance in
1 Enoch, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John, though admitting that there is no uniformity of usage;
the term is also used in a non-messianic sense. This is brought out most clearly in 1 Pet
3:18 and 4:18, in which o` di,kaioj is used as a messianic title in allusion to Isaiah 53, and
then as a generic term, respectively. Hays states, “Thus, this text demonstrates a significant
point: 1 Peter . . . can use o` di,kaioj either as an epithet of Jesus or as a generic term, de-
pending on context. The interpretation of Jesus as paradigmatic righteous person allows
the transition between the two senses to be made easily.” Hence, regarding Rom 1:17 he
states, “Unfortunately, the compressed formulaic character of Rom 1:17 makes this ques-
tion [of a messianic reference] impossible to answer definitively” (138–39). Though he
concludes, “. . . the strongly apocalyptic theological context of Rom 1 creates at least a
presumption in favor of the messianic exegesis of Hab 2:4 . . .” (140).
134 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

Paul’s Habakkuk reference – particularly in light of its role in pointing to the

fulfillment of the promise in this essential unity of righteousness and life
between the Messiah and his people – could have an implicit, secondary ref-
erence to its scriptural basis in the sacrifice of the “the Righteous One” who
“justifies the many” (Isa 53:11).
Concerning Hab 2:4 Frances Watson states, “Righteousness by faith is
what is disclosed in the prophetic text, echoed in the gospel . . .”193 Indeed,
the cognate forms of dikaio,w, pisteu,w, and za,w (or alternately, sw,zw) do not
appear together in a single verse anywhere else in the LXX, so this verse
appears to be a terse summation and integration of several of the key features
of these thematic verses and of Romans itself. This truth of righteousness by
faith, therefore, is perhaps distilled into its essence and expressed most con-
cisely and incisively in Hab 2:4;194 and though it is certainly used by Paul
(both in 1:17 and in its various echoes throughout Romans) to represent a
universally valid principle present throughout salvation history, yet even this
principle of appropriation comes to consummate scriptural expression in
Isaiah. In Isaiah the essential and vital nature of this principle emerges and is
brought into clearest light by means of the whole of its redemptive narrative –
from the desperate plight of humanity’s captivity to sin, corruption and death
ultimately expressed in the eschatological judgment with its undying worm
and unquenchable fire, to the full disclosure of the multi-faceted divine right-
eousness in the sacrifice of the Servant, issuing in justification, resurrection
life, and a return to the glory of God in a new heavens and a new earth. The
absolute starkness of the narrative’s contrast of the ultimate realities of plight
and redemption underscores the absolute necessity of faith to appropriate this
righteousness. The Isaianic gospel, therefore, according to Paul, is the scrip-
tural apex of both the principle of appropriation and the saving promise itself;
it is, then, the promise to which the salvation-historical trajectory of Hab 2:4
bears witness. Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk, framed by and situated within a
network of Isaianic allusions and quotations, evokes a hermeneutical princi-

Regarding the rest of the NT, he notes the title was used in a messianic sense in several
speeches in Acts, with likely allusions to Hab 2:4 and Isaiah 53 (127). Hays further states
that the title “the Righteous One” in 1 Pet 3:18 and 1 John 2:1–2 has its background in
Isaiah 53, and refers to the Servant who makes vicarious atonement for sin. He says that
these texts, “. . . presuppose an identification between the Righteous One and his people –
indeed, the identification is so complete that it seems at times to posit an ontological bond-
ing . . .” (Conversion, 136). Of the Isaianic allusion in Rom 5:19 he states (139), “‘Right-
eous One’ is not used as an epithet of Jesus in this very dense passage, but the certain
allusion in 5:19 to Isa 53:11 suggests that Paul is drawing here on a tradition that describes
Jesus as the di,kaioj whose righteousness is vicariously efficacious for ‘many.’”
193
Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 56.
194
Though cf. Gen 15:6/Rom 4:3, 9, 22. Cf. also Isa 28:16/Rom 9:33; 10:11.
 II. Rom 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narrative of Isaiah 135

ple of appropriation and promise that points to and is brought to fulfillment

by this larger and comprehensive framework.
To summarize with reference to the larger argument of Romans, therefore,
Paul’s quotation of Hab 2:4b, in keeping with the meaning of evk pi,stewj eivj
pi,stin defended above, is used to bring to expression a salvation-historically
nuanced example of appropriating the saving promise now fulfilled in one
who believes the gospel. But also, and in relation to this, the Habakkuk quote
is used to scripturally highlight this sense of continuity from inception to
consummation, a continuity both in the promise itself and in the faith that
appropriates it. This continuity in faith’s appropriation of the promise points
to a double referent for the ambiguous evk pi,stewj in the Habakkuk quotation,
both that the one who is “just[ified] by faith will [therefore] live [eschatolog-
ically],” and that the one who is “[so] just[ified] will [therefore] live by faith
[throughout life unto the realization of the promise].”195 The first sense is
prominent in Romans 1–4, while the second sense is more prominent in Ro-
mans 5–8. Behind both senses, moreover, stands the righteousness of God,
his faithfulness to his saving promises, a theme prominent in Romans 9–11
(cf. Rom 3:1–4). In each of these major sections, Isaiah plays a leading role.
In the first two major sections (Romans 1–4, 5–8) the Isaianic gospel be-
comes the narrative and integrating framework which both opens and closes
the section. In the third major section the historical emphasis on the promise

195
Those who hold to this double referent include, e.g., Dunn, Romans, 45–46, 48–49
(who also includes the concept of God’s faithfulness in evk pi,stewj); R. M. Moody, “The
Habakkuk Quotation in Romans 1:17,” ExpT 92 (1981): 205–8; Robertson, “Justified,” 52–
71.
Dunn notes that Pharisaic interpretive practice in Paul’s era generally sought to broaden
the scope of a text’s meaning (45). In view of the long and continuing dispute as to the
referent of evk pi,stewj (those who hold that it should be taken with o` di,kaioj include, e.g.,
Barrett, Cranfield, Käsemann, Ulrich Wilckens [Der Brief an die Römer. (Leipzig: A.
Deichertsche, 1910)]; those who hold it should be taken with zh,setai include e.g.,
Cavallin, Michel, Murray, Smith), he comments, “Here too the continuing sharp division
between translators and commentators who insist on ‘either-or exegesis’ underlines its
unreality” (45–46).
Hays (Echoes, 40–41), Watts (“Ashamed,” 21) and Stuhlmacher (Romans, 29) view
Paul as intentionally dropping the pronoun and so widening the reference in light of the
MT and LXX, and so understand the reference being to both God’s faithfulness and man’s
faith. Though a strong argument can certainly be made for this understanding of the quota-
tion, as well as the phrase evk pi,stewj eivj pi,stin, the interpretation defended above, it is
believed, highlights the faithfulness of God more powerfully by demonstrating that in the
gospel the righteousness of God is revealed as the culmination of all the divine promises,
covenants, etc. – all to which the old bore witness. “For all the promises of God find their
Yes in him. That is why we utter the Amen through him, to the glory of God” (2 Cor 1:20
RSV). This continuity in the appropriation and content of divine promise, then, crescendos
in its final realization – eschatological vindication and life through the sacrificial death and
resurrection of Christ.
136 Chapter Two: The Isaianic Gospel

as initially given to Abraham sets in motion a theologically interpretive trac-

ing of both the promise and its ultimate fulfillment with respect to Israel, both
of which reach their consummate scriptural expression in Isaiah’s good news
(Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:7; Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9). Faith as
both a principle of appropriation and as the content of the saving promise
climax scripturally in the Isaianic gospel; in the Servant’s death for sin, buri-
al, and resurrection is the consummation of faith – the realization of all the
divine promises in Christ, to the praise of his glory (cf. Rom 11:32–36; 2 Cor
1:19–20).

III. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 1:1–17

III. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Rom 1:1–17
Rom 1:1–6 present a very condensed summary of the gospel that recalls vari-
ous facets of the redemptive narrative of Isaiah. In these opening verses the
gospel discloses the Messiah’s conquest of sin and death on behalf of his
people, a distinctive conjunction of themes that points to its source in Isaiah.
This linking of messianic and servant concepts, based in Isaiah’s high chris-
tology, becomes the basis of soteriology – Isaiah’s redemptive recreation.
These considerations evidence the criterion of thematic development. Paul,
following Isaiah, links the messianic and servant concepts, both of which he
clearly draws from Isaiah in other passages in Romans. This good news of the
messianic conquest of sin, moreover, forms the content and basis of the sub-
sequent apostolic mission of proclamation, which role and mission Paul con-
veys through allusion to Isaiah. Taken together, these Isaianic references
reveal an integrated set of themes that uniquely reflect Isaiah and its larger
redemptive narrative.
In terms of the criteria for the relative significance of Isaiah, these allusive
references demonstrate significant theological weight within [their] quoted
context. As the opening verses of the epistle, their portrayal of the nature of
the gospel is vitally related to its continued exposition throughout the letter.
This passage, moreover, with its allusive references to Isaiah (anticipating
much of the study to come), ties into a demonstrable theological framework,
most notably in its intertextual relation to the Isaianic allusion in Rom 4:25.
These two passages share the theme of resurrection as emblematic of the
messianic conquest over sin and death, an intertextual link that forms an
Isaianic bracket around the first major section of the epistle. Rom 1:1–6,
therefore, introduces and augments the Isaianic nature of the gospel as more
thoroughly described in Rom 1:16–17.
In the thematic verses of the epistle (more specifically 1:16–17a), the gos-
pel is the central feature of a cluster of themes that together constitute an
allusion to Isaiah 40–55 (though focusing more particularly on chapters 52–
53). This complex allusion focuses on Isaiah’s good news as the basis of
 III. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Rom 1:1–17 137

eschatological vindication. The Isaianic gospel as reflected in the thematic

verses is God’s redemptive/saving power, available to all, and is the eschato-
logical manifestation of his saving righteousness. This gospel, more specifi-
cally, is the message of the revelation of God’s eschatological righteousness
in the redemption (first in its realized form, but ultimately consummated)
accomplished by the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. This realized re-
demptive act is the fullness of the scriptures saving promise as indicated by
the Habakkuk citation, which bears witness to the scriptural promise in the
Isaianic gospel through allusively highlighting the continuity in both the
saving promise and its appropriation throughout salvation-history.
Rom 1:16–17a fulfills the criteria for an allusion first and foremost in
terms of volume, with the sheer number of its clustered themes that are not
only exclusively found in Isaiah 40–55, but within Isaiah 40–55 are vitally
integrated with the proclamation of good news. This allusion is rendered even
more certain through the criteria of both recurrence – as the various terms
and concepts are subsequently drawn from explicit quotations to Isaiah – and
thematic coherence. With reference to the relative priority of Isaiah and the
criterion of the theological “weight” of a biblical reference within its quoted
context, the fact that this allusion predominantly constitutes the thematic
verses of the epistle points to a central role for Isaiah within Paul’s scriptural
exposition. Rom 1:16–17a also points to Paul’s use of Isaiah within demon-
strable theological framework, a redemptive-narrative framework that centers
in Isaiah’s messianic sacrifice for sin, which surfaces explicitly in Rom 3:21–
26. Paul’s citation of Habakkuk is situated within this larger framework. The
acknowledged relation between Rom 1:16–17a and 3:21–26 in terms of the
manifestation of God’s righteousness in the gospel strengthens this proposal.
As will be seen in the continuing discussion, Paul will set the stage for this
Isaianic redemption through an Isaianically conceived plight in Rom 1:18–
3:20, in which he presents humanity as captive and condemned in anticipa-
tion of God’s redemptive righteousness in the sacrifice of the Servant of the
Lord/Jesus Christ.
 Chapter Three

Captive and Condemned – Paul’s use of Isaiah in

Romans 1:18–3:20

Having demonstrated the likely Isaianic nature of the thematic verses with
their emphasis on salvation-historical continuity, the investigation now turns
to Rom 1:18–3:20. In this section Isaiah again plays a key role, particularly
through the typology of Israel, in presenting the plight of humanity as both
captive in sin and condemned before God’s seat of judgment.

I. Warrant for Viewing a Broad Isaianic Influence on Romans

1:18–3:20
I. Warrant for Viewing a Broad Isaianic Influence on Rom 1:18–3:20
In Rom 1:18–3:20 Paul quotes Isaiah twice, in 2:24 quoting Isa 52:5 and in
3:15–17 quoting Isa 59:7–8a. The first quotation at a glance appears to be an
almost incidental borrowing of the prophet’s language to depict and denounce
the Jew who through transgression of the law dishonors the God he claims to
serve. The second quotation describes the murderous and destructive paths of
those in Israel who are far from God’s peace, the quotation itself being tucked
away in a catena of verses from the Psalms that depict universal human sin-
fulness. There are indications, however, that these quotations were intended
to evoke somewhat broader patterns of thought in keeping with their respec-
tive contexts. First, the charge leveled against both Jew and Greek in this
section of Romans is not simply that all are sinners, but that all are “under
sin” (Rom 3:9 – u`fV a`marti,an), suggesting the enslaving nature of sin and the
captive, helpless condition of every person under its power. This conceptual
usage is likely derived from Isaiah, 1 is used to summarize and characterize
the previous section as a whole (1:18–3:8), and is a principle theme of the
larger context of both of the Isaiah passages quoted in this section. Second,
Paul uses these very same sections of Isaiah in Romans 10 and 11 to depict
the messianic redemption in answer to the plight of Israel’s sin. 2 The manner
in which Paul employs the Isaianic references in chapters 52 and 59 to depict

1
See in chapter three below, “Romans 3:9 and the Isaianic Derivation of ‘Under Sin.’”
2
See Rom 10:15–16, quoting Isa 52:7 and 53:1; Rom 11:26–27 quoting Isa 59:20–21
(and 27:9).
 II. Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24 in Context 139

both plight and solution within the broader theological argument of Romans
strongly suggests not only that Paul had the larger contexts of these passages
in mind when he quoted them, but that he was utilizing what he conceived as
a coherent redemptive narrative, and thus a framework upon which his other
Isaianic references may be plotted. These passages, moreover, are the primary
means through which Paul explicitly evokes the scriptural themes of both
covenant curse (as expressed in captivity) as well as covenant redemption.
Third, and very significant, is the manner in which the Isaianic texts in 1:18–
3:20, with their portrayal of a captive and condemned humanity typified in
Israel, serve as a prelude to the messianic redemption both within their origi-
nal context as well as in the context of Romans; and coupled with this, Paul’s
subsequent portrayal of this redemption through allusion to the sacrifice of
the Servant of the Lord in 3:21–26. 3
Finally, however, and to summarize the above considerations with regard
to the Isaianic background, within the larger context of Isa 52:5 (Isaiah 40–
55),4 the concept of captivity to sin is juxtaposed and integrated with an
equally prominent theme: the courtroom motif of Israel and humanity’s guilt
before God’s tribunal. These dual concepts form central and inseparable
features of the redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55, and as such play a vital
role in integrating many of the narrative’s other themes. Together they form
the backdrop of despair into which God’s redemptive words of comfort are
spoken. Paul, it will be argued, relies heavily upon this portrait of Isaiah,
presenting humanity as both captive and condemned as the necessary prelude
to the counter-poised Isaianic redemptive righteousness of God in the gospel
of Christ.

II. Isaiah 52:5/Romans 2:24 in the Context of Romans

1:18–3:8
II. Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24 in Context
Paul employs the LXX in his quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24. This choice,
together with the specific placement of the quotation within the development
of his argument, contributes to the significance of the quotation within the
broader context of Rom 1:18–3:8. This significance, it will be seen, is based
in a vital thematic and typological correspondence between the wider context
of Isa 52:5 within both Isaiah and Romans. The quote forms a minor though

3
This Isaianic redemption as the answer to the plight of humanity’s captivity to sin is
recounted several times in Romans. It is most explicit with reference to Israel in Romans
9–11, both as potential salvation (Rom 9:33; 10:11–15) and as certain prospect (Rom
11:25–27).
On Rom 3:21–26, see chapter four below.
4
Though see below on the relation of Isaiah 52 to 59, pp. 159–60, 262–67.
140 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

important climax to Paul’s argument up to this point,5 and its typological

nature in that climax demonstrates its importance for and influence upon the
section as a whole.
Rom 2:24: “For ‘the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles be-
cause of you,’ just as it is written.”
Rom 2:24 LXX Isa 52:5
diV u`ma/j
dia. panto.j
to. ga.r o;noma tou/ qeou/ to. o;noma, mou
diV u`ma/j
blasfhmei/tai evn toi/j e;q nesin( blasfhmei/tai evn toi/j e;q nesin
kaqw.j ge,graptaiÅ
Isa 52:5 MT: #a'NOmi ymiv. ~AYh;-lK' dymit'w>
Isa 52:1–6 stands as an oracle of hope and rejoicing as Israel is commanded
to lay hold of her divinely wrought freedom from [Babylonian] captivity. In
the MT the cause of Israel’s captivity has receded into the background (Isa
52:5a, “. . . my people have been taken away without cause . . .”), being over-
shadowed by the imminent, gracious revelation of the righteousness of God.
But though receded, the cause lingers in the text, as “those who rule over
them howl, and my name is continually blasphemed all day long.” Though a
prelude to redemption, the text, even in the MT, recalls the broader context of
sin and resulting captivity. It is this recollection of the cause and resulting
state that is brought to the forefront by the LXX, and so by Paul.6
The LXX of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 diverges from the MT on two vital
counts, which are both additions as compared to the text of the MT. The first

5
Hays (Echoes, 45), for instance, speaks of the climax of the quotation within its para-
graph (vv. 17–24). But Israel’s typological role within the development of the section, and
the manner in which the previous themes of sin and captivity (with its portent of guilt
before the eschatological judgment) come together here to be typologically epitomized in
the captivity of Israel, point to 2:24 as being a minor (if not the) climax of the section
beginning at 1:18.
Christopher Stanley, e.g., speaking of Paul’s use of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 says, “The
passage represents a turning point in the argument of 1:18–3:20, where Paul labors mighti-
ly to show that all humans, Jew and Gentile alike, are ‘under sin’ (3:9) and thus liable to
God’s judgment” (Arguing with Scripture, 145). He goes on to state that Rom 2:24 is “the
culmination of the argument,” which is emphasized by the phrase “just as it is written”
following the quotation, which, Stanley asserts, “. . . places the final accusation in the very
mouth of God” (147).
6
On this relation between the MT and LXX in Isa 52:5 Stanley comments, “Of course,
the same idea is latent throughout the Hebrew passage, but only in the Greek does the idea
come to clear expression – and in emphatic position no less” (Paul, 85, note 7).
For the contextual nature and appropriateness of this quotation within its context in
Romans, see on Romans 2:17–24 below.
 II. Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24 in Context 141

addition is the phrase “because of you” (diV u`ma/j), which lays emphasis on
the cause of blasphemy and exile, Israel’s sin. The second addition, “among
the Gentiles” (evn toi/j e;q nesin) lays emphasis on the fact of the exile itself.7
These additions of the LXX are likely an interpretive rendering intended to
evoke the larger context of the quotation (cf., e.g., Isa 50:1–3), possibly to set
in bold relief the impending divine redemption as against the sin of Israel
with its tragic consequences in national captivity. Paul, employing the LXX,
likewise appears to be recalling this wider contextual setting of the quota-
tion, 8 in which the concept of sin with its resulting captivity forms a leading
theme.
Within the broader narrative scope of Isa 52:5, captivity, though typified
by the Babylonian exile, is in its truest sense spiritual in nature.9 Paul’s cita-
tion of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 points to such a typological understanding of the
Babylonian captivity in which the antitype is humanity under the dominion of
sin.10 This typology, it is believed, along with many of its accompanying

7
Paul’s quotation differs from the LXX in that he omits “continually” (dia. panto.j ), and
moves the phrase “the name of God” (to. o;noma tou/ qeou/) to the front of the quotation,
changing the direct, divine address of the LXX (to. o;noma, mou) to the third person to suit
his application of the original setting of the text (Stanley, Paul, 85–86). The advancing of
the phrase to. o;noma tou/ qeou is in keeping with Paul’s emphasis on the vindication of
God’s righteousness in redemption (cf. Rom 3:3–4, 25–26). The citation formula (kaqw.j
ge,graptai) following the quotation, unique in Paul’s writings, emphasizes the continuity of
the citation with Paul’s preceding argument. See Stanley, Paul, 85, note 9; Koch, Schrift,
105.
Regarding the phrase evn toi/j e;qnesin in the LXX, Stanley (Paul, 85) states, “The point
of view of later Diaspora Judaism is clearly reflected in this rendering.” Wagner, on the
other hand, comments that the phrase is possibly inserted by the LXX translator following
Ezek 36:20–23, as Ezekiel 36, like Isaiah 52 “bemoans the profanation of the Lord’s name
in the exile.” Heralds, 177, note 172.
8
See Seifrid, “Romans,” 612–13; Hays, Echoes, 46
9
As discussed above (chapter two, “The Gospel as the Power of God Unto Salvation,”
“The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s Righteousness: a Uniquely Isaianic Background”)
and further supported in the continuing discussion.
This becomes particularly apparent in Isaiah 59 as the theme of captivity is again rein-
troduced in a manner deliberately reminiscent of the previous section of the prophecy
(chapters 40–55) and its antitypical nature as depicting the spiritual reality of captivity to
sin comes prominently to the fore. The redemption described, however, retains a political
dimension (cf. Isa 59:17–19).
On the complementary nature of Isaiah 52 and 59, see below, pp. 159–60, 262–67.
10
Wagner (Heralds, 178), though not mentioning typology, states, “Paul quotes Isaiah
52:5 in Romans 2:24 precisely because he believes that without the gospel, Israel is, fig-
uratively speaking, still in exile, still in bondage to the power of sin like the rest of hu-
manity (Rom 3:9).” Hays, likewise, sees a metaphoric intention here (Echoes, 46), but
Seifrid (“Romans,” 613) seems to indicate a typological intention of the text, in which
“Israel’s exile . . . recapitulates humanity’s fall and expulsion from the Garden of Eden and
likewise anticipates the final judgment.”
142 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

themes, informs the entire section – from the allusions to Adam and Israel,
and the wrath of God expressed in the divine “handing over” into the power
of sin in 1:18–32, to the guilt and helplessness of “all flesh” before God in
3:19–20.
As preliminary remarks in support of a typological understanding of Isaiah
on the part of Paul, several factors may be put forward from both the immedi-
ate and larger context of Romans, factors which will be developed further as
the discussion unfolds: 1) the reference to an exile long past (Rom 2:24/Isa
52:5) is set within the current context of both the breaking of the law by a
hypothetical Jew as well as the allusive reference to the nation’s position
outside of God’s saving covenant, despite their possession of the law and the
covenant marker of circumcision (Rom 2:17–23, 25–29; 3:3–4; cf., e.g., 9:1–
8, 27–33; 10:1–5; etc.); 2) Paul couches his description of humanity’s aban-
donment of God in terms reminiscent of Israel (Rom 1:21–25), and the sub-
sequent “handing over” of humankind into the power of sin is likewise
couched in terms reminiscent of God’s handing over of Israel into the hands
of foreign oppressors (Rom 1:24, 26, 28); 3) in Isaiah 59[:7–8 cf. Rom 3:15–
17] the typology of the exile drops away and Israel is presented as helplessly
mired in its sin, with no one to intercede, a passage that through intertextual
allusion (Isa 50:1–2; 59:1–2, 16ff) likewise describes the plight of Israel in
chapters 40–55; 4) Paul’s use of the Isaianic “flesh” motif (Rom 3:20; 7:14;
8:21; 9:6–8; cf. Isa 40:1–2, 6–9) reveals a typological relation between Isra-
el’s captivity and humanity’s “slavery to corruption” (cf. Rom 8:21) stem-
ming from the sin of Adam; 11 5) Paul’s answer to the captivity of Isaiah 40,
50, 52 and 59 is Isaiah’s messianic sin-bearer (Isa 52:13–53:12; 59:16–21) as
is reflected both allusively in the immediate context (Rom 3:21–26; 4:25),12
and expressly in the larger context of the epistle (Rom 10:15–16; 11:26–27;
see Appendix); 6) in Romans 5–8 (particularly Romans 6) Paul expands upon
this very metaphor of captivity to sin, 13 and as noted above, likely draws not
only the concept, but also its resolution from Isaiah; 14 7) Paul employs Isai-
ah’s spiritual blindness motif, which is often linked in the prophecy with the
theme of captivity (Rom 11:8/Isa 29:10);15 8) Paul uses references to Israel’s
sin and captivity (Rom 2:24; 3:15–17) within his overall indictment of hu-

11
On Romans 3:20, see the appropriate section in chapter three below.
12
See chapter 4, “The Antitypical Nexus – Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26.”
Note in the Appendix, that Ellis, Shum, Wagner and Wilk all see allusions to Isaiah 53 in
Romans 4:25.
13
E.g., Rom 5:14, 17, 21; 6:6–7, 12–22; 7:14, 23–24; 8:1–2, 15, 21.
14
Note the relation between the “no condemnation” of Romans 8:1 with both the prob-
able allusion to Isa 53:10 in Rom 8:3 and the recognized allusions to vindication through
the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 50 and 53 in Romans 8:31–34 (see Appendix).
15
See below, pp. 223–28.
 II. Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24 in Context 143

manity (Rom 3:9, 19–20);16 9) Rom 2:28–29 is likely alluding to Deut 30:6
with its circumcision of the heart, which posits the necessity of this divine
work enabling one to keep the law as the remedy to the exile; 10) Paul pre-
sents the reign of sin and death as both stemming from Adam (Rom 1:23;
5:12–21) and reflected in the national life of Israel (e.g., Rom 1:23–25; 2:1–3
[cf. 1:32], 17–24; 3:9, 15–17; 5:20; 7:7–14).
In Paul’s understanding and use of Isaiah, the concept of Israel’s “captivity
because of sin” implicit in his quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 is a type of
“captivity to sin,” both recalling the fall of Adam and reflecting the state of
humanity. This seems particularly the case in light of the relation between
Paul’s two quotations of Isaiah mentioned in items (1) and (3) above, but will
become clearer as the discussion progresses.
Therefore, as mentioned above, the quote forms an important climax to
Paul’s argument up to this point, and its typological nature in that climax
demonstrates its crucial role within and influence upon the section as a
whole. The typology inherent in the quotation of Isa 52:5 within its wider
Isaianic context, then, echoes intertextually in the thematic movements of
Rom 1:18–32 (which contain its own allusions to this typology), in which the
sin and captivity of Israel reiterate the fall and serve as a type of fallen hu-
manity. By means of a clear intertextual link in Rom 2:1 (“without excuse,”
Rom 1:20), this typology is carried into the next section of the epistle, with
2:1 forming a prelude to the climax of the indictment in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5.
The typology of the quotation, then, is strongly linked to Rom 2:1–16, in
which the solidarity of human guilt, Jew and Gentile, before the seat of divine
justice reflects the Isaianic motif of the world-captives brought to trial, with
the prospect of justification found only in relation to the eschatological dis-
closure of the “good news”; and the quotation itself typologically epitomizes
this guilt of humanity in the sin and captivity of Israel in the Babylonian exile
(2:17–24) as a prelude to the disclosure of redemption. But further, and in
relation to this, the quotation brings to explicit expression the Deuteronomic
curse of captivity evoked in a variety of ways in Romans 2, and points to the
basis of the promised circumcision of the heart (Rom 2:29/Deut 30:6) in the
eschatological redemption as achieved through the sacrifice of the Isaianic
Servant of the Lord (Rom 3:21–26; 4:25). This pervasive influence of the
Isaianic typology of captivity (with its accompanying theme of divine con-
demnation) upon the section as a whole is then further reinforced through the
retrospective characterization of the preceding argument (1:18–3:8) in Rom
3:9 as having demonstrated that Jew and Greek are all “under sin.” This
phrase is an allusion to this very Isaianic motif of captivity to sin (likely as
this motif surfaces in Isa 50:1) as it has already come to explicit expression in

16
Note also Rom 1:23 in which adamic and Gentile sin is couched in terms reminiscent
of Israel.
144 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24 and its surrounding context. This thematic coherence cen-
tering in the theme of captivity to sin (to be demonstrated) points to a more
overarching Isaianic influence than is often realized.

III. Romans 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus of

Adam, Israel, and Humanity: The Plight of Captivity
III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus
Scholars have perceived a great number of influences upon Rom 1:18–32,
predominantly scriptural.17 In this opening section of his epistle Paul alludes
to or echoes the language of a great variety of texts, from such books as
Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, 2 Kings, Job, Psalms, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.

17
One view recently proposed has drawn much interest, but few actual followers.
Douglas Campbell has argued in two recent works (The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Sug-
gested Strategy [New York: T&T Clark, 2005]; The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic
Rereading of Justification in Paul [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009]) that “Romans 1:18–32
reproduces compactly the opening rhetorical gambit of the [false] Teacher – the way he
usually seeks to introduce his gospel to a pagan audience, in a standard Jewish fashion,
with a critique of idolatry and sexual immorality . . . So technically Romans 1:18–32 is an
instance of . . . ‘speech-in-character’” (Deliverance, 528). Rom 1:18–3:20 as a whole,
according to Campbell, is a thoroughly “contingent discussion” (528), so that “Very little
within this extended demonstration now represents the thinking of Paul directly” (529 [see
also Quest, 203–4, 246–57]). The way in which Campbell understands the passage to
develop is as follows (Deliverance, 547):
1:18–32: “speech-in-character” – the Teacher’s usual rhetorical opening
2:1–8: Paul’s universalization of the opening’s key premise
2:9–29: the awkward implications [in terms of the guilt of the Teacher and his follow-
ers]
3:1–20: the humiliating conclusion
Campbell describes his perspective on the nature of Rom 1:18–3:20 in relation to Rom
1:18–32 in a bit more detail as follows (528), “The argument in Romans 1:18–3:20 is, I
would suggest, a tightly focused, contingent discussion, and not a sweeping, prospective,
systematic discussion at all. It is essentially a reduction to absurdity of the alternative
gospel of the Teacher, especially in terms of the Teacher’s typical rhetorical opening with
‘fire and brimstone.’ Paul knows this alternative gospel well by the time he composes
Romans. But in order to pick it apart – and he will – he must first reproduce its opening
moves for his auditors, who do not necessarily know it well themselves. And Romans
1:18–32 fulfills this role.”
There is, however, very little support for this understanding of Rom 1:18–32. Rom 1:18
flows from the thematic verses with no hint of a change of speaker. Paul’s argument in
1:18–32, moreover, typologically aligns Israel and the world (as the following discussion
will demonstrate), and is vitally linked with his continuing discussion in Rom 2:1ff (see
there on the links between the passages). Paul’s rhetorical dialogue partner (or partners, as
it may be conceived – Rom 2:1 does not reflect one who is exclusively Jewish) does indeed
surface at intervals throughout the larger passage (e.g., Rom 2:1, 17), yet he addresses this
hypothetical figure within his own sustained scriptural argument.
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 145

And though one can discern the influences of Hellenistic and Jewish sources
upon Paul’s language and terminology, the overarching thought patterns are
thoroughly scriptural,18 with wrath as the power of the curse arising out of a

Regarding Campbell’s approach, Matthew Bates, e.g., a scholar conversant in the field
of Paul’s rhetorical techniques (a major focus of Bates’ work is on establishing Paul’s use
of “prosopological exegesis,” a form of which Campbell advocates here), labels Camp-
bell’s approach “an overly speculative reading” (Hermeneutics, 197, note 56). In fact,
Campbell himself comments on the scarcity of scholars who corroborate his position,
supporting instead the interpretive model of “justification by faith.” He states (Quest, 234),
“It is, rather unfortunately, difficult to find interpreters of Romans who break out from the
[justification by faith] mould . . . The vast majority of interpreters of Romans hold that the
entire discussion from 1:18 builds towards this conclusion [i.e., “eschatological culpabil-
ity”] . . . Undergirding this widespread interpretative consensus seems to be the assumption
in turn that Paul wishes to construct a suitable context for the gospel’s proclamation, a
process that begins in the letter in 3.21 (although it is anticipated in 1.16–17).”
Regarding the rarity of his interpretive approach to Rom 1:18–3:20 he goes on to state
(Quest, 247), “It opens with a position that he intends to savage. Hence the attribution of
these premises and their consequences to Paul through much of their interpretive history is
itself rather an irony – one he would doubtless view rather bitterly, urging us to recover
instead his original play. Paul has been presented to the world for millennia in terms of his
opponents!”
N. T. Wright comments on the idiosyncratic nature of Campbell’s reading of Rom
1:18–3:20, and so places it in proper hermeneutical perspective (Paul and the Faithfulness
of God, 766–67): “One should, of course, always be prepared for novelty, to imagine that
nobody has seen the point of a particular Pauline passage until our own day (there is no
evidence that anyone in the ancient world read Romans as Campbell suggests Paul intend-
ed it to be read). But we should only adopt such a drastic solution, which Campbell clearly
wants to do for reasons larger than immediate exegetical satisfaction, if exegesis itself
cannot come up with anything better. In fact, it can.”
(In terms of Wright’s treatment of Campbell’s larger concerns, particularly the issue of
the human recognition of the problem of evil and its resolution as understood within the
continuity of Judaism and Christianity, see 737–73 [note esp. 757].)
For a critique of Campbell’s arguments against justification theory (which are integral
to his view on Rom 1:18–3:20), see, e.g., R. B. Matlock, “Zeal for Paul but Not According
to Knowledge: Douglas Campbell’s War on ‘Justification Theory,” JSNT 34 (2011): 115–
49.
18
Paul, of course, opens his epistle with an assertion of the scriptural basis of his gospel
(Rom 1:1–2). Käsemann (Romans, 34) notes the “high degree of theological understand-
ing” expected on the part of the Roman Christians due to the “dogmatic concentration of
the letter.”
Of the extra-biblical influences on this section of Romans, most scholars observe a
connection with the language of chapters 12–15 of the Wisdom of Solomon. The majority
of scholars, however, see this connection as affecting the form rather than the substance of
Paul’s thought and argument, and as to that substance noting the contrast between Paul and
Wisdom (so Barrett, Romans, 36, 38; Cranfield, Romans, 104, note 1; M. D. Hooker,
“Adam in Romans 1,” NTS 6 [1959–60]: 299–300; Käsemann, Romans, 35; Sanday and
Headlam, Romans, 52; Watson Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 405–11 [who argues
146 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

covenant context and issuing in captivity.19 This scriptural influence upon the
section becomes most “allusively dense” in Rom 1:23, which echoes the
language of passages from not only Psalms and Jeremiah, but from Genesis,
Deuteronomy, and Isaiah as well. In this verse the density of allusion creates

for Paul’s dependence, while noting significant differences, as well as Wisdom’s departure
from scripture]). In light of this contrast, some scholars have pointed to the likelihood of
Paul’s dependence not on Wisdom but on a common tradition (see Käsemann, Romans, 35;
Michel, Paulus, 14–18; Moo, Romans, 97, note 18). Along these lines, Wis 13:10–19 and
15:10 (cf. Isa 44:20) seem to reflect or allude to Isaiah 44, which is the source of several of
Paul’s allusions in 1:18–32, so that Isaiah could well form part of this common tradition.
Wright (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 242) and Watson (405), in fact, note Wisdom’s
dependence on Isaiah 40–55.
Several of the contrasts between Wisdom 12–15 and Rom 1:18–32 include the follow-
ing: in Wis 12:20–22 God’s treatment of the nations/Gentiles is contrasted with His treat-
ment of Israel, whereas the entire thrust of Rom 1:18–32 and continuing to 3:20 is to place
Jew and Gentile on an equal standing; in Wis 13:1 and 15:11 humanity did not know God
through what is seen of His creation, whereas Rom 1:19–21, 23, 25, and 28 make it clear
that people do have this knowledge of God (cf. Wis 13:3, moreover, which seeks to teach
people in this ignorance); in Wis 13:6 those who don’t know God are “little to be blamed,”
whereas Paul emphatically asserts that they are “without excuse” (Rom 1:20); Wis 15:1–5
asserts Israel’s innocence from idolatry, whereas Paul’s allusive language in Rom 1:23 as
well as the universal nature of his indictment point decisively to Israel’s equal share in
guilt.
See also Tom Holland’s cogent discussion of the limited value of the pseudepigraphal
texts as the source for the theology of the NT, particularly as over against the OT. In addi-
tion to the obvious fact that Paul directly asserts his dependence upon the OT scriptures
and consistently quotes them in support of his gospel, is the absence in Paul of a single
quotation from this literature. Holland further notes the great diversity within the Judaism
of the period and the difficulty this poses for placing any given writing within its correct
“theological stable.” He asserts that this fact places severe limitations, at least for the
present state of scholarship, both on the theological interpretation of this material and the
assessment of its theological influence. See his Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical
New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s Biblical Writings (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor
[Christian Focus Publications], 2004), 60ff.
19
On the OT backdrop of obdurate hearers, wrath and curse, see Käsemann, Romans,
40ff.
Though Paul’s thought patterns are, indeed, scriptural, Ben Witherington notes the
similarity of Paul’s approach to Greek rhetorical strategy. He states, “Horace in Ars
Poetica 191–92 says that as a rule one must not introduce a god into the plot of one’s story
unless things have gone so far wrong that only a deity could untangle the mess. When Paul
paints his picture of a world gone wrong in the arguments leading up to the restatement of
the proposition in 3.20ff, Christ is nowhere mentioned except in passing at 2.16. The
argument moves from plight to solution, even if Paul has thought through the plight in
light of the solution” (Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 62–63). Although Witherington’s
general point is taken, it will become apparent in the ensuing discussion that, though plight
is prominent, the solution anticipating its full expression in the gospel also surfaces explic-
itly and implicitly throughout 1:18–3:20.
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 147

a typological nexus, a bringing together of Adam and Israel as types which

echo in unison the plight of humanity in their rejection of the glory of God
and subsequent captivity to the power of sin and death.20 It is this typological
nexus that the apostle uses as a primary scriptural rationale for the equality of
Jew and Gentile in both captivity and redemption, condemnation and justifi-
cation. Though Paul derives this typological nexus from a variety of scriptur-
al sources, it will be argued that its overarching scheme is taken from the
redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55, the broader context of his quotation of
Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24.

1. The Typological Nexus of Romans 1:23

The scriptural allusions in Rom 1:18–32 become most dense and achieve a
typological nexus in Rom 1:23, a nexus that bears a remarkable resemblance
to the parallels created in the narrative of redemption from captivity in Isaiah
40–55. The main lines of allusion from which this nexus is derived may be
roughly divided between the first and second half of Rom 1:23, the first half
reflecting Psalm 106 and Jeremiah 2, the second reflecting Deuteronomy 4
and Genesis 1 [and 3], with both halves reflected in Isaiah 40 (also 24, 44).21

Rom 1:23 – kai. h;llaxan th.n do,xan tou/ avfqa,rtou qeou/ evn o`moiw,mati
eivko,noj fqartou/ avnqrw,pou kai. peteinw/n kai. tetrapo,dwn kai. e`rpetw/n
Ps 106:20 (LXX 105:20) – kai. hvlla,xanto th.n do,xan auvtw/n evn o`moiw,mati
mo,scou e;sqontoj co,rton
Jer 2:11b – o` de. lao,j mou hvlla,x ato th.n do,xan auvtou/ evx h-j ouvk
wvfelhqh,sontai

20
See Käsemann, Romans, 46–47.
21
On the allusion in Rom 1:23 as finding its background in Isaiah’s concept of humani-
ty’s idolatrous exchange leading to corruption in chapters 24 and 40, see the continuing
discussion below.
Most scholars recognize allusions to these various passages in Rom 1:23. Barrett, for
example (Romans, 37), sees an allusion to Ps 106:20; Moo (Romans, 108–9) recognizes a
reference to Ps 106:20 and Jer 2:11; Cranfield (Romans, 119–20) adds to Ps 106:20 and Jer
2:11 an allusion to Deut 4:16–18; Käsemann (Romans, 45) includes with Ps 106:20 and Jer
2:11 and allusion to Gen 1:20–27, but curiously, though mentioning Deut 4:16–18, ex-
cludes it, “. . . in accord with [Paul’s] purpose;” Hooker (“Adam,” 297–300) sees in Rom
1:23 an allusion to Ps 106:20, but also views the verse as having primary reference to the
creation account of Gen 1:20–25, with possible allusions to Jer 2:11 and Deut 4:16–18.
Though the allusion to Isaiah 44 is very subtle here, the additional allusions to and con-
textual continuity with this same section of Isaiah throughout Rom 1:18–32 (see continuing
discussion) make its presence here highly likely. On Rom 1:23 Dunn (Romans, 61) states,
“. . . Paul no doubt had in mind the magnificent satire of Isa 44:9–20 (of which there are
several echoes in vv. 22–23).”
148 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

In Rom 1:23a Paul describes humanity’s exchange of the worship of the true
God for an idol in a manner slightly more reminiscent of Psalm 106 than
Jeremiah 2, yet the contexts are very similar. In both accounts, the revelation
of God in his redemptive acts in Israel’s history reveal the heinousness of this
sin, and in both passages the result of this idolatrous exchange is captivity.
The psalm highlights the seemingly intransigent nature of Israel’s sin as
demonstrated by this history in its repeated acts of rebellion, resulting ulti-
mately in [the Babylonian] captivity (vv. 6–43, 47), yet the greater emphasis
of the psalm is on praise for ultimate deliverance arising from God’s faithful-
ness to his covenant (vv. 1–5, 44–48).22 In Jeremiah the focus is on the na-
tion’s present idolatry particularly as it is mirrored in its misplaced trust in
foreign alliances, resulting in the divine pronouncement, “From this place
also you shall go out With your hands on your head; For the LORD has re-
jected those in whom you trust, And you shall not prosper with them.” The
emphasis in both texts upon idolatry with its resulting captivity resonates
strongly with this context in Romans and points not simply to the backdrop of
the covenant in Paul’s thought, but to the solidarity within that conception of
both Jew and Gentile. This becomes clearer in the allusions in the second half
of Rom 1:23.

Rom 1:23 – kai. h;llaxan th.n do,xan tou/ avfqa,rtou qeou/ evn o`moiw,mati
eivko,noj fqartou/ avnqrw,pou kai. peteinw/n kai. tetrapo,dwn kai. e`r petw/nÅ

In the above quotation, the bold words represent the terms that reflect Deut
4:16–18 LXX, while the double underlined words represent the terms that
reflect Gen 1:20–27 LXX. 23 What is most interesting is that Deut 4:16–19 is
itself an allusion to the creation account of Genesis 1. 24

22
See James Luther Mays, Psalms, Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox
Press, 1994), 342. In respect to the setting of the Psalm, Mays writes, “The final section of
the recital about early Israel’s corruption by the nations with whom they mingled is told in
terms that reflect the conduct of Israel in the period before the exile (vv. 34–46). The
stories about the ancestors blend into language about the time in which the psalm was
written, and verse 46 is clearly speaking about the exile and dispersion.”
On Paul’s allusion to Psalm 106:20 in Rom 1:23, Mays comments, “Paul found in verse
20 the clue to the fundamental error that underlies all sin in the human race . . .”
23
Rather than o`moi,wsij which is used in Genesis 1:26, Paul has the cognate o`moi,wma.
On their equivalence in NT usage, see Hooker, “Adam,” 300.
24
See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 321–22; J. Gordon McConville, Deu-
teronomy, AOTC 5 (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2002), 107–8. McConville
states, “The creation of human beings in the image of God is not directly mentioned, but is
strongly suggested in v. 16.” Though not having the term a;nqrwpoj, Deut 4:16 has the
terms a;rshn and qh/luj which recall this event in Gen 1:27.
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 149

Deuteronomy 4 transitions from the historical prologue of chapters 1–3 in-

to the recitation of the law in chapters 5–26 and introduces the covenantal
context in which the law functions.25 Moses is recounting the giving of the
law at Horeb, during which the Israelites saw no “form” (o`moi,wma, vv. 12,
15), serving as a prelude to the warning against idolatry in verses 16–18. The
term o`moi,wma occurs six times in these verses, referring to the “form” or
“likeness” of the fashioned idol. In verse 16, as in Romans, it is combined
with the synonymous term eivkw,n (though in reverse order).26 The MT of Deut
4:16 (cf. also v. 25) depicts this idolatry as “corruption” (txv), likely allud-
ing to Genesis 6 and the “corruption” (txv, vv. 11, 12) of humanity stem-
ming from the fall and resulting in the “destruction” (txv, vv. 13, 17) of the
flood. 27 In verses 16–19 of Deuteronomy 4 this allusion to Genesis is brought
into clearer focus as Moses’ prohibition against the making of images follows
in reverse order the creation account of Genesis 1,28 creating a contrast be-
tween the glory of the Creator and his creation (Deut 4:19; cf. v. 32), and
demonstrating the absolute folly and blatant nature of the sin of worshipping
the latter. This allusion in Deuteronomy, particularly as it anticipates the
covenant curses later in the prophecy, is apparently intended to create an
analogy between Israel’s future “fall” under the Mosaic covenant which
would result in captivity and death (vv. 23–28), and the death and corruption
that ensued from Adam’s breach of the “covenant” of creation. 29

Similarly, while Paul and Genesis (1:24) have the term tetra,pouj, Deuteronomy has the
more narrow term kth/noj, which is also present in Genesis 1 (vv. 25, 26, 28).
25
Ibid., 100–101.
26
Thayer (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament; under eivkw,n) observes a dis-
tinction between the terms in that o`moi,w ma denotes “likeness . . . visible conformity to its
object; eivkw,n adds to the idea of likeness the suggestions of representation (as a derived
likeness) and manifestation.”
27
McConville, Deuteronomy, 108. He notes that Deuteronomy 4 echoes this wordplay,
as txv is used in verse 31 with the meaning “to destroy.” If this allusion is accepted, Deu-
teronomy 4 would create both a parallel and a contrast with the Genesis account, with 4:26
portraying the death and destruction (Heb. dba, dmv) that would be the result of this cor-
ruption (txv, v. 25) of idolatry, and 4:31 asserting Israel’s ultimate escape from “destruc-
tion” (txv) through the abrahamic covenant.
28
Ibid., 108. McConville states that the allusion to Gen 1:26 “brings its theology, ac-
cording to which humanity is the only ‘image’ of God, to bear on an ancient world in
which all kinds of images were an everyday fact of life . . .”
29
This possible allusion could be strengthened in Deut 30:19 with its opposing concepts
of curse/death and blessing/life for Israel’s seed ([r;z<). These seem certain allusions to the
Genesis narrative, both the primeval “adamic covenant” which brought the curse, preemi-
nently consisting in death, for disobedience, as well as the abrahamic covenant, which
takes up the promised seed of the woman (Gen 3:15) with its pledge to Abraham that “in
your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 22:18; cf. Gen 12:1–3; 15:1–
6ff; 18:18; 26:1–5; [27:27–29, 33;] 28:13–15; see McConville on the comprehensive OT
rubric of the blessing and the curse, Deuteronomy, 409–410). The concept of divine bless-
150 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Rom 1:23 – kai. h;llaxan th.n do,xan tou/ avfqa,rtou qeou/ evn o`moiw,mati
eivko,noj fqartou/ avnqrw,pou kai. peteinw/n kai. tetrapo,dwn kai. e`rpetw/nÅ

In the quotation above, the bold words indicate the specific linguistic links
between Rom 1:23 and Isaiah 40 (with a cognate of fqarto,j intertextually
informing the passage), while the underlined section as a whole indicates the
conceptual overlap between the two contexts.
The terms o`moi,wma and eivkw,n in Rom 1:23, though indeed alluding to
Genesis and Deuteronomy, also recall Isaiah 40 LXX, in which the term do,xa
occurs once (v. 5), o`moi,wma and its cognate o`moio,w occur four times (vv. 18,
19), and eivkw,n appears twice (vv. 19, 20), with both terms appearing in verse
19. 30 Isaiah 40 is set within the covenant context of Israel’s captivity in Baby-
lon for its transgression of God’s law, epitomized in the sin of idolatry. But
more importantly, the idolatry described in Isaiah 40 is symptomatic of hu-
manity, and of humanity’s state as subject to corruption, which is answered in
the continuing narrative with a definitive redemption described as recreation
and a return to Eden.
In Isaiah 40 the incomparable nature of the Creator leads to the question in
verse 18 (LXX), “To whom have ye compared (o`moio,w) the Lord? And with
what likeness (o`moi,wma) will ye compare (o`moio,w) Him?” (cf. 40:25; 46:5).
The text goes on, “Has not the artificer made an image (eivkw,n), or the gold-
smith having melted gold, gilt it over, and made it a similitude (o`moi,wma)?”
Interestingly, though the terms in Genesis have reference exclusively to the
image of God (into which man was formed), and in Deuteronomy to the idol
illicitly formed in departure from God (though with the likely allusion to
Genesis), here the reference is overtly to both. The emphasis on the manifest
glory (Isa 40:5) and incomprehensible greatness of God (Isa 40:12–18) with
its corollary in the human folly of rejecting and so depicting and diminishing
him through an image (Isa 40:12–26) conceptually reflects the “exchange” of

ing as used antonymically with and so countering the curse is conveyed by %r;b' and its
cognate hk'r'B. (cf. Gen 12:2), while the concept of the Lord’s “curse” is rendered in both
Genesis and Deuteronomy by the synonyms rra (e.g., Gen 3:17; 12:3; Deut 27:15ff;
28:16–19) and llq (e.g., Gen 12:3; Deut 27:13; 28:15).
The close association of these terms for curse in Genesis and Deuteronomy is evident,
for instance, in Gen 12:3 in which they appear in the same phrase (raoa' ^l.L,q;m.W – “and the
one who curses you I will curse”), as well as in both Deuteronomy 27 and 28 (see the
references above) in which a cognate of llq (hl'l'q.) is used to introduce the concept of the
curse, which is then followed by the repeated use of rra to cite the particulars. On the
relationship between these terms, see Leonard J. Coppes, “ll;q' (qālal),” TWOT, 2:800–
801. On Deut 28:15, e.g., McConville (Deuteronomy, 405) notes that there is “. . . no
apparent distinction of meaning . . .” between the two terms.
30
The terms o`moi,w ma and eivkw,n appear together in the same verse in the LXX and NT
only in Deut 4:16, Isa 40:19, and Rom 1:23. Gen 1:26 has the cognate o`moi,wsij with
eivkw,n, the only place in the LXX or NT that they appear together.
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 151

Rom 1:23 in a manner virtually unrivalled in the OT, and presents an obvious
and close conceptual parallel with Romans. In this context of Isaiah, moreo-
ver, as in Romans, this idolatrous exchange of the worship of the Creator for
the creature is supremely characteristic of humanity in its state of falleness
and corruption (Isa 40:6–8; cf. Rom 1:23 – fqartou/ avnqrw,pou),31 and creates
a deliberate and emphatic contrast between corruptible man and the incor-
ruptible God (Isa 40:6–8, 27–31).32
The context of Isaiah 40, therefore, takes up the above parallel created by
Genesis and Deuteronomy, as well as the covenantal context of wrath and
captivity in the Psalms and Jeremiah, but uses it to point Israel and the world
not simply to their transgression and captive state but to the announcement of
the Lord’s purpose to redeem his people (vv. 9–11, 27–31), heralded by “one
proclaiming good news” (40:9; o` euvaggelizo,menoj / tr<F,b;m.). This is, in fact,
Paul’s purpose in 1:18–3:20 as a prelude to 3:21–26. Strengthening this con-
nection with Romans 1, in Isaiah 40 the witness of creation serves to demon-
strate the Lord’s power (vv. 12, 21–22, 26), wisdom (vv. 13–14), and sover-
eignty (vv. 15–17, 23–24) to accomplish his redemptive purpose, 33 as well as
to demonstrate the folly of idolatry (vv. 18–20) and misplaced trust (vv. 23–
25), again closely akin to Rom 1:20–23. 34
To summarize Rom 1:23, then, Paul’s use of the phrase o`moiw,mati eivko,noj
fqartou/ avnqrw,pou clearly recalls God’s creation of man in his image in Gen

31
On fqei,rw (cognate of fqarto,j in Rom 1:23) and lbn in Isaiah as communicating the
concept of man in his corruption stemming from the fall, see a bit further below, “The
Typology of Isaiah as the Source of Paul’s Thought.”
32
The nature of God as incorruptible is implicit in the description of the word of God as
abiding forever (Isa 40:8), and explicit in the continuing description of God throughout the
chapter as infinite in wisdom, knowledge and power, and as absolutely untiring (v. 28).
33
Cf. Paul’s quotation of Isa 40:13 in Rom 11:34 at the climax of his discussion on the
ultimate redemption of Israel.
34
In Rom 1:23 the allusion to Isaiah 40 is established first by means of the criterion of
volume, which reflects several of the key terms of that chapter. This allusion, moreover, is
reinforced further through thematic development, which, working in conjunction with the
allusive use of the terms fills out the allusion through the themes of the idolatrous ex-
change that is characteristic of fallen humanity in its captivity to corruption, and the de-
scription of this idolatry as a contrast between the incorruptible God and corruptible man.
The presence of this allusion is then reinforced through the criterion of recurrence, as
Paul both quotes (Rom 11:34/Isa 40:13) and alludes (Rom 9:6/Isa 40:7–8) to this same
passage (see Appendix). But further, as is becoming increasingly apparent, Paul’s use of
the term “gospel” itself alludes not only to Isa 52:7, but to the term’s first two occurrences
in this major section of the prophecy (Isa 40:9 [2x]). Paul’s allusion to Isaiah 40 in Rom
1:23 is also confirmed through the criterion of thematic coherence, as both Romans and
Isaiah use this plight as a prelude to the announcement of good news. In terms of its rela-
tive importance, this allusion ties into Paul’s larger Isaianic framework both through its
thematic and contextual connection with Paul’s use of Isa 52:5 (Rom 2:24) as well as its
connection with the redemptive event itself, the content of the good news.
152 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

1:26 (LXX: “kai. ei=pen o` qeo,j poih,swmen a;nqrwpon katV eivko,na h`mete,ran
kai. kaqV o`moi,wsin”), with the term fqarto,j conveying the corruption to
which man was subject in his fall.35 The verse, therefore, alludes to Adam’s
fall as an exchange of the worship of the incorruptible God for the worship of
self, a corruptible image. In this exchange was the ironic, inevitable and trag-
ic consequence which was itself an exchange: man, who was God’s image
and glory (cf. Ps. 8) became corrupt, the image defaced, and the glory lost.36
Paul, in drawing on this rich and complex scriptural background, paints the
portrait of the sin of humanity, beginning with Adam (Rom 1:20), with hues
that evoke the idolatry of Israel both at Sinai and in the period preceding the
exile, and that further evoke the concepts and universal reality of captivity
stemming from the covenant curse (vv. 18–20, 24, 26, 28). Adam reflected in
Israel, Israel mirroring the race – a solidarity and continuity in guilt and
plight. 37
This thesis asserts that the typological nexus reflected in Rom 1:23, though
echoed somewhat subtly in Deuteronomy, appears to be derived from and
bear closest affinity to Isaiah. This bringing together of Adam and Israel in
Deuteronomy is taken up in Isaiah and typologically projected onto humani-

35
The cognates of this term form the similar conception in the LXX of Gen 6:11–12
(fqei,rw / katafqei,rw), translating the above mentioned Hebrew term txv. Cf. the signifi-
cant cognate fqora, in Romans 8:21, conveying the positive counterpart to this depiction of
the fall with creation’s release from its “slavery to corruption” through the gospel.
On the dual allusion to Psalm 106 and Genesis 1 in Rom 1:23, Hooker (“Adam,” 300)
observes that in the phrase which Paul substitutes for “the cow eating grass” from Psalm
106, all the terms except fqarto,j are from Gen 1:20–26. She states, “It would appear that
Paul, in describing the idolatry into which man has fallen, has deliberately chosen the
terminology of the Creation story.”
She further asserts that the contrast in Rom 1:23 between the glory of God and the im-
age of corruptible man recalls creation and the fall, with man’s fitness before the fall to be
in God’s presence because he possessed His glory, and his unfitness after the fall, noting
the rabbinic tradition of Adam losing the glory of God when he sinned (303–5).
36
Hooker (“ibid.,” 305) notes an additional facet to this exchange, stating that Adam
“exchanged intimate fellowship with God for an experience which was shadowy and re-
mote.”
The relationship between man’s loss of God’s image and glory is seen in Romans in
such texts as 1:23; 2:7, 10; 3:23; 5:2; 6:4; 8:18, 21, 29–30. The loss of this glory results in
condemnation and captivity. In repentance before the judgment of God this glory is both
sought and regained (Romans 2), and finds its source in justification through the redemp-
tive sacrifice of Christ. In chapters 5–8 the theme of man being restored to the glory (and
image) of God is coupled with the theme of recreation. These related themes of the fall,
inability to stand before God’s glory, and particularly man as perishable are prominent in
Isaiah, as is the theme of recreation through God’s redemptive righteousness in the sacri-
fice of the Servant of the Lord.
37
On the typological nature of this verse, see, e.g., Barrett, Romans, 36; Käsemann,
Romans, 46–47.
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 153

ty; 38 it becomes a primary emphasis in chapters 40–55 that clarifies and ex-
tends the subtleties of Deuteronomy. Building upon earlier sections of the
prophecy (particularly chapters 24–27),39 Paul reads Isaiah as presenting
Israel’s exile, in fulfillment of the curse of Deuteronomy, as both reiterating
the fall and mirroring the state of humanity in its sin, guilt and alienation
from God. Israel, then, reflecting the human condition as derived from the
fall (epitomized in Adam), becomes a type of humanity in its breach of God’s
covenant law, so that Israel’s suffering under the curse of exile and captivity
reflects a deeper reality, a captivity that in its truest sense is a subjection to

38
The nature of Israel as representative of the nations is present in Deuteronomy, but
subtle. See, e.g., McConville, Deuteronomy, 461–62.
Isaiah’s intertextual relation to the covenant curse of Deuteronomy is evident from the
opening of the prophecy as the heavens and the earth are called upon to bear witness to
Israel’s unfaithfulness (“Listen, O heavens, hear, O earth . . .”; Isa 1:2). This theme recalls
the covenantal contexts of both Deuteronomy 4 (v. 26) and 32 (v. 1) in which the heavens
and earth are likewise called upon to bear witness to the enacting of the covenant, with its
certain prospect of the divine curse upon disobedience.
The allusion to Deuteronomy 32, the Song of Moses, is especially significant. Through
the Song of Moses, the historical sweep of Israel’s creation, rebellion, captivity, and ulti-
mate restoration through God’s covenant faithfulness is permanently etched into the na-
tional consciousness of Israel so as to provide a divine “mirror” which reflects the spiritual
state of the nation throughout its history. Delitzsch comments (Isaiah, 75), “. . . [I]t was the
task of the prophets to hold up this mirror to the people of their own times. This is what
Isaiah does.” On this allusion to Deuteronomy in the first chapter of Isaiah, see esp. pp.
74–76. See also, e.g., Childs (Isaiah, 17–18), who notes the many additional allusions to
the Song of Moses throughout Isaiah 1. Otto Kaiser states, “. . . we should not fail to notice
that the closest parallel to the appeal to heaven and earth as found in the present section
appears in Deut. 32.1” (Isaiah 1–12, trans. John Bowden, OTL [Philadelphia: The
Westmintster Press, 1981], 12.
Though Childs mentions that the reference to the heavens and the earth in this allusion
“. . . should not be linked in a heavy-handed way to a theology of creation” (Isaiah, 17),
McConville emphasizes the theological import of the allusions to creation within the cove-
nant context of both Deuteronomy 4 and 32 (Deuteronomy, 108, 112, 452–54, 461–62). He
also notes Deuteronomy 32’s “. . . specific analogies of style and thought with Is. 40–
55 . . .” (452). Delitzsch (Isaiah, 76) asserts that the source of the creation of Israel in the
Song of Moses is an allusion to God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17.
For the connection between Deuteronomy 4 and 32 based upon the theme of the heav-
ens and the earth as witness, see, e.g., Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 376.
39
The allusion to the covenant curse of Deuteronomy resurfaces preeminently in Isaiah
24–27, in which a parallel is created between the mosaic covenant and humanity’s respon-
sibility to obey the laws of God. The earth is described as having “. . . transgressed laws,
violated statutes, broke[n] the everlasting covenant” (24:5), with the result being that “. . .
a curse devours the earth, and those who live in it are held guilty” (24:6). On this parallel,
see esp. Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27: A Continental Commentary, trans. Thomas H.
Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 478–81.
154 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

sin, corruption, and eschatological death. Complementing these themes in

Paul’s understanding of Isaiah, and likewise building on earlier sections of
the prophecy, is the emphasis on the universal relevance of the Mosa-
ic[/divine] law and covenant, 40 and on Israel’s equal standing with the nations
in guilt, captivity, and redemption. This presentation in chapters 40–55,
moreover, is incorporated into the courtroom motif in which the theme of the
Lord as Creator is presented as evidence both of man’s idolatrous guilt and
God’s power to redeem, evidence which is reinforced and reaffirmed by the
Lord’s covenant acts toward Israel, both in captivity and redemption.
But before the linguistic and thematic coherence that supports the above
thesis is examined in more detail, a rationale should be presented for under-
standing Paul to be reading the prophecy of Isaiah as itself taking up the
theme of the fall of man in Genesis.

2. Paul’s Understanding of Isaiah as Answering the Fall

The assertion that Paul reads the prophecy of Isaiah as itself dealing with the
sin of Adam and its consequences is not to deny the major role that Genesis
plays in Paul’s theology. Rather, it is to assert that Paul understands Isaiah as
taking up these themes and so dealing with the fundamental plight of humani-
ty as derived from the account of the fall (e.g., sin, guilt, exile, corruption,
death), a plight that is typologically reflected in the captivity and condemna-
tion of Israel, and answered in the sacrifice of the Servant.
One principal reason for this view is that Paul in Romans quotes several
passages from Isaiah which are themselves alluding to Genesis (Rom 9:27/Isa
10:22/Gen 22:17; Rom 9:29/Isa 1:9/Gen 19:24), and in one quotation in par-
ticular a vital bridge is created between the fall and the Isaianic good news. In
both Rom 9:27 (Isa 10:22) and 9:29 (Isa 1:9) the quotations from Isaiah em-

40
The promise of judgment upon Israel repeatedly echoed throughout chapters 1–12
leads into a parallel judgment on the nations in chapters 13–23. This principle of covenant
breach and resulting curse applied to both Israel and the nations is then universalized in
chapters 24–27, though epitomized in the covenant nation of Israel. In these chapters the
unleashing of the curse for breaking the covenant is directed toward the entire earth, but so
also is the ultimate restoration from this curse which is granted to a world-wide remnant
(24:13; cf. 17:6), again epitomized in Israel (27:6). (For the manner in which 27:12–13
forms a climax to not only chapters 24–27 and 13–23, but the earlier chapters of the proph-
ecy as well, see Oswalt, Isaiah, 443).
The emphasis on a remnant of Israel (e.g., Isa 1:9; 6:13; 10:22; 17:6; 24:13) which be-
comes a pattern for and expands into a world-wide remnant (cf. esp. 17:6; 24:13), evidenc-
es a covenantal continuity in both curse and blessing and provides the backdrop for both
the typology and remnant concepts of chapters 40–55. For more on these various relations,
see below in this chapter, notes 50 and 53.
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 155

ploy allusions to Genesis to convey Isaiah’s concept of the remnant. 41 The

quotation of Isa 10:22 is especially important, however, because it alludes to
the Abrahamic promise in Genesis 22 and thereby connects the promised
covenant blessing to the remnant of Isaiah. 42 From the standpoint of Isaiah,
this connection reemerges in chapters 40–55 as the Abrahamic promise
(e.g., 48:18–19; 51:1–2ff; 54:1–5) is again conceived in terms of the rem-
nant,43 but a remnant whose identity is forged through faith in God’s redemp-
tive act through his Servant.44 Paul, of course, in his reading of Isaiah, de-
fines this remnant as those who believe in Jesus (Rom 9:33/Isa 28:16; Rom
10:[9–]11/Isa 28:16), particularly in the “good news” of the redemptive death
of Jesus as the Servant of the Lord (Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1). In Rom
9:27, moreover, Paul follows the LXX and quotes Isa 10:22 as saying the
remnant “will be saved” (swqh,setai), rather than “return,” interpreting return
from exile as ultimately referring to salvation.45 This view of Paul, in which
Paul understands Isaiah as addressing the fundamental human plight as ex-
pressed in Genesis, is confirmed in Romans 4 in which the Abrahamic prom-
41
Isa 10:22 uses both the noun ra"v. (“remnant;” LXX kata,leimma; Rom 9:27
u`po,leimma) as well as the verb bwv to convey this concept, while Isa 1:9 (Rom 9:29) uses
the term dyrIf' (“survivor”). The LXX translates dyrIf' with spe,rma (“seed;” generally ren-
dering [r;z<), a prominent term for the remnant. Though the term ra"v. does not appear after
17:3, as Oswalt observes (Isaiah 1–39, 269), the concept of the remnant “. . . is still per-
haps the most apt summary of the entire book, since it captures the interwoven themes of
redemption and judgment that prevail from beginning to end.”
42
For the significance of the patriarchal narratives as the promise of redemption and
salvation in light of the fall, see, e.g., Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, WBC (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), lii, 275, 277.
Wagner (Heralds, 109–116) rightly emphasizes the congruity, rather than the contrast,
of the abrahamic promise of descendents like the sand with the remnant of Isaiah. The
import of the promise of the remnant was to provide comfort with respect to the fulfillment
of the abrahamic promise in the future bloom of the nation (e.g., Isa 27:1ff; Isa 59:20–21).
Wagner, therefore, asserts that the conclusion of Paul’s argument in Rom 11:26–27(/Isa
59:20–21; 27:9) was already foreshadowed and present in germ form in his depiction of the
remnant in Romans 9 (94, 108, 115–16).
Isaiah (10:22/Rom 9:27) redefines “the sand of sea” (i.e., the blessed seed which medi-
ates God’s covenant blessing to the nations) in terms of the remnant who return, with
“return” (bwv) being a wordplay indicating both repentance and restoration.
On the possible reference to the return of the northern tribes from captivity, see, e.g.,
Motyer, Isaiah, 117. For the relation between the Assyrian crisis and the Babylonian exile
in terms of the prophecy’s early emphasis on the remnant (e.g., Isa 6:11–13; 7:3), see
Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12, 132–33, 145–46, 242.
43
See Blenkinsopp, Sealed Book, 115, 205, 229–230; Wagner, Heralds, 103. Regarding
these allusive references in Isaiah 40–55, Blenkinsopp comments that it “. . . reveals the
subtext of the abrahamic blessing” (205).
44
See above, pp. 78–79 and notes.
45
On salvation in Paul as eschatological, see above, p. 88 and note 64; p. 118 and note
154.
156 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

ise is specifically that which brings life out of death in answer to the fall (vv.
17–22; cf. 1:23, 32; 5:12–21), and is therefore fulfilled in the Isaianic por-
trayal of the sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ (vv. 23–25; Ellis,
Shum, Wagner, Wilk; see Appendix). Paul, therefore, interprets Isaiah’s
prophecy as addressing the fall, as taking up the Abrahamic promise in its
own redemptive narrative and thus presenting the solution to the fundamental
problem of sin and death as depicted in the Genesis account.
This use of Isaiah as answering the problem of sin and death as derived
from the fall is evident both throughout Romans as well as in Paul’s other
epistles. In Rom 1:18–3:20 (it will be argued), the Isaianic plight of captivity
and condemnation, ultimately derived from and reflecting the fall (1:23), is
answered in a redemption portrayed through allusive reference to the sacrifice
of the Servant of Isaiah 53. Romans 4, as just mentioned, traces the Abraham-
ic promise, characterized by forgiveness, justification, and life out of death,
to its fulfillment in the justification and resurrection achieved by Christ as the
Isaianic Servant. Following up on this recognized allusion to Isaianic justifi-
cation in Rom 4:25, Rom 5:12–21 describes Adam’s sin (5:12), with its cap-
tivity, condemnation and death (very closely aligned to the Isaianic portrayal
in 1:18–3:20), as overcome by the obedience of One who makes the many
righteous (5:19b), again alluding to Isaiah 53 (Isa 53:11; Shum). The larger
section of Romans 5–8, in fact, building on the justification of 3:21–4:25 (cf.
Rom 5:1ff), describes a release from captivity to sin with its subsequent lead-
ing by the Spirit on the redemptive path to eschatological glory (again, close-
ly resembling the redemptive narrative of Isaiah; Rom 8:1ff), and closes as it
began, with its basis in recognized allusions to vindication in and through the
Servant of Isaiah 50 and 53 (Rom 8:31–34; Ellis, Shum, Wagner, Wilk; see
Appendix). Romans 9–10, as discussed above, traces the Abrahamic promise,
as blessing countering curse, to the Isaianic “good news,” but culminates
again in Isaiah’s depiction of Israel’s redemption through atonement (Rom
11:25–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9), an atonement based in the sacrificial death of
the Messiah (Rom 3:21–26; 4:25; 8:3).46 Both the proto evangelium (Rom
16:20/Gen 3:15; cf. Rom 5:12–21), therefore, and its fuller expression in the
promise to Abraham (Rom 4:1ff; 9:6–9ff) come to be fulfilled in the good
news of the justification achieved by Isaiah’s Servant of the Lord (Rom 3:21–
26; 4:25; 5:12–21; 10:15–16; 11:26–27).
The most important support for this outside of Romans is in 1 Corinthians
15. In this chapter Paul declares the gospel he received through apostolic
tradition (vv. 3–4), and in so doing employs a traditional formula which is

46
Thus, the abrahamic promise is, in a manner of speaking, winnowed through the exile
into a remnant, but a remnant that forms the seed of the future bloom of the nation.
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 157

recognized by scholars as sourced in Isaiah.47 As his discussion proceeds with

his defense of the resurrection as a primary facet of the gospel, he describes
the resurrection as the reclamation of humanity from the death issuing from
Adam (vv. 20–22). Most significantly, however, is that he clinches his argu-
ment for the resurrection with a quotation from Isa 25:8 (v. 54), as “death is
swallowed up in victory.” This Isaianic conquest of the death derived from
Adam, moreover, is the answer to the predicament of humanity as “perisha-
ble” (fqarto,j; vv. 50, 52, 53, 54), the same term Paul uses in Rom 1:23 to
describe the exchange of the incorruptible God for the form of “corruptible”
man. This theme, it will be seen, is a prominent aspect of the typological
parallel between Adam, Israel and humanity which Paul draws from Isaiah.
Paul, therefore, portrays the human dilemma as epitomized in death as de-
rived from the sin of Adam, but likewise consistently portrays this dilemma
as addressed in Isaiah’s good news of the messianic sacrifice for sin (cf. 1
Cor 5:7) and subsequent conquest of death. This conquest of death, then, or
recreation, is part of the essence of the Isaianic gospel. 48
It seems a fair assumption, therefore, that Paul, in understanding the re-
demptive narrative of Isaiah as one of the primary scriptural answers to hu-
manity’s fundamental plight, necessarily sees a reflection of the fall and its
consequences in the prophetic book. This understanding of Isaiah on the part
of Paul, moreover, is consistent with what many Isaianic scholars understand
as an essential aspect of the prophecy. 49 But this reading of Isaiah’s theme of
redemption as countering the curse of Genesis does not stem from Isaiah 40–
55 alone, but from the entire prophetic oracle. Allusions to Genesis relevant
to the need for and fulfillment of ultimate redemption span the prophecy,
from the mention of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapter 1 (v. 9) to the creation
of the new heavens and earth in chapters 65 and 66 (65:17; 66:22). Signifi-
cant for Paul’s use is the allusion to the fall in Isaiah 14 as it anticipates chap-

47
See in chapter four below, “Isaiah 53 as the Background of Paul’s Theology of
Atonement.”
48
Paul’s use of Isa 25:8 in 1 Cor 15:54 is consistent with his use of this same section of
Isaiah (24–27) in Romans. In his quotation of Isa 27:9 in Rom 11:27, the atonement se-
cures redemption, a redemption that in the wider context of Romans is from sin and death.
Another significant and very interesting example of the manner in which Paul reads
Isaiah as taking up the themes of Genesis is found in Gal 4:21–31, which in many respects
is similar to Paul’s argument in Romans 9–10. See above, p. 29, note 85. Phil 2:5–11,
similarly, presents Jesus’ condescension and subsequent glorification through allusion to
Isaiah and the Servant of the Lord, both in contrast and in answer to the fall in Genesis 3.
See below, p. 197–98 and note 162.
49
E.g., for the significance of the themes of return to paradise and new creation
throughout Isaiah, see Childs, Isaiah, 100–104. On the relation of these themes to the
abrahamic promise as fulfilled in the Servant, see 402.
158 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

ters 24–27. 50 In Isaiah 14 the sin of the king of Babylon (believed by many
interpreters to typify the fallen angelic power behind this ruler51) is depicted
in terms of the primordial sin in Genesis 3, in which the creature transgresses
by seeking to usurp the role and rightful lordship of the Creator.52 This sin, as
epitomizing the sin of the nations, resurfaces in the universal transgression of
humanity in chapters 24–27, 53 a section which itself reflects the fall.54 Chap-
ters 24–27 are used by Paul in conjunction with chapters 40–55, in which the
interpretive warrant for seeing redemption from the fall becomes very appar-
ent. This vital theme is communicated in Isaiah 40–55 in a variety of ways,
but primarily through its portrayal of redemption as both (re)creation and as
the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (e.g., Isa 51:1–11; 54:1–5), which
in both respects results in restoration to Eden (Isa 51:1–3) and the removal of
the curse (Is 55:12–13). 55 So although Adam might not be explicitly men-

50
On the connection between the judgment on the nations in chapters 13–23 (particular-
ly chapters 13–14) pointing to a coming, universal judgment in chapters 24–27, see, e.g.,
C. R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993),
172–73, 175. Seitz holds that the judgment of chapters 13–14 is the same judgment as in
chapters 24–27 (175), and that the interpretive framework for 24–27 is laid in 13–23.
51
E.g., Grogan, Isaiah, 105; Delitzsch, Isaiah, 312.
52
See esp. J. Jensen, “Helel ben Shahar [Isa 14:12–15] in Bible and Tradition,” in Writ-
ing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, ed. C. C.
Broyles and C. A. Evans, 2 vols., VTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 343ff. See also, e.g.,
Grogan, Isaiah, 105; Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 323.
53
Regarding chapters 24–27 Oswalt (Isaiah 1–39, 441) asserts that there is “. . . an
emerging consensus that these chapters cannot be understood independently but must be
understood in context with chapters 13–23, as indeed those chapters must be understood in
context with these.”
Childs (Isaiah, 124–26) notes the eschatological nature of the judgment upon Babylon
in chapters 13–14, conveyed in part by the use of the important phrase “the day of the
Lord” (see esp. 13:9–13), a judgment upon both the nation as a whole (13:1–22; 14:21–23)
and upon its arrogant ruler in particular (14:3–20). It is this eschatological judgment which
emerges in chapters 24–27.
On Isaiah 13–14 as it anticipates chapters 40–55, with its emphasis on the choice of Is-
rael, the overthrow of Babylon and return from captivity (14:1–2), see, e.g., Childs, Isaiah,
123, 126; Seitz, Isaiah, 134.
For the typological link between Assyria and Babylon in the larger movements of the
prophecy (e.g., Isa 14:24–27) as representing “. . . within the stages of human history the
selfsame reality of arrogance . . .” (127) which sets itself up over against the rightful rule
of God, see Childs, 124, 127–28.
54
E.g., Grogan, Isaiah, 152, 156; Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 446–47; Motyer, Isaiah, 198
(though Motyer also sees an allusion to Noah and the flood). See further below, p. 161–64.
55
Isaiah 40–55 is replete with the theme of redemption from the fall, but perhaps this
comes out most clearly in Isaiah 51:1–11. See, e.g., Delitzsch, Isaiah, 282–87; George A.
F. Knight, Deutero-Isaiah: A Theological Commentary on Isaiah 40–55 (New York: Ab-
ingdon Press, 1965), 210 (who describes Isaiah 51 as picturing redemption [from Babylon]
as return to the Garden of Eden); Motyer, Isaiah, 404–7; Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 335;
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 159

tioned in Isaiah (though he is certainly alluded to), the prophecy’s various

allusions to Genesis set forth the whole complex of ideas surrounding fall.56

3. The Typology of Isaiah as the Source of Paul’s Thought

As mentioned above, Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 draws on the
typology of the larger context of Isaiah 40–55, yet this section of Isaiah is
understood by the apostle to be a continuation of themes introduced in the
eschatological section of Isaiah 24–27. That Paul views and interprets these
sections of Isaiah together, including chapter 59, as referring to the atoning,
redemptive event in Christ is evident from his use of the texts themselves.57
He explicitly quotes a key verse of Isaiah 24–27 (Isa 27:9 in Rom 11:27) at
the climax of his argument in Romans 9–11 to depict the ultimate salvation of
Israel in redemption through atonement (cf. 3:21–26). In this quotation the
apostle conflates Isa 27:9 with Isa 59:20–21 (Rom 11:26–27), yet within the
context of his argument in chapters 9–11 this conflated quotation is an appli-
cation to Israel of the redemptive “good news” of Isa 52:7 and 53:1 (Rom
10:15–16; cf. Rom 1:16–17; 3:21–26), indicating that Paul is reading Isaiah
24–27 in conjunction with both Isaiah 52–53 (40–55) and Isaiah 59.
In fact, Paul’s splicing together of Isa 59:21 and 27:9 (Rom 11:27) to char-
acterize the covenant as one which takes away sin appears to deliberately
recall a previous “covenant connection” within the prophecy. In the MT and

Whybray (Isaiah, 155), who acknowledges the allusion to the Eden story of Genesis 2–3
with the idea of “Paradise Regained.” But see esp. Hanson, Isaiah, 9.
Childs (Isaiah, 402–3) points out the connection with the preceding (50:10–11) and
stresses the continuity of this saving hope throughout the entire prophecy, a hope which
comes to center in the remnant whose faith is in the Servant. Other commentators (e.g.,
Whybray, Motyer) note the intertextual and complimentary connection of Isa 51:4–6 with
42:1–4, so that it is clearly the Servant who mediates this long-promised salvation.
Isa 51:1–3, in its aligning of the abrahamic promise and Edenic restoration, clearly un-
derstands the nature of the abrahamic promise as that which counters the curse, an interpre-
tation confirmed by the strong emphasis on the eternal nature of salvation in Isa 51:6, 8. As
mentioned, this is precisely the way Paul reads Isaiah.
56
Though see in chapter three below, p. 177, footnote 111.
57
Additional confirmation for Paul’s interpreting Isaiah 24–27 and 59 together with 40–
55 within a typological framework is his aforementioned use Isaiah 52 (and 53) together
with chapter 59 to depict both Israel’s captivity (Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5; Rom 3:15–17/Isa
59:7–8) and redemption (Rom 10:15/Isa 52:7; [Rom 10:16/Isa 53:1;] Rom 11:26–27/Isa
59:20–21), into which he incorporates Isa 27:9 (Rom 11:27) to convey a redemption based
in atonement. These and additional elements come together in Rom 3:21–26 (which, will
be argued, reflects Isaiah 53), as the gospel is described as the manifestation of the right-
eousness of God in redemption (cf. Rom 11:26/Isa 59:20), a redemption accomplished
through atonement (cf. Rom 11:27/Isa 27:9) with its subsequent justification (cf. Rom
4:25/Isa 53:4–6, 11–12 and Appendix; cf. also 9:33/Isa 28:16; 10:11/Isa 28:16) granted as
a gift to everyone who believes (cf. Rom 9:33/Isa 28:16; 10:11/Isa 28:16; 10:16/Isa 53:1).
160 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

LXX of Isaiah the phrase “eternal covenant” (~l'A[ tyrIB. / diaqh,khn aivw,nion)
is used only in 24:5, 55:3, and 61:8. Isa 55:3 is an obvious intertextual con-
nection used to link the covenant broken by the transgression of humanity
(Isa 24:5) to the covenant restored and established anew by the sacrifice of
the Servant of the Lord,58 and vouchsafed to repentant Israel [through the
Servant] in Isa 59:20 (though this passage simply has the term “covenant”)
and 61:8 (which has the full expression). Paul’s characterization of the cove-
nant as atoning for sin (Rom 11:27/Isa 59:21; 27:9) is almost certainly draw-
ing on this connection, which again points to his reading of Isaiah 24–27 in
conjunction not only with Isaiah 59, but with the redemptive narrative of
Isaiah 40–55 as well.
This understanding on the part of Paul is supported further by an additional
intertextual link between Isa 59:1–2 and 50:1–2 that could well have been
instrumental in leading Paul to interpret these various sections of Isaiah to-
gether. Isa 59:1–2 is a recognized allusion to 50:1–2,59 with both passages
containing the themes of sin separating Israel from God, God’s power and
desire to deliver, and (in the larger context of 59, vv. 15c-16ff) God’s search
for and provision of an intercessor as the mediator of redemption. This allu-
sion brings together the plight of Isaiah 50 with that of 59 and confirms the
typological reading of Isaiah 40–55 as captivity because of sin is conceived of
as reflecting and representing a more fundamental state, that of captivity to
sin. Paul’s quotation of Isa 59:7–8 in Rom 3:15–17, in fact, is used to high-
light this typological relation, particularly as it builds upon Paul’s use of the
Isaianic theme of captivity to sin in Rom 2:24 (Isa 52:5) and 3:9 (Isa 50:1 and
context).60 It is this intertextual link, moreover, that in the wider context of
both Isaiah 50 and 59 helps to identify and confirm the redemptive covenant
of Isa 59:21 with that established by the Servant of the Lord in Isa 55:3. 61

58
Paul quotes Isa 55:3 in his sermon in Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13:34 as a fulfillment
of the “good news of the promise made to the fathers” (v. 32). He describes this “good
news” as deliverance from decay in resurrection and forgiveness of sin, all central features
of the Isaiah 40–55. On deliverance from decay, see below in chapter three, footnote 83.
59
So, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 485, 487; Whybray, Isaiah, 220.
60
See in chapter three below, “Romans 3:15–17/Isaiah 59:7–8a within the Catena – The
Typological Solidarity of Israel with the World.”
61
See, e.g., Motyer, Isaiah, 492–93; Oswalt, Isaiah, 531.
Though Childs sees the covenant of 59:21 as having reference to Isa 56:6, he further
notes that 59:21 interprets God’s intention to intervene in righteousness in behalf of the
repentant as covenant (490), which corresponds much more closely to the tenor of Isaiah
40–55. Further, in the context of both Isaiah 50 and 59 the desperate need is for an inter-
cessor to mediate God’s righteousness, which is answered only by the Servant of the Lord
(Isa 53:11–12) and the covenant He establishes (Isa 55:3). Finally, the use of covenant in
56:6 must surely be meant to evoke its previous reference just sixteen verses before in
55:3, probably to convey both covenantal continuity as well as the thought that God’s
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 161

Based on these wider connections within Isaiah, connections ostensibly

followed by Paul, an understanding of certain features of Isaiah 24–27 be-
comes important for an appreciation of the typological use Paul makes of his
quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24.
Isaiah 24:4–6, which opens this section of the prophecy (24–27), is set
within the context of eschatological judgment (cf. vv. 1–3). It describes the
universal transgression of God’s law by humanity (v. 5), with the result that
“. . . a curse devours the earth, and those who live in it are held guilty” (v. 6).
These verses are interpreted variously by commentators: some argue for an
allusion to the fall;62 others an allusion to the breaking of the covenant given
to Noah (which precipitates a universal judgment akin to the flood); 63 still
others argue for a reference to the Mosaic covenant and see a deliberate paral-
lel between Israel’s breaking of the Mosaic covenant and humanity’s break-
ing of divine or natural law, variously described in 24:5.64 Setting aside, for a
moment, the question of the specific referent of “the everlasting covenant”
which the inhabitants of the earth have broken (Isa 24:5), these ideas are far
from mutually exclusive (as the comments in the above footnotes indicate).
Rather, they stand together quite congenially, not only in the passage itself,
but also in the prophecy as a whole.
As noted above, Deuteronomy 4 creates through allusion a parallel be-
tween the curse as derived from the Mosaic covenant and the curse as derived
from primeval humanity’s breach of the “covenant of creation,”65 a relation
expanded and reinforced in Deuteronomy 28–32 (cf. esp. Deut 30:19). Deu-
teronomy 4, through further allusion, depicts the curse as coming to expres-
sion not simply in death, but in the corruption that precipitated the judgment
of the flood. 66 As also noted above, Isaiah takes up this covenantal framework
of Deuteronomy from its opening chapter, a framework which surfaces

righteous requirements are fulfilled only by those who have entered into the redemption
wrought by the Servant (cf. Isa 51:7).
62
E.g., Grogan, Isaiah, 152, 156; Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 446–47; Motyer, Isaiah, 198
(though Motyer also sees an allusion to Noah and the flood).
63
Childs (Isaiah, 179), Otto Kaiser (Isaiah 13–39, trans. R. A. Wilson, OTL [Philadel-
phia: The Westmintster Press, 1974], 183–84), and Seits (Isaiah, 180–82), e.g., argue for a
noahic background on the basis of the linguistic link provided by the phrase “the everlast-
ing covenant” (Isa 24:5; Gen 9:16). Kaiser, however, seems to include in his argument the
parallel between the noahic stipulation against the shedding of blood the mosaic covenant.
64
R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 201–2; and
esp. Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 478–81. Dan G. Johnson (From Chaos to Restoration: An
Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27, JSOTSup 61 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988], 25–35)
argues for a reference to the Mosaic covenant, yet expressed in cosmic terms.
65
See above, pp. 148–49. On this parallel, see also, e.g., Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 67.
66
On Isaiah’s allusions to the covenant context of Deuteronomy, see above, p. 153, note
38. On the allusion to the fall in Isaiah 14 as informing chapters 24–27, see above pp. 157–
59. For the allusions to the fall in chapters 24–27, see the continuing discussion.
162 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

preeminently in chapters 24–27, chapters which are themselves informed by

and contain various allusions to the fall.67 It seems highly likely, therefore,
that Isaiah 24 would be reflecting just such a scriptural complexion and there-
fore also encompassing the above interpretive options, typologically aligning
the primeval sin, Israel’s covenant breach, and the universal transgression of
humanity.68 (It is this “typological alignment,” moreover, that is taken up in
Isaiah 40–55 and forms the basis of Paul’s typological use of Isaiah’s “good
news.”) Based upon the above-mentioned intertextual connection via the
“everlasting covenant” broken by humanity (24:5) and restored by the Serv-
ant (55:3), the Servant’s sacrifice is depicted as that which not only redeems
Israel from its covenant breach but the nations as well, and so brings restora-
tion from the curse itself (e.g., Isa 51:1–3; 55:12–13). It therefore, in a di-
vinely designed continuity, brings to fulfillment all the promises of God’s
previous covenant expressions: the preservation of Noahic (54:9–10), the
blessing of the Abrahamic (e.g., 10:22; 29:22–23; 41:8; 51:1–3; 54:1–3), the
required righteousness of the Mosaic (e.g., 1:2ff; 42:21–25; 50:1; 53:11), and
the messianic mediation of the Davidic (e.g., 9:1–7; 11:1–10; 37:35; 55:3).69

67
The opening words of the prophecy (“Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth . . .”; Isa
1:2) recall the covenant context of Deuteronomy (4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 32:1), with the
prophecy going on to depict Israel’s transgression of God’s law leading inevitably to exile
(e.g., Isa 5:13–14).
68
This points to a particular understanding of the “everlasting covenant” which appears
to receive strong support through an intertextual link within the prophecy. The “noahic”
nature of Isaiah 24 (see esp. 24:18b as likely alluding to Gen 7:11) is echoed more explicit-
ly in Isa 54:9–10 (“For this is like the days of Noah to Me; When I swore that the waters of
Noah Should not flood the earth again, So I have sworn that I will not be angry with you,
Nor will I rebuke you”; v. 9), in which the “covenant” given in the days of Noah, referring
to God’s unilateral promise to preserve His creation, comes to fulfillment in the covenant
established by the Servant of the Lord, described ten verses later as an “everlasting cove-
nant” (Isa 55:3).
And yet again, in what sense could it have been broken in Isaiah 24? The allusive con-
text described above points to a more comprehensive and nuanced answer than simply the
noahic reference. The reestablishment of the everlasting covenant in 55:3 answers to its
being broken in 24:5; its reestablishment through the sin-sacrifice of the Servant (which
issues in justification and redemption) points to its nature as quintessential divine law
given to preserve life – God’s rightful Lordship over His creatures expressed in law – so
that its breach, with its subsequent judgment and death, of necessity begins at creation and
is typified both in the judgment of the flood (cf. 2 Pet 3:3–7) and in the exile of Israel. The
preservation of life guaranteed the seed of Israel in the “everlasting covenant,” then, is
sourced in the justification and recreation that issues from the Servant’s sacrificial death
for sin, the fulfillment of God’s covenant of preservation with Noah.
69
On this theme of covenantal continuity within scripture as fulfilled in Christ, see esp.
O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1980).
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 163

This covenantal continuity is evident in Romans and similarly based in the

Servant’s sacrifice.
Augmenting the covenant connection which Isaiah 24–27 sustains with
40–55, this eschatological section of the prophecy contains a fundamental
contrast between the outworking of the curse and redemptive recreation. This
contrast forms part of the backdrop to the typological portrayal of the re-
demptive narrative of chapters 40–55 employed by Paul. In chapters 24–27 of
Isaiah, the world-wide nature of the curse for transgression of divine law (Isa
24:5–6)70 is not only depicted as devouring the earth, recalling the curse upon
the ground of Gen 3:17, 71 but is ultimately expressed, as in the Genesis narra-
tive (Gen 2:16–17; 3:17–19), in death itself (Isa 25:6–8; cf. 1 Cor 15:54).
This reference is further confirmed by Isa 26:19 and what seems (in light of
the previously-mentioned allusions to Genesis in Isaiah 14 and 24) a likely
allusion to the narrative of the fall with its use of the participial form of twm
(“to die”) recalling the curse of death for disobedience in Gen 2:17, as well as
the term rp'[' (“dust”) recalling its metonymical counterpart in Gen 3:19.72
70
The noun hl'a' in Isaiah 24:6 generally refers to an oath, but in the case of a broken
oath it refers to the resulting curse. This is especially evident in the covenant context of
Deuteronomy. Compare, e.g., the use of the term in the sense of “oath” in Deut 29:12 and
14 in which it stands in conceptual parallel with the covenant (tyrIb.), and then its use to
refer to the curse of the covenant immediately afterward in Deut 29:19, 20, and 21. The
term is often used in a sense synonymous with the verb rra, which is the word for “curse”
in Gen 3:17 and in many of the “curse” passages of Deuteronomy (e.g., 27:15–26; 28:15–
19; cf. Deut 29:19; Jer 23:10; 29:18; 42:18; 44:12; Dan 9:11). See Josef Scharbert, “hl'a'
’ālāh,” TDOT, 1:261–66; Jack B. Scott, “hl'a' (’ālâ),” TWOT, 1:45–46. (On rra, see also
above, pp. 149–50, note 29.)
71
Though the Hebrew is #r,a,, it is parallel in the context with hm'd"a] (cf. Isa 24:21),
which is the term used in Gen 3:17; the LXX has gh/ in Gen 3:17 and Isa 24:6.
72
A terse precursor to this typological parallel, moreover, is likely introduced in Isa
5:13–14, which reads,
Therefore My people go into exile for their lack of knowledge;
And their honorable men are famished,
And their multitude is parched with thirst.
Therefore Sheol has enlarged its throat and opened its mouth without measure;
And Jerusalem’s splendor, her multitude, her din of revelry, and the jubilant within her,
descend into it.
Though these verses could simply be relating two aspects of judgment to be poured out
upon Judah and Jerusalem for their transgression of the law, in light of Isaiah 24–27 and
40–55 it would seem better to understand this as an analogy between national captivity and
entering into Sheol – a deliberate parallel between Adam’s sin with its resultant curse of
expulsion and death, and Israel’s similar experience of the Deuteronomic curse of captivity
for transgression of covenant law.
Otto Kaiser (Isaiah 1–12, 107, 109) observes here a redactive interpretation which con-
strues the apocalyptic judgment of death, metaphorically depicted with the underworld as a
ravening, rapacious animal whose limitless jaws devour Jerusalem (v. 14), to have been
fulfilled historically in the exile (v. 13).
164 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

These allusions to the primeval transgression with its resulting subjugation to

sin and death (cf. Isa 14:9–20; 24:21–22) are reflected not simply in the
world at large but particularly in the sin and captivity of Israel (Isa 27:7–11).
This negative parallel between the primeval [Adamic] sin, Israel’s covenant
breach, and the universal transgression of humanity in chapters 24–27, each
bearing the curse, has its positive complement in the world-wide remnant (Isa
24:13; cf. 17:4–7), which conveys a typological parallel between the restora-
tion of Zion and return of the righteous nation portrayed through the image of
the Jubilee (Isa 26:1–4; 27:2–13), and the conquest of death for all peoples
(Isa 25:6–9; 26:19).73
These typological ideas are picked up in Isaiah 40–55 with the parallel be-
tween the captivity of Israel and the captivity of humanity, so that the re-
demption of Israel as a type has the supreme significance of redemption from
the sin and corruption of the curse. To help introduce this parallel as it
reemerges in chapters 40–55 several elements may be mentioned that fill out
the portrait of this typology. As in Isaiah 24–27 these themes similarly con-
trast the outworking of the curse and redemptive recreation. This contrast is
likely seen, for example, in the portrayal of Babylon descending into the dust
(Isa 47:1) and Jerusalem rising from the dust (Isa 52:2). It is also seen in the
return (bwv) of the Lord’s ransomed (51:11; cf. Isa 35:10), which in the con-
text of recreation and eternal salvation (Isa 51:6–8) surely employs the theme
of divine reversal to convey the Lord’s ultimate redemption of his people
from Adam’s expulsion, with its subsequent “return (bwv) to dust” (Gen
3:19).74

73
On the theme of the conquest of death in chapters 24–27, and throughout the Isaianic
corpus, Childs (Isaiah, 185) writes, “. . . when one considers that there is a representative,
paradigmatic intention running through these chapters, such an ultimate formulation of the
rule of God as without death and sorrow cannot be ruled out of court. Only in Isaiah’s final
chapters (65 and 66) is the theme of a new heaven and new earth fully developed (65:17ff;
66:22–23), but the hope of a radical new world order apart from evil and sickness has been
adumbrated throughout the entire Isaianic corpus. Although it is possible to see here a
subsequent literary retrojection, the effect of this hypothesis, even if true, is not of crucial
interpretive importance.”
74
The eschatological concept of Babylon’s return to the dust is introduced in Isa 14:3–
23 which portrays the descent of the king of Babylon into the corruption of Sheol, followed
by Babylon itself (vv. 21–23). As noted above (p. 158 and notes 50–53), this text is an
allusion to the fall and so anticipates both its recurring motif in Isaiah 47 as well as its
contrast in Isaiah 52. On the contrasting relation of Isa 47:1 and 52:2, see, e.g., Delitzsch,
Isaiah, 296; Grogan, “Isaiah,” 296; Whybray, Isaiah, 119, 164–65. Though most commen-
tators mention only the theme of captivity in these contrasting verses, both the relation
between chapters 14 and 47 as well as the metaphoric and typological significance of
Israel’s captivity and redemption in this section of the prophecy surely points to a further,
eschatological significance. (For a similar conception with regard to Isa 51:14, see, e.g.,
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 165

Further strengthening this typological significance of redemption in Isaiah

40–55 is the portrayal of redeemed Israel (cf. Isa 27:1ff) with terms that
evoke the formation of Adam,75 as well as the descriptions of a redeemed
earth free from the curse (Isa 51:1–8, 11; 55:12–13; cf. 25:7–8; 26:19). An
additional aspect of the negative backdrop to this antitypical redemption in
chapters 40–55 is the concept of universal corruption stemming from sin, a
concept conveyed in part by the use of the term lbn. But here it would prove
helpful to back up a bit. In Isa 24:4 (which, as mentioned above, likely al-
ludes to the fall), the term is used to depict the decay of the curse upon the

Motyer, Isaiah, 412.) Whybray, in fact, notes that Isaiah 47 combines elements from both
“. . . the taunt song and the funeral-song or dirge over the dead” (118).
Strengthening the parallel between Isaiah 14 and 47/52 is the fact that Isa 14:1–3 de-
scribes Israel’s redemption and creates, as in 40–55, a contrast between the eschatological
judgment and redemption of Babylon and Israel, respectively. Isa 14:3, moreover, appears
to be an allusion to Gen 5:29 with its hope of rest from the toil stemming from the curse
(“rest” xwn / ~xn; LXX avnapau,sij / dianapau,omai; “sorrow” bc,[o / !AbC\[i; cf. Gen 3:17).
This allusion would further ground the contrast against the backdrop of the fall.
Several Psalms provide additional support for Isaiah’s allusive and theological use of
the term dust, and they are particularly significant because they also contain, as in Isaiah,
the metaphor of humanity as “grass.” In Psalm 90, ascribed to Moses, an allusion to the fall
is similarly described as man’s “return” to the dust (vs. 3, bWv; cf. Gen 3:19). This “return”
is metaphorically depicted as the grass that grows up in the morning and is soon withered
(v. 5; cf. Isa 40:6–8 and 51:12), with the parallelism itself being further described as the
Lord’s wrath upon sin (vv. 6–9). See Derek Kidner, Psalms 73–150, TOTC (Downers
Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1973), 328–29; Mays, Psalms, 292. On the relationship of
this Psalm to Isaiah 40 and the direction of influence, see Derek Kidner, Psalms 1–72,
TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1973), 36.
Psalm 103 provides a further example of the theologically oriented use of the metaphor
of humanity as both “dust” and “grass.” In this Psalm the metaphor of grass (vv. 15–16)
portrays the weakness and transience to which man was subjected as a result of the curse,
which is alluded to in verse 14 by means of the term rp'[', “dust.” In contrast to this perish-
ing state, those who have been redeemed from “the grave” (tx;v'; v. 4) have their transgres-
sions removed “as far as the east is from the west” (v. 12), and enjoy the mercy (ds,x,) of
the Lord “from everlasting to everlasting” (v. 17).
75
Those who see allusions to creation in Isa 43:1 (characteristic of many passages in
this section of Isaiah), e.g., include Childs, Isaiah, 334; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation,
324–26; Hanson, Isaiah, 60–61 (who notes the chiastic structure of vv. 1–7 and the parallel
of creation with redemption); Motyer, Isaiah, 330 (who references Gen 2:7); Oswalt,
Isaiah, 137; Whybray, Isaiah, 82 (who also observes the parallel of creation with redemp-
tion). See also Isa 43:7, 21; 44:2; 45:9, 11–12; 49:5. This parallel of creation and redemp-
tion is especially stressed by Westermann in relation to Isaiah 45:12 (Isaiah, 168).
It is interesting to consider whether the reference to the creation of the Servant in the
womb in Isa 49:5 is intended to recall Isa 7:14 and 9:6, so that the Lord’s creation of the
Servant in the womb is the prelude to God’s recreative act. In either case, the Servant in
His redemptive work ultimately becomes the basis of the recreation of the people of God
(Isa 51:16).
166 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

people of the earth for their sin.76 This term is picked up again in Isaiah 28
and 40, where it creates further intertextual links that point to the typological
relation between Israel’s captivity and the captivity of humanity to sin and
death.
In Isa 24:4 the term lbn (translated in the LXX by fqei,rw [cf. Isa 24:3;
54:16], the cognate verb of Paul’s fqarto,j in Rom 1:23) refers to the state or
condition of leaves when they are dried or withered and about to fall (cf.
28:1, 4; 34:4; 40:7–8; 64:6; Rom 9:6/Isa 40:7–8 [Wagner, Wilk; see Appen-
dix]).77 This term and concept is picked up in Isa 28:1, 4, and then again in
Isa 40:7–8. In the context of both 24:4 and 40:7–8 it is used to describe the
transitory nature of humanity and depicts the outworking of the curse in the
withering of human life leading to the grave. In Isa 28:1 and 4, however, it
describes Israel on the verge of captivity for its covenant breach, creating
within the broader movements of the prophecy a typological parallel between
Israel and humanity in which this state of corruption stemming from sin is
reflected in Israel’s covenant curse and exile. It is this typological parallel
that surfaces uniquely in Isaiah 40, strengthened both by these intertextual
links as well as the larger context of chapters 40–55 with the above-
mentioned typological elements.
The typical nature of the captivity in Isaiah 40–55 that forms the backdrop
for much of Paul’s thought in 1:18–3:20 (and subsequent sections), then, is
presented at the outset of this section of the prophecy by the aforementioned
and deliberate parallel between the Babylonian captivity of Israel (Isa 40:1–2)
and the predicament of humanity – “all flesh” (Heb. “rf'B'h;-lK';” LXX “pa/sa
sa.rx,” Isa 40:6; cf. Rom 3:2078) – as perishing grass, and fading flower (Isa
40:6–8).79 This parallel is both reinforced and emphasized in Isa 40:7–8 by
the intertextual reference to Israel in Isa 28:1 and 4 (cf. 24:4),80 in which, as
also mentioned above, the same imagery used to describe this perishing state
of humanity (the fading flower, Heb. lbeno #yci) is used to describe sinful Israel
on the verge of judgment and headed for captivity. This parallel in Isaiah 40
is continued in chapter 42, the first of the Servant Songs, in which the scope
of God’s redemptive purpose for Israel (e.g., 41:8–16) widens to include the
world (Isa 42:1–7). The predicament of captive Israel mirrors the predicament
of the world (Isa 42:6–7), so that what God purposes to accomplish through
Cyrus for Israel on a limited scale (Isa 41:2–4, 25–26) becomes but a picture

76
A cognate of lbn (hl'ben. “corpse”) is used in Isaiah 26:19 to describe the dead who
will experience resurrection as a reversal of the curse.
77
See, e.g., BDB, 615; Leonard J. Coppes, “lben' (nābēl),” TWOT, 2:548.
78
See in chapter three further below, “Romans 3:20 – The Courtroom Motif of Isaiah:
The Plight of ‘All Flesh’ and the Futility of Works.”
79
For this parallel between Israel and the world in Isaiah 40, see, e.g., Westermann,
Isaiah, 42.
80
See esp. Childs, Isaiah, 295.
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 167

of what he purposes to accomplish ultimately and on an world-wide scale

through the Servant (42:1–9).81
Paul reflects this fundamental contrast between the outworking of the
curse and redemptive recreation, a contrast in which the typological, cove-
nantal and eschatological interrelations point to Isaiah as the source of the
apostle’s thought. In Rom 1:23, humanity beginning in Adam, in its exchange
of the worship due the incorruptible God became itself corruptible man
(fqartou/ avnqrw,pou). With its subsequent slavery to sin (e.g., 1:24, 26, 28;
3:9), then, came also a slavery to corruption (8:21 – th/j doulei,aj th/j
fqora/j),82 a slavery which outside the redemptive grace of God would lead
inevitably to eschatological death (e.g. 1:32; 5:12–21; 6:23; 7:9–10, 24; 8:10–
13, 21). This conception of “slavery to corruption,” particularly as it aug-
ments the concept of slavery to sin, is strongly reminiscent of Isaiah 40[-55]
and the parallel created between the captivity of Israel and the humanly ines-
capable plight of mankind in its subjection to corruption and death.83
Within Isaiah, moreover, this typological parallel is reinforced in that the
Babylonian captivity of Israel generates metaphors for both Israel and the
nations, reflected somewhat in Romans, which both confirm its typological
character and reveal the inescapable nature of the captivity to sin and corrup-
tion that adheres to the human condition. Israel in its captivity is described as
blind (Isa 42:18, 20–25),84 as trapped in caves and hidden away in prisons
(Isa 42:21–22), as sitting in the dust with chains around her neck (Isa 52:2).

81
This parallel is noted, e.g., by Oswalt, Isaiah, 99, 108–9, 286–88.
82
Whereas Rom 1:23 uses the adjective fqarto,j, Rom 8:21 uses the cognate noun
fqora,.
83
In Acts 13:34 Luke records Paul as quoting Isa 55:3 to substantiate the scriptural ba-
sis for deliverance from decay in resurrection, and in introducing the quote uses a synony-
mous cognate of the term fqarto,j in Rom 1:23 (diafqora,). The context of this quotation is
evocative of Isaiah 40–55 with “good news,” as a fulfillment of the noahic, abrahamic, and
davidic covenants, described as deliverance from corruption [in resurrection] and for-
giveness of sins. See esp. vv. 32–39, 47.
Satisfying Hays’ criteria of recurrence and strengthening further the likelihood of this
derivation here is the fact that Paul in I Cor 15:53–54 unmistakably derives the concept of
overcoming the corruption (fqarto,j, vv. 53, 54) and death stemming from sin from Isa
25:8, a verse that depicts the reversal of the universal curse described in Isa 24:4 (cf. 24:1–
6). Additionally, the term lbn is translated in the LXX of Isaiah 40:7–8 by the term
evkpi,ptw, a term reflected in Rom 9:6 in what is a likely allusion to Isaiah 40 (Wagner,
Wilk; see Appendix). In Romans 9:6 the word of God which has not failed (or fallen as the
shriveled blossom of Isaiah 40) despite Israel’s unbelief comes to be epitomized in the
“good news” of Isa 52:7/53:1 (Romans 10:15–16). Interestingly, Peter in his first epistle
derives the same concept from Isa 40:6–8 (1 Pet 1:23–25).
84
On the strong connection between the spiritual blindness and captivity of Israel in
Isaiah, see on Rom 2:19 in chapter three below, “The Typological Role of Israel in Guilt
and Captivity (Rom 2:17–24).” Paul, of course, quotes Isa 29:10 in Rom 11:8 to depict
Israel’s spiritual blindness.
168 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

But this captive state of national Israel is, again, merely a picture of the spir-
itual state of the world, as the Servant is appointed as “. . . a covenant to the
people, As a light to the nations, To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners
from the dungeon, And those who dwell in darkness from the prison” (Isa
42:6–7).
This metaphoric parallelism reveals and emphasizes that the captivity of
national Israel because of its sin is both symptomatic and emblematic of a
much deeper captivity, the plight of humanity as sin-ridden, transient and
perishing – bearers of the curse. This Isaianic captivity is, therefore, world-
wide and Adamic, of which Israel was but the divinely intended reflection
and type. Paul’s use of Isa 52:5 (Rom 2:24) within the context of Rom 1:18–
3:20, together with his use of Isaiah 40, 50, and 59,85 appears to be following
this broader Isaianic reading and exerting a significant influence upon the
section as a whole. He presents the plight of humanity as issuing from the sin
of Adam, with its resulting curse of captivity and eschatological death rever-
berating typologically through Israel as a grim portrait of all humanity (e.g.
Rom 1:23–24, 26, 28, 32; 2:3–5; 5:12–21; 6:23). This Isaianic relation is
reflected most poignantly in his allusive references to Adam and Israel in
Rom 1:18–32 (esp. 1:23), but comes to a climax in his quotation of Isa 52:5
in Rom 2:24.
This relation between Rom 1:18–32 and Rom 2:24 is evident both by the
manner in which Paul paints the portrait of world idolatry with terms deliber-
ately intended to evoke simultaneously both the primeval sin of Adam as well
as the covenant-breaking sin of Israel, each with its resultant captivity (Rom
1:21–25ff); but also, and more importantly, by the manner in which this
world-captivity (cf. Rom 3:9/Isa 50:1), by means of the quotation from Isaiah
(Rom 2:[17-]24/Isa 52:5), comes to be typologically epitomized within the
development of his argument by the sin and captivity of Israel. This parallel-
ism runs into chapter 3 and eventuates in the typologically oriented reference
to Jew and Gentile, “all flesh” (cf. Rom 3:20/Isa 40:6), as “under sin” (Rom
3:9; cf. Rom 7:14; Isa 40:6; 50:1).86

85
In addition to Rom 1:23 as an allusion to Isaiah 40, Rom 3:20 alludes to the “all
flesh” of Isa 40:6 to convey the absurd impossibility of fallen, corruptible man, captive in
sin and condemned before God, doing works to attain justification before God’s tribunal
(see the section on Rom 3:20 in chapter three below). Rom 3:9 echoes and is conceptually
based on Isa 50:1 and its wider context of captivity, and quite possibly conveys an over-
arching Isaianic motif (see also on Rom 3:9 below). Isa 59:7–8 is quoted in Rom 3:15–17
to reinforce the typological solidarity of Israel with the world, whose mutual plight is
sourced in and reflects the fall (see on Rom 3:15–17 below).
86
Compare Rom 5:12–21 and 7:9–14. Note the manner in which Paul’s allusion to Isa
50:1 in Rom 7:14 presents captivity to sin as stemming from “the flesh” (sa,rkinoj; though
cf. Rom 7:5, 18, 25) within a context which most commentators acknowledge as alluding
to the fall. (Again, see on Rom 3:9 and 3:20 below.)
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 169

Paul’s use of Isaiah’s typological depiction of captivity with its accompa-

nying metaphors is intended to emphasize the solidarity of Israel with the
world as sourced in Adam; it is intended to emphasize that outside of the
gracious exercise of divine righteousness in redemption (Rom 3:24–25;
11:26), and the necessity in that redemption of a recreative act of God (Rom
5:1–2, 12–21; 6:1–10; 8:17–25), Israel and the world stand without hope.
This typology of captivity is augmented within both Isaiah and Romans by
the equally prominent theme of condemnation before God’s judgment, a
theme that reinforces the solidarity of Israel with the world and points to the
desperate need for a redemption that finds its basis in divine justification.
These dual concepts of captivity and condemnation form the basis, on the
negative side, of a complex of interrelated concepts the apostle draws in large
part from Isaiah. These interrelated concepts are woven throughout 1:18–3:20
though with a shifting emphasis. In Rom 2:1–3:20 the trial motif becomes
prominent, the captive state of humanity becomes evidence, and the world is
found to be “guilty before God,” unable to do anything in itself to achieve its
own justification in the divine court. Captivity and condemnation, as in Isai-
ah, become the prelude to the revelation of God’s redemptive righteousness.
But before this aspect of thematic coherence is examined in more detail,
there are additional elements in the immediate context that confirm Isaiah as
the primary source of Paul’s typology. In the context of Rom 1:23 it is the
witness of creation that renders humankind “without excuse” for its sinful
exchange (vv. 19–20), a phrase that recalls the divine trial motif and creates a
conjunction of themes strongly reminiscent of Isaiah 40–55. Strengthening
this likelihood of Isaiah as the primary source for Paul’s thought are his nu-
merous echoes of the Lord’s scathing denunciation of and disputation with
the idolaters within Isaiah’s trial motif (vv. 21–22, 25). Further, the result of
this idolatry, as in Isaiah, is wrath issuing from a universal covenant context
as the outworking of the curse (v. 18), resulting in captivity (vv. 24, 26, 28)
and eschatological death (v. 32).

4. The Witness of Creation within the Trial Motif (Rom 1:19–20)

The courtroom motif of Isaiah 40–55 will be treated more fully in the discus-
sion of Romans 2, yet the theme is introduced indirectly in Rom 1:18 with the
present revelation of the wrath of God which culminates in the eschatological
judgment (Rom 2:5–6), and more overtly in 1:20 with the preliminary verdict
of guilt upon a humanity in rebellion against its Creator. Several aspects of
this Isaianic motif bear directly upon this section of Romans: the role of crea-
tion as evidence within the courtroom drama, and the rejection of the
knowledge of God epitomized in the sin of idolatry.
The backdrop of the idolatrous “exchange” expressed in Rom 1:23 is the
universal witness of the Creator through his creation in Rom 1:19–20, render-
170 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

ing humanity “without excuse.” This term (avnapolo,ghtoj, v. 20) evokes the
significant courtroom motif that runs throughout this section of Romans,
climaxing in 3:19 with “every mouth . . . closed, and all the world . . . ac-
countable to God.”87 This witness of God through creation in Rom 1:20 re-
calls such texts as Job 12:7–9; Pss 8:3–4; 19:1ff; and Isa 40:26, 28.88 Each of
these texts uses the witness of creation to certify man’s accountability to God,
an accountability that in the Psalms and Isaiah can lead either to the reclama-
tion of the sinning soul to the purposes and will of its Creator, or to [eschato-
logical] judgment. These various themes resonate both with Paul’s immediate
and larger argument, as do the several unique emphases of the various texts.
It is Isaiah’s narrative of redemption, however, that incorporates most, if not
all, of these themes and expands the contextual continuity in keeping with the
many additional allusions to Isaiah 40–55 in Rom 1:18–32. It is in Isaiah,
moreover, that the witness of creation functions within the courtroom motif, a
conjunction of themes which points in the direction of Isaiah as the source of
Paul’s typological thought in 1:23.
The passage in Job 12 depicts creation as teaching humanity of God’s
power and right to both act within and judge his creation.89 In Psalm 8 the
created world recalls to the Psalmist God’s original intent for man in the
event of creation.90 It alludes both to the fulfillment of this intent in the weak
and helpless who have taken refuge in the covenant/Creator God, as well as
to the judgment upon those who have postured themselves in an adversarial
role to this Creator, a judgment which is inseparably bound with that ultimate
restoration (v. 2).91 Psalm 19 expresses in emphatic terms the universal and

87
The term avnapolo,ghtoj is not used in the LXX and only occurs twice in the NT, both
in this section of Romans (1:20; 2:1).
88
So the marginal references of the NA27. In addition to noting parallels in Job, Psalms,
Isaiah and Wisdom, Sanday and Headlam (Romans, 43) observe similar arguments “from
the nature of the created world to the character of its Author” in both Greek and Jewish
thought, citing Aristotle and Philo.
89
See, for example, F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, IV: Job, trans.
Francis Bolton (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 [reprint]), 197–99. Delitzsch views Isaiah
41:20 as a similar text. In that passage the redemption of Israel is described in terms of
creation and stands as a witness to the idolatrous nations within the court case (v. 21) to the
truth of Israel’s God.
90
Commentators uniformly recognize in verses 3–6 an allusion to the creation account
in which man, as divinely appointed regent over creation, both enjoyed and reflected the
glory of God. See Kidner, Psalms 1–72, 67; Willem A. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” in EBC,
vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 118. Mays (Psalms, 69) comments, “The Psalm
speaks its praise of God from the primeval vantage of the original purpose of God, in this
like Genesis 1 and 2.”
91
VanGemeren (Psalms, 110) describes how the use of WnynEdoa] hw"hy> in verse 1 of the
Psalm creates a parallel between the Lord as Redeemer-King and Creator. Kidner (Psalms
1–72, 67) notes the parallel with Isaiah 40, as well as the relationship within Isaiah be-
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 171

unmistakable witness of creation to its Creator (vv. 1–6), and infers an abso-
lute obligation on the part of humanity to the Creator’s law (vv. 7–14). The
structure of the Psalm presents a revelational (and by implication, redemp-
tive) correspondence between creation and the law of the Lord, 92 a corre-
spondence that would seem to extend to the causative nature of the law (as
evidenced by the Hiphil participle of bWv [tb;yvim. in v. 7]) in terms of its in-
tended purpose to bring about not simply an awareness of sin and accounta-
bility to God, but with that awareness a subsequent repentance and restora-
tion. 93 Isaiah 40–55 includes the above themes, but in Isaiah this witness of
God in creation, as in Romans, is explicitly related to and provides evidence
within the courtroom motif. This evidence verifies not only the guilt of those
brought to trial (e.g., Isa 40:26, 28; 42:5; 45:7, 12, 18), but also God’s plan
and power to redeem as it is expressed in Isaiah’s “good news,” creating a
parallel (similar to that in Psalm 19) between the witness of creation and the
“revelation of righteousness” in the redemptive message of the gospel. 94 Isai-

tween Isaiah 40:26ff; 45:18; and 51:16, that is, between creation and redemption. Mays
(Psalms, 68), though recognizing the covenantal context of the “God-remembered and
God-visited mortal,” rightly acknowledges the universal application of the Psalm as Israel
is representative of God’s care for all of humanity. Of the Psalmist’s perspective, Mays
writes, “He believes and assumes that God remembers and visits every human, that Israel’s
experience with God is the truth about God’s way with all.” He states further that it is the
Psalm’s primeval vantage point that provides its “eschatological potential,” a potential
brought to fulfillment in Jesus Christ (cf. Heb 2:5–9; 1 Cor 15:20–28; 69–70).
92
Mays (Psalms, 97–98) notes the Psalm’s relation to both Isaiah 40–55 and Romans 1,
as well as the connections created by the deliberate juxtaposition of the first two sections
of the Psalm. VanGemeren (Psalms, 178) likewise sees the close relation between the
revelation of God in creation and law, and cites Von Rad as to the sufficiency of this wit-
ness in creation to “lead man to seek God’s favor.” He observes, further, the conceptual
parallel in Paul’s thought in Romans 1:20.
Paul quotes Psalm 19:4 in Romans 10:18 and makes a similar analogy between the wit-
ness of creation and the witness of the gospel (Rom 10:15–18), but in the larger context
this analogy extends to the law (vv. 5–11). The similar paralleling of the witnesses of the
creator are present in Romans 1:16–3:21ff. The three revelatory and salvation-historical
phases of creation/moral law, mosaic law, and gospel (of course, not an exhaustive delinea-
tion) form, as it were, three concentric circles of witness which both reinforce one another
and increase in clarity and specificity until they are brought to fulfillment in the gospel. In
the gospel’s revelation of the Person and work of Christ both man’s fundamental need and
its solution are portrayed and fitted together with an exactitude and precision that pierces
in a superlative manner the very nerve and center of the fallen human heart.
93
See Kidner, Psalms 1–72, 110; Mays, Psalms, 99; VanGemeren, Psalms, 182.
94
Childs (Isaiah, 317), discussing the trial motif that begins in chapter 40 and continues
into chapter 41 and following, conveys the role of creation within that motif, stating, “The
God of creation is not only willing but fully able to execute his purpose with Israel and the
world.” As this motif moves into chapter 42, Childs goes on further to express the unfold-
ing of the divine plan to use “his chosen Servant on whom his spirit rests to bring forth
justice to the nations.”
172 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

ah’s gospel narrative, then, brings to more explicit articulation and expression
the redemptive truths revealed in creation and law. Further, Isaiah 40–55
includes the integrally related themes of wrath, the covenant curse of captiv-
ity, and the equality of Jew and Gentile in guilt before the present “divine
tribunal of the soul” that along with captivity portends eschatological judg-
ment, themes also prominent in this section of Romans 95
The witness of creation within Isaiah’s forensic theme, as in Romans 1,
serves to condemn the idolaters – to confirm the guilt of Israel and the nations
for turning away from him who alone is worthy of worship and obedience.
But it further serves to corroborate God’s plan and power to redeem, and to
invite the guilty captives into his promised redemption. Within this redemp-
tive narrative the captivity and deliverance of Israel from (Egypt/) Babylon,
both in its historic and typological aspects, reiterates the witness of creation,
verifying both the guilt of Israel and the nations as well as the Lord’s power
to judge and redeem – an evidential model (as it will be seen) employed simi-
larly by Paul.
In Isaiah 40–55 the Lord’s dealings with Israel play a vital role within the
argument to reconfirm to the nations God’s sole prerogative to be the recipi-
ent of trust and obedience, his sole prerogative both to judge and save. The
various aspects of this line of evidence set forth at the successive phases of
this trial elucidate this central point – that the Lord alone can promise and
accomplish salvation for his people (Isa 41:8–16; [44:1–5;] 44:21–23; 45:21),
as he demonstrated in the past through his redemption of Israel from Egypt
(Isa 43:12, 15–17; 44:27; 46:3–4, 8–10; 48:3–5), as he is poised to demon-
strate in the present through his redemption of Israel from Babylon through
Cyrus (Isa 41:2–4, 17–20; 43:14, 18–20; 44:24–28; 46:10–13; 48:6–15, 20–
22), and as he will ultimately demonstrate through the Servant of the Lord
(e.g., Isa 42:5–7; 49:5–9ff; 50:1–10; 52:13–53:12; 54:1–3ff; 55:1–5ff).
In Rom 1:18–3:20, God’s right as Creator to judge and redeem his creation
(1:18–2:8) comes into clearest focus and expression in his covenant dealings
with Israel who through transgression of God’s law is given over into the
Babylonian captivity and exile (2:9–24; cf. also 1:24, 26, 28; 3:1–8; chaps. 9–
11), a plight intended to typologically mirror that of the world (cf. 1:18–32;
3:9–18). On the positive side, however, the Lord’s fulfillment of his covenant
promises to Israel (Rom 3:1–4; cf. 4:1–25; 9:4ff) – which, as it will be ar-
gued, finds its scriptural basis in the redemption effected by Isaiah’s Servant
of the Lord – reflects a revelational (and salvation-historical) continuity and
progression, so that on the heels of revelation in creation and law, is the cul-

95
This, then, would be an example of thematic development working in conjunction
with Paul’s other allusive references to Isaiah, confirmed by both recurrence (Rom
14:11/Isa 45:23) and thematic coherence, and tying in to Paul’s allusive and explicit refer-
ences to Isaiah’s redemptive framework.
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 173

mination of the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel (3:21ff). The

Lord’s acts with regard to Israel, then, in both Isaiah and Romans, extend the
witness of creation and are designed to manifest the Lord’s redemptive power
to the world. This witness serves to invite all people[s] to enter into the re-
demption and salvation that the Lord will accomplish through his chosen
people by means of the messianic sacrifice.
As mentioned above, within this Isaianic line of evidence the Lord’s power
and wisdom as Creator is set in parallel with his role as Redeemer of Israel
[and the world] (e.g. Isa 40:21–22, 26; [42:5–7;] 43:1–7, 14–21; 44:24–28;
45:1–7, 9–13, 18–25; 48:12–16; 51:12–16), so that in keeping with this corre-
lation and pointing further to its universal application, the typology points to
an eschatological consummation in judgment and salvation with redemption
being portrayed as recreation (e.g. Isa 41:17–20; 42:14–17; 49:8–13; 51:1–3,
6–9, 11).96 These themes in Romans come to climactic expression in chapter
8 with the redemption of the believer’s body, and with that, the redemption of
the world itself – the freeing of creation from its slavery to corruption into the
glory of the children of God (esp. vv. 19–23), a redemption which finds its
basis in the justification granted through the sacrifice of Isaiah’s Servant of
the Lord (Rom 8:3, 31–34; see Appendix). In both Isaiah and Romans, more-
over, the instrument of this recreation, the word of God (Isa 40:8; Rom 9:6),
becomes epitomized in the good news (Isa 40:9; 52:7; 61:1; Rom 1:16–17;
10:6–16), establishing a further parallel between the witness of creation
[through word of God] and the witness of God’s recreative word in the gos-
pel.
This witness of creation (Rom 1:19–20) within the commencement of Ro-
mans trial motif forms the backdrop to a condensed view of the sin of hu-
mankind which had its inception at creation and comes to clearest expression
in Rom 1:23. Strengthening this link with Isaiah are the additional echoes of
Isaiah’s trial motif in Rom 1:21–22, 25.

5. Further Echoes of Isaiah’s Trial Motif (Rom 1:21–22, 25)

The invective against idolatry in Isaiah, as in Romans, initiates the trial motif
(Isa 40:27; 41:1; Rom 1:20; 2:1ff), which in chapter 44 becomes the source of
several of Paul’s allusions in Romans 1. In Rom 1:22 the idolatrous refusal to
acknowledge God creates a glaring irony as the idolaters’ appraisal of them-
selves is contrasted with the reality of the Lord’s pronouncement upon them:
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . .” This portrayal of
human wisdom as foolishness is found both in Isaiah 44(:25) and Jeremiah

96
Fishbane (Biblical Interpretation, 324), e.g., states, “Deutero-Isaiah’s extraordinary
concern with the theme of creation has long been of recognized interest to scholars – par-
ticularly the link between creation and redemption.”
174 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

10(:7–8, 14),97 with both contexts containing the themes of the vanity of idols
in light of the witness of creation, and captivity as the result of the covenant
breach of idolatry. In Jeremiah, however, the stress is on the imminent out-
pouring of wrath issuing in captivity for the breach of the covenant, whereas
Isaiah enlarges this same covenant backdrop as it depicts idolatry as the epit-
omizing sin of the captives brought to trial, a captivity which is at the same
time a typological picture of the reality of the human condition into which the
“good news” of redemption is sent, creating a closer parallel with the overall
tenor of Rom 1:16–3:26.
A further allusion to the trial narrative of Isaiah with its accusation of idol-
atry is found in Rom 1:25. Paul continues his description of humanity’s idola-
trous exchange (v. 23), stating, “. . . they exchanged the truth (avlh,qeia) of
God for a lie (yeu/doj). . .” Käsemann describes truth here as “the self-
disclosing reality of God,” and lie as “the deception which objectively con-
ceals the truth, especially in Gentile religion.”98 This understanding coheres
with what is perhaps the most scathing and pointed remark toward the idola-
ter in Isaiah’s trial narrative: “He feeds on ashes; a deceived heart has turned
him aside. And he cannot deliver himself, nor say, ‘Is there not a lie

97
The text in Romans reads: fa,skontej ei=nai sofoi. evmwra,nqhsan. In Isaiah the term
fro,nimoj rather than sofo,j conveys the idea of the idolaters’ deluded sense of their own
wisdom. It is the only time in the LXX of Isaiah that the term is used, the translator gener-
ally preferring the term sofo,j (cf. Isa 3:3; 19:11, 12; 29:14; 31:2). Isa 44:25, moreover, has
the synonymous cognate mwreu,w for mwrai,nw in Rom 1:22.
In Jer 10:7–8 the contrast is conveyed in the Hebrew (the LXX lacking vv. 6–8) by “the
wise men of the nations” (~yIAGh; ymek.x;) described in their idolatry as “stupid” (Wr[]b.yI). This
contrast is carried into vs. 14 in which the verb r[b is translated by the LXX, as in Romans
1:22, with the aorist passive of mwrai,nw.
The terms in Romans 1:22 could reflect several other passages in Isaiah which relate to
Isaiah 44. In Isa 19:11–12 the “wise men” (sofoi.) of Egypt are described as fools
(moroi. / moro,j ), and their advice “turned to foolishness” (mwranqh,setai / mwrai,nw) as they
attempt to escape the Lord’s promised judgment. Similarly, in Isa 29:14, a verse that Paul
quotes in I Cor 1:19 (cf. Paul’s discussion in vv. 18–31 and his quotation of Jer 9:24 in v.
31), Judah’s refusal to place its faith in the Lord for security together with its vain attempts
to provide security for itself (cf. Isa 28:12; 29:9–13), invokes the Lord’s pronouncement
that He would destroy the wisdom of the wise (avpolw/ th.n sofi,an tw/n sofw/n, v. 14).
Isaiah 29, moreover, is a chapter that Paul quotes and alludes to several times in Romans
(Rom 11:8/Isa 29:10; Rom 9:19–21/Isa 29:16; cf. Rom 9:33; 10:11/Isa 28:16).
This connection between Isaiah 29 and 44 is strengthened by the intertextual link be-
tween the Lord’s judicial blinding in Isa 29:10 and 44:18.
98
Käsemann, Romans, 48. Cranfield (Romans, 123) states, “In the present verse it is
perhaps rather more satisfactory to understand by ‘the truth of God’ the reality consisting
of God Himself and His self-revelation and by ‘the lie’ the whole futility of idolatry than to
explain them as simply cases of the use of the abstract for concrete . . .”
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 175

(rq,v, / yeu/doj) in my right hand?’” (44:20). 99 It is over against this lie that the
witness of creation together with the witness of the Lord’s redemptive acts
toward Israel are directed, that all might confess “It is true (avlhqh,j) . . . and
believe Me, and understand that I am He . . . I, even I am the Lord; and there
is no Savior beside Me” (43:9–11).100
Several other possible allusions may be briefly mentioned. First, the ex-
change of the worship of God in Rom 1:23, an exchange begun with Adam, is
in the first instance for “the form of [corruptible] man,” a concept, as men-
tioned above, reflected in Isaiah 40 (esp. vv. 18–20) but picked up in 44:13
and perfectly suited to the primeval sin. The idolater, in fashioning the idol,
“. . . makes it like the form of a man, like the beauty of man, so that it may sit
in a house.”101 Second, this sin of humanity is described a few verses earlier
(Rom 1:21) both as a refusal by those who know God to render him due hon-
or and thanks (similarly suited to the narrative of the fall),102 but also as “be-
coming futile/vain” (mataio,w ), a common OT characterization of idols.103 The
term recalls the idolatry of Israel and Judah in the covenantal contexts of II

99
So the NASB following the MT. The LXX is slightly different, though virtually iden-
tical in its translation of the last phrase. Cranfield (Romans, 123), commenting on Rom
1:25, notes the parallel use of rq,v, / yeu/doj in Isa 44:20.
100
Cf. Isa 45:20–25, esp. v. 24. This allusion to Isaiah by means of the contrast between
the truth of God and the idolatrous lie is picked up in Rom 3:4. See on Rom 3:1–8 below.
Rom 1:28 further describes this idolatrous sin of humanity as a refusal to “retain God in
their knowledge” (KJV), a theme also prominent in Isaiah 44 ([dy / t[;D;: vv. 8, 9, 18, 19,
25; cf., e.g., Isa 1:3; 5:13; 28:9; 40:21, 28; 43:10 (knowledge here is paralleled with salva-
tion, cf. v. 11; 45:6); 45:20; 53:11).
101
Rom 1:23 reads: “. . . evn o`moiw,mati eivko,noj fqartou/ avnqrw,pou . . .” The pertinent
phrase in the MT reads ~d"a' tr<a,p.tiK. vyai tynIb.t;K., while the LXX has w`j morfh.n avndro.j
kai. w`j w`raio,t hta avnqrw,pou, a virtual equivalence of the MT. Isa 44:13 itself quite possi-
bly reflects Deut 4:16 in which tynIb.T; is translated by o`moi,wma. Deut 4:16 and Isa 44:13 are
the only instances in the MT in which tynIb.T; is used of an idol in the form of a man. (The
only additional instances in which the term is used for idolatry is Ps 106:20 and Ezek 8:10,
but in these cases the term refers to animals.)
102
Of this refusal Barrett writes, “Man was unwilling to recognize a Lord; he chose to
be Lord himself, and to glorify himself. This is the universal state of mankind, and it fol-
lows that God’s wrath is justly visited upon men because the race as a whole is in revolt
against him. In all this Paul probably has in mind the Old Testament story of Adam, the
prototype of mankind. When Adam put himself in the place of God he was driven from
Eden and became subject to death; equally terrible consequences were to befall his family”
(36).
103
Käsemann, Romans, 44. Barrett further observes (Romans, 37), “ . . . man has sought
to dethrone his Creator, and to render to himself the glory and praise which were due to
God. The immediate result of this rebellion was a state of corruption in which men were no
longer capable of distinguishing between themselves and God, and accordingly fell into
idolatry, behind which, in all its forms, lies in the last resort the idolization of the self.”
176 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Kgs 17:15 and Jer 2:5 which resulted in national captivity,104 but the cognate
term (ma,taioj) is also present in Isa 44:9, which expands the covenantal con-
text within the trial motif in keeping with Israel’s typological role.105
In Isaiah 40–55, moreover, the breaking of God’s law on the part of Israel
and the nations is epitomized in the lie of idolatry, the transgression of the
first two commandments (e.g. Isa 44:20), and a primary emphasis of Paul in
Rom 1:18–32 (Rom 1:21–23, 25; cf. 2:22; 3:3–4). Throughout these chapters
of Isaiah there is a gradual shifting of the focus from the idolatry of the na-
tions to the idolatry of Israel,106 very similar to Paul’s typological use of Isra-
el in Rom 1:18–2:24. Idolaters in the context of Isaiah, moreover, are charac-
terized as those who seek their security or salvation in something other than
the One true God and his saving promises of redemption (e.g., Isa 41:5–7;
44:9–20). This context of idolatrous resistance to the Lord’s purposes to re-
deem through Cyrus, and ultimately through the Servant, evoke in Isa 45:9–
10 the metaphor of the Potter and the clay which illustrates the absurd pre-
sumption of the creature criticizing the saving plans and purposes of the
Creator,107 so that idolatry is placed in conceptual parallel with and so reflects
a fundamental “unbelief” (cf. Rom 1:25; 3:1–4).108 Paul alludes to this pas-
sage in Rom 9:20–21 (Ellis, Shum, Wagner, Wilk) and applies it similarly to
God’s purpose to deliver through the redemptive promise in Christ (Rom
9:18, 30–33). In the present section of Romans this resistance comes to the
surface in 1:18ff; 2:4–5; 3:3–4, yet within the epistle as a whole culminates in

104
Though the margin of the NA27 references also Ps 94:11 and Wis 13:1, both contain-
ing the cognate ma,taioj, the passages lack the contextual continuity of II Kings 17:15 and
Jer 2:5.
105
Cf. Isa 30:7, in which Judah’s trust of Egypt rather than the Lord is also called
“vain,” pointing to the characterization of idolatry in Isaiah as misplaced trust (cf. also
Isaiah 2:7–8). It is described as trust in one’s works (1:29–31; 59:6; 65:7; 66:17–18), or the
work of their hands (2:8; 17:8; 37:19; 44:12–13), and stands in opposition to the work of
the Lord in which all are to set their hope (5:12; ?10:12; 19:25; 25:1; 26:12; 28:1; 29:23;
32:17; 45:11; 60:21; 64:8).
The concept of the “foolish heart darkened,” in light of the likely allusion to Isaiah 42
in Rom 2:19 (see pp. 223–28 below), is possibly an allusion to Isaiah’s prominent meta-
phor of darkness, which together with blindness is used to depict spiritual captivity (cf.
e.g., Isa 5:30; 8:22; 9:2; 29:18; 42:7, 16; 47:5; 49:9; 58:10; 59:9; ?60:2).
106
On idolatry within the trial motif and Israel as representative and typical of humani-
ty’s guilt, see “The Trial Motif of Isaiah,” pp. 199ff.
107
Whybray (Isaiah, 108) notes the relationship between Isa 45:9 and 29:16 and views
the criticism of the divine plan, with most commentators, as arising from the exiles. Childs
(Isaiah, 354), on the other hand, views the criticism as arising from the nations. In light of
the express declaration of the Lord’s universal, saving intention as manifested through
Israel in the near context, however (e.g., Isa 45:4–6, 22), it would seem that both groups
are in view.
108
See on Rom 3:1–8 in chapter three below.
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 177

Israel’s unbelief in Isaiah’s “good news” of redemption (Rom 10:15–16/Isa

52:7; 53:1).
What is particularly significant about these allusions to Isaiah 44 in Ro-
mans 1 is that the surrounding and immediate context of this chapter of Isaiah
(chapters 43–45) consistently employs allusions to the formation of man in
Genesis, together with the repeated parallel of redemption and creation, to
depict the Lord’s redemptive formation (or recreation) of Israel.109 In Isaiah
44, however, this formation or recreation of Israel after the pattern of Adam
(44:2, 21, 24 with rcy; cf. Gen 2:7–8), 110 is set in contrast to those who form
(rcy) idols (vv. 9, 10, 12), not simply highlighting the absurdity of the pursuit
but pointing to idolatry as the epitomizing sin requiring recreation, and hence
traceable to the fall.111

109
For the scholarly support for this consistent allusion, see on Isa 43:1 in chapter three
above, p. 165, note 75.
Throughout Isaiah 43–45, the verb rcy is used to allude to the formation of Israel after
the pattern of Adam (Isa 43:1, 7, 21; 44:2, 21, 24; 45:11). Isa 43:1 and 7 are particularly
forceful allusions to the creation narrative of Genesis, employing arb (Gen 1:27) together
with rcy (Gen 2:7–8), describing the One who formed Israel as the Creator.
In Isa 45:7 and 18 rcy is used in reference to the Lord’s acts in creation (light/darkness,
heavens/earth). In Isa 45:9 the term is used in reference to the Lord’s redemptive plan
through Cyrus, and is then repeated in verse 11 with reference to Israel in order to draw
into close relation the divine formation of the redemptive plan as the basis of the formation
of Israel. The use of rcy in 45:11 is then followed with the explicit statement in v. 12, “It is
I who made the earth, and created (arb) man (~da) upon it. I stretched out the heavens
with My hands, And I ordained all their host.”
Isa 44:2 is quite possibly echoed in Isa 49:5 (!j,B,mi ^r>c,yOw> / !j,B,mi yrIc.yO), with rcy refer-
ring to the formation of the Servant through whom Israel would ultimately be redeemed
and so formed anew.
110
In Isa 44:2 rcy in reference to the Lord’s formation of Israel is preceded by and cou-
pled with hf[, likely strengthening the allusion to Adam by pointing to the first reference
to man’s creation in Gen 1:26.
111
Isa 43:27–28 (“Your first forefather sinned . . .”), situated in the midst of this dense-
ly allusive context (cf. esp. Isa 45:12), could possibly be an allusion to the sin of the “first
forefather.” The parallelism between the sin and resulting judgment of both Adam and
Israel would then come to explicit expression in these verses. The possibility of this inter-
pretation is acknowledged, e.g., by Grogan (Isaiah, 261) and Motyer (Isaiah, 341), and
Muilenburg (Isaiah 40–66, 500) notes this interpretation in “the later religious develop-
ment of Israel.”
In Isa 43:27 the “first forefather” is, like the leadership of Israel, representative of the
people. Some hold this to be either Abraham or Jacob, yet the various allusions to the
formation of man in the wider context could well point in the direction of Adam. A diffi-
culty posed by interpreting “first forefather” as a reference to Abraham or Jacob is that the
passage appears to be presenting a parallel correspondence. On the one side there is Israel
committing such a sin as to place them under the “ban,” consigned to the judgment of God.
What then is the comparable sin in Abraham or Jacob? It could be that the passage is
bringing out the simple fact that Abraham or Jacob were sinners and that their posterity
178 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

These various echoes to the trial motif of Isaiah strengthen the likelihood
of an Isaianic derivation of Paul’s typological thought in 1:18–32. 112 This
likelihood is increased further by Paul’s portrayal of the universal covenant
context of wrath with its resulting captivity.

6. The Universal Covenant Context of Wrath and Captivity (Rom 1:18, 24,
26, 28, 32)
Both the typological nexus of Rom 1:23 as well as its primary derivation
from Isaiah is reinforced by the wider context (vv. 18–32) in which the uni-
versal outpouring of wrath for this idolatrous unbelief is expressed in a cap-
tivity (vv. 24, 26, 28) that portends eschatological death (v. 32). In Rom 1:18
the revelation of God’s wrath (ovrgh,) is set in parallel with and is a subset of
the revelation of God’s righteousness (v. 17), and so, like salvation, is escha-
tological in nature. Though a current reality, it is of a piece with and antici-
pates “the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God”
(Rom 2:5).113 The clear allusions in Rom 1:23 to such texts as Deut 4:16–18;

followed that sinful nature to disaster. In that case the passage would be pointing to the
fact of a sin nature in the nation and the ultimate results of this outside of repentance and
grace. But even the reference to the concept of a sin nature would be ultimately traceable
to the account of the fall. And so it seems more likely that a comparison is being made
between two representative figures whose disobedience merited the judgment of God –
Adam and Israel, God’s servant. This view would set in bolder relief the Servant of the
Lord, who, unlike Adam and Israel, was the perfect representative whose vicarious death
redeemed not only Israel but the world, in keeping with the typological parallelism of
Isaiah 40ff (cf. Hos 6:7).
In Isa 51:2 and Isa 63:16 (by implication) Abraham is referred to as “father.” This could
lend support to the view that the more closely defined phrase “first father” refers to Adam.
112
These various allusions to Isaiah 43–44 are mostly subtle in terms of volume, but
their cumulative effect together with their thematic coherence within the context of both
Isaiah and Romans strengthens the Isaianic background. Theses allusions tie into and fill
out the Isaianic typology as it relates to Isaiah’s courtroom motif. This anticipates Paul’s
continuing discussion in Romans 2, in which Isaiah 45 plays a significant role.
113
So, for example, Moo, Romans, 101; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 41.
Though Dodd downplays the wrath of God, making it a more impersonal system of
cause and effect (Romans, 21–23), Sanday and Headlam note the unity of conception in
Paul’s thought with the verbal links joining the present and future manifestation of God’s
wrath (avpokalu,ptetai 1:18 / avpoka,luyij 2:5; ovrgh, 1:18; 2:5, 8; avnapolo,ghtoj 1:20; 2:1), of
which the latter is clearly the direct and personal judgment of God (Rom 2:5–6). They
further observe, “In the prophetic writings this infliction of ‘wrath’ is gradually concen-
trated upon a great Day of Judgment, the Day of the Lord . . . Hence the NT use seems to
be mainly, if not altogether eschatological . . .” (41). On this OT backdrop Käsemann
states, “The decisive perspective is the eschatological one, which already in Zeph 1:18;
Dan 8:19 allows the last judgment to be called technically the day of wrath . . .” (37).
On “wrath” in the opening chapters of Romans as “transcendent” rather than
“immanentist,” preeminently manifested in God’s punishment of sin in the death of Christ,
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 179

Ps 106:20; and Jer 2:11 reflect the context of Israel’s covenant transgression,
so that wrath is the outworking of the covenant curse (cf. Deut 29:22–28).114
Yet Paul projects this “covenant wrath” upon all of humanity (v. 18), alludes
to Genesis and the narrative of the fall (v. 23), and states that the beginning of
this sinful “exchange” of creature for Creator began at creation (v. 20).
This universalizing of the concept of “covenant wrath” is present in such
OT books as Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and Amos,115 but in Isaiah it becomes
an extremely prominent theme that is developed into a clear typology, with
Israel as a type of humanity in its experience of the wrath of God. In Isaiah
34 (vv. 1–2ff) the Lord’s indignation (@c,q, / qumo,j) and eschatological wrath
(hm'xe / ovrgh, cf. Rom 1:18) is poured out upon all the nations of the earth, an
event previously described in chapter 24 of Isaiah in the following words, 116
1
Behold, the LORD lays the earth waste, devastates it, distorts its surface and scatters its
inhabitants . . . 2And the people will be like the priest, the servant like his master, the maid
like her mistress, the buyer like the seller, the lender like the borrower, the creditor like the
debtor. 3The earth will be completely laid waste and completely despoiled, for the LORD
has spoken this word. 4The earth mourns and withers, the world fades and withers, the
exalted of the people of the earth fade away. 5The earth is also polluted by its inhabitants,
for they transgressed laws, violated statutes, broke the everlasting covenant. 6Therefore, a
curse devours the earth, and those who live in it are held guilty. Therefore, the inhabitants
of the earth are burned, and few men are left.

This eschatological outpouring of wrath is universal and arises out of a

world-wide covenant context (v. 5 – ~l'A[ tyrIB. / diaqh,khn aivw,nion) with
absolute impartiality (v. 2). As mentioned above, the “curse devouring the

see esp. Simon J. Gathercole, “Justified by Faith, Justified by his Blood: The Evidence of
Romans 3:21–4:25,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. II – The Paradoxes of
Paul, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, WUNT 181 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 169–83.
114
See, for example, Käsemann, Romans, 37, 40, 42–43; Sanday and Headlam, Romans,
41. Käsemann sees the comprehensive nature of the curse as derived from the OT, and
observes the continuity of wrath as the outworking of the curse with both primal revelation
and the gospel.
Deut 29:28 cites three common synonyms for “wrath,” @a;, @c,q,, and hm'xe. On God’s
wrath upon Israel for breaking the covenant, see, e.g., Lev 26:28; Deut 9:19; II Kings
22:13, 17; II Chr 34:21, 25; Jer 7:20; 32:37.
115
On the universal nature of wrath in the OT, see, e.g., Deut 29:22–28 (God’s wrath
upon Sodom and Gomorrah is paralleled with God’s wrath on Israel for breaking His
covenant); 30:7 (recalling Gen 12:3 [27:29] and the rejection of the revelation/covenant
mediated through Israel); Jer 10:25; 25:15ff; Amos 1:1–2:16; Jonah 1–4 (esp. 2:8–9; 4:10–
11); Mic 5:14–15.
On wrath as eschatological death, see Psalm 90:1–17 (esp. v. 7), with its strong allu-
sions to the account of creation and the fall.
116
See, e.g., Seitz (Isaiah, 236), who notes the strong relation between the passages. He
states, “The opening scene of chapter 24 comes readily to mind in the depiction of 34:1–
4.”
180 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

earth” (v. 6), particularly as it introduces within chapters 24–27 an analogy

between Israel and the world, alludes both to the curse stemming from the
fall, as well as the covenant curse(s) upon Israel threatened and realized in the
larger context of the prophecy. This covenant curse in Isaiah (as also dis-
cussed) is expressed principally in captivity [to sin], a captivity which fore-
shadows eschatological death.
Romans presents a similar portrait, for in 1:24, 26, and 28 this universal
outpouring of wrath manifests itself in a “handing over” of humanity into the
power of sin,117 and is phrased in such a way as to recall God’s “handing
over” Israel into the hands of foreign powers as a result of Israel’s covenant
breach.118 This act of covenant wrath climaxes in this section of Romans with
the reference to Israel in Babylonian captivity (Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5). Moreo-
ver, within 1:18–32 the divine wrath expressed initially in captivity to sin
manifests itself ultimately in eschatological death (v. 32),119 as is confirmed
both by the immediate (2:1–6, 8–9, 12) and larger contexts of the epistle
(5:12–21; 6:16–23; 7:5, 10, 13, 24; 8:1–13). So Paul here is depicting a uni-
versal covenant context. He is aligning the account of the fall, the transgres-
sion of Israel, and the idolatrous exchange that is ubiquitously characteristic
of humanity, which in each case resulted in a “handing over,” or captivity [to
sin], which outside of the redemptive grace of God portends the verdict of the
final judgment and God’s ultimate “handing over” of the sinner to the death
which he has chosen, a handing over typologically epitomized in the larger
argument by Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24. But finally, however,

117
On the repetition of God’s “handing over” in verses 24, 26 and 28 as describing a
single divine judgment in response to the fall, see M. D. Hooker, “A Further Note on
Romans 1,” NTS 13 (1967): 181–83; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 45. In her previous
article, Hooker asserts that the “handing over” possibly reflects God sending man from the
garden (“Adam,” 301).
Though the relationship between idolatry and immorality is viewed by many scholars as
reflecting certain Jewish works, particularly Wisdom (e.g., Barrett, Romans, 37; Dodd,
Romans, 27; Moo, Romans, 113; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 45), Hooker (“Adam,”
301–2) rightly observes that the conception of the primeval sin [conceived as idolatry] as
the source of immorality and all forms of evil is present in the Genesis account (Gen 6:1–4,
28–31) and is explicitly traced to Adam in Rom 5:12–21.
118
See Hooker, “Note,” 183; Moo, Romans, 110–11. Moo notes that this action on
God’s part possibly serves a reformatory purpose.
paradi,dwmi in the LXX generally renders !tn (Thayer, in loc.; e.g., Lev 26:25; Deut
32:30; Jud 2:14; 13:1; I Kgs 8:46; II Kgs 21:14; II Chr 28:5; 36:17–21; Ezr 9:7; Pss 78:61;
106:41; Isa 19:4; 25:5(LXX); 64:7; Jer 21:10; 32:28; Ezek 7:21; 23:9, 28; Dan 1:2).
In Isa 34:2 and 65:12, this “handing over” is in the context of the eschatological judg-
ment [of death], from which only the redeemed of the Lord will be delivered (Isa 35:9–10).
119
See Cranfield, Romans, 134; Käsemann, Romans, 51; Moo, Romans, 121. Käsemann
understands Paul’s use of the term “ordinance of God” (to. dikai,wma tou/ qeou/) to refer to
primal revelation (with the command to Adam), natural law, and Mosaic law.
 III. Rom 1:18–32 – The Isaianic Typological Nexus 181

one escapes the horror of this fate through God’s handing over of Christ.
Though Paul’s use of paradi,dwmi in Rom 1:24, 26, and 28 indeed echoes this
prominent OT theme of God’s “handing over” Israel into the hands of foreign
powers, in 4:25 and 8:32 he employs this same term to allude to Isa 53:6 and
12 and the Lord’s “handing over” the Servant to death for the sins of the
many (see Appendix), effecting their redemption (Isa 52:9). It is this bringing
together of Adam, Israel and humanity in a universal covenant context of
wrath and captivity, together with the allusions to the sacrifice of the Servant
through the typology of captive Israel, that points to Isaiah as the primary
source for Paul’s thought and calls for a closer look at these themes in the
Great Prophet.

7. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 1:18–32

Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 forms an important climax to Paul’s
argument up to that point in his epistle, and its typological nature within that
climax as depicting covenant transgression with its resulting captivity to sin
(as a portent of eschatological death) demonstrates its crucial role within and
influence upon Rom 1:18–3:20 as a whole. This relevance is further rein-
forced in Rom 3:9, an allusion to Isa 50:1, which characterizes the preceding
argument as demonstrating that Jew and Greek are all “under sin.” The typol-
ogy inherent in the quotation within its wider Isaianic context, then, echoes
intertextually in the thematic movements of Rom 1:18–32 (which contain its
own allusions to this typology), in which the sin and captivity of Israel reiter-
ate the fall and serve as a type of fallen humanity.
Anticipating the continuing movement of the argument toward Rom
2:24/Isa 52:5, Rom 1:23 alludes to Isaiah 40 to convey the idolatrous ex-
change – the glory of the incorruptible God for corruptible man – that is char-
acteristic of fallen humanity in its captivity to sin and corruption. This idola-
trous exchange begun at creation, aligns Adam’s transgression, Israel’s cove-
nant breach, and the idolatry ubiquitously characteristic of humanity, and so
presents Israel as a type that projects upon the world the reality of its plight in
Adam, captive to sin and death. Following Isaiah and in keeping with this
typology, Paul thus places the world in a universal covenant context that
comes to full typological expression in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5. These concepts
within 1:18–32, moreover, are further expanded to include various aspects of
Isaiah’s trial motif which align God’s self-revelation as Creator with his self-
revelation in his redemptive acts towards Israel. Paul, following Isaiah, pre-
sents a continuity in plight that intimates the continuity in promise, anticipat-
ing the further development of this theme in Romans 2.
Both Romans and Isaiah use this typologically-portrayed plight as a prel-
ude to the announcement of good news, hinted at powerfully in this section of
Romans through God’s handing over of Israel, which ultimately becomes his
182 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

handing over of the Messiah to redeem his people through the Messiah’s
sacrifice for sin (Rom 4:25; 8:32/Isa 53:6; see Appendix). This intertextual
relation within Romans confirms the Isaianic background of covenant captiv-
ity in Romans 1, particularly as it stands in relation to Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5.
In terms of its relative importance, this web of allusions (centering in Isai-
ah 40, 43 and 44) provides a significant amount of scriptural backdrop to
Paul’s discussion. His use of this Isaianic allusive web as forming a signifi-
cant part of his depiction of the human plight ties into Paul’s larger Isaianic
framework both through its thematic and contextual connection with Paul’s
continuing use of Isaiah’s typology of captivity (esp. Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5) as
well as its anticipatory connection with the redemptive event itself, the con-
tent of the Isaianic good news.

IV. Romans 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the

World: Captives Condemned before the Divine Tribunal
IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World
Because of the numerous interpretive approaches to Romans 2,120 and though
a detailed discussion is not possible, it would nevertheless be helpful to brief-
ly describe the approach of this thesis to the salvation-historical perspective
of Rom 1:18–3:20 as an introduction to the Isaianic background of chapter 2.

1. Salvation-history – Continuity to Climax

In light of the emphasis both of the thematic verses of the epistle as well as
Rom 1:18–32, this thesis supports the view that one of Paul’s principle aims
in the opening section of his epistle is to present a perspective of salvation
history that highlights continuity, a continuity that elucidates, defends and is
brought to fulfillment in the gospel.121 The continuity in salvation-history in
Rom 1:18–3:20 that forms the indispensible backdrop to its unique witness to
the gospel is conveyed first and foremost by this same emphasis in the crucial
texts that bracket it, Rom 1:16–17 and Rom 3:21–26. 122 In both cases there is
a strong emphasis on the continuity of the gospel with God’s saving words
and acts throughout Israel’s sacred history, and in both cases this continuity is
expressed to a significant extent by Isaiah. The necessary and logical interde-

120
See, e.g., Bell (No One Seeks for God, 132–36), who describes 10 interpretive ap-
proaches as a representative sampling.
121
For a defense of the centrality and significance of the concept of salvation-history in
Paul against its modern detractors (including proponents of the “new perspective”), see
Robert W. Yarbrough, “Paul and Salvation History,” in Justification and Variegated No-
mism: Vol. II – The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A.
Seifrid, WUNT 181 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 297–342.
122
See Seifrid, “Unrighteous,” 107.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 183

pendence between the “frame” and its central section of 1:18–3:20 strongly
suggests similar features and a similar emphasis.
Within 1:18–3:20 itself the emphasis on salvation-historical continuity is
conveyed at the outset of the section by the ongoing nature of the manifesta-
tion of God’s righteousness throughout history in terms of both wrath upon
sinful humanity and justification of the believing sinner. This is evident in the
manner in which the apostle interlaces the opening line of the section with the
previous thematic verses of the epistle. The parallelism between the phrases
“the righteousness of God is being revealed” and “the wrath of God is being
revealed” (Rom 1:17, 18) 123 points to the continuing nature of the revelation
of God’s eschatological righteousness realized concurrently in the present in
terms of both salvation and wrath;124 whereas the reference to the “just living
by faith” in the quote from Habakkuk (Rom 1:17)125 together with the histori-
cally oriented assertion of the suppression of truth directly given by God
(Rom 1:18–19) point to the fact that this acceptance and rejection of saving
truth has been going on, as 1:20 states, “since the creation of the world.” It is
this historical perspective which infuses and illuminates the nature of the
present in-breaking of the eschatological era.
Therefore, while the revelation of God’s righteousness has been uniquely
manifest and come to a salvation-historical climax in the cross of Christ
(Rom 3:21ff), it has been anticipated in history by those who, like Habakkuk,
have sought refuge by faith in God’s saving promise. Again, the phrase
“since the creation of the world” in 1:20 indicates that though this is a situa-
tion that presently obtains (as the revelation of wrath is concurrent with the
revelation of righteousness in the gospel), the perspective, as indicated by the
allusive matrix of the various OT quotations and allusions, is on the continui-
ty of God’s saving word of promise in the past with the climactic word of
promise now revealed in the gospel.126

123
dikaiosu,nh ga.r qeou/ evn auvtw/| avpokalu,ptetai // VApokalu,ptetai ga.r ovrgh. qeou/.
124
Righteousness is ultimately eschatological and will be manifested both in terms of
salvation and wrath, but both are realized historically in the acceptance and rejection of
saving truth. Faith in the gospel issues in a present experience of God’s eschatological
salvation, whereas rejection of truth issues in a present experience of God’s eschatological
wrath. See Barrett, Romans, 33ff.
125
See the above discussions in chapter two, “The Gospel and Its Salvation-Historical
Continuity,” and “The Gospel and Habakkuk – The consummation of the Saving Promise
and Its Appropriation by Faith.”
126
Note the present tense of the phrase, VApokalu,ptetai ga.r ovrgh. qeou/ (Rom 1:18), to-
gether with the prepositional phrase avpo. kti,sewj ko,smou (Rom 1:20) in the following
explanatory sentence. Note also (as discussed above, “The Typological Nexus of Romans
1:23”) the manner in which Paul, through allusions, blends the sin and captivity of Adam,
Israel and the Gentiles in vv. 20–28 (esp. v. 23).
184 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Paul, therefore, is not presenting an OT conceptual framework, per se, for

1:18–3:20. Rather, through a synthesis of historical and present perspective
he is demonstrating the continuity, in salvation and judgment, of the various
revelatory phases that have existed both diachronically across salvation histo-
ry as well as synchronically at each stage, yet with particular (and polemic)
reference to the role of the law. This understanding receives a measure of
confirmation by the almost total lack of gospel terminology, 127 including the
word “faith” and its cognates, in 1:18–3:20 (which appears in the first sen-
tence of the next section [Rom 3:21–22]), and the presence of repentance
vocabulary much more characteristic of the OT.128 1:18–3:20, then, though
not discussing the OT era alone, is phrased in such a way as to be applicable
to both the era of anticipation and consummation, a consummation which
explicitly surfaces in 3:21–26 with the climax of the messianic age inaugurat-
ed by the sacrificial death and resurrection of the Christ.
This blending of eras in 1:18–3:20 is further confirmed by the definitive
salvation-historical shift in Rom 3:21–26,129 which without question refers
exclusively to the era of fulfillment inaugurated by the promised messianic
redemption. The phrases “but now” in 3:21 and “at the present time” in 3:26
reveal this salvation-historical shift in the apostle’s perspective, as does the
reference to the era of God’s “passing over” in 3:25. This shift, however, is
set firmly in the context of salvation-historical continuity. The phrase “from
faith to faith” in 1:17, along with the quote from Habakkuk serve to introduce
this “continuity to climax” in salvation-historical perspective from the pre-

On this gospel continuity, Seifrid comments (“Romans,” 608), “According to Paul, the
voice of God in Scripture is an echo of the voice of the Creator in creation. The proclama-
tion of the gospel retraces the proclamation of creation itself (10:18; Ps. 19:4).”
127
With the exception of Rom 2:16.
128
The shift in emphasis from repentance in 1:18–3:20 to faith thereafter is understand-
able if this salvation-historical framework is accepted. With the emphasis on law as the
primary component of revelation, repentance seems the most appropriate manner to ex-
press the response of repentance/faith. Whereas when the emphasis is on promise as the
primary component of revelation, faith becomes the most natural way to express the re-
pentance/faith complex response. This is, in fact, one reason Paul views faith as so central
to Isaiah, because he views the promise as coming to its consummate expression in the
Isaianic gospel.
Victor P. Hamilton (“bWv (shûb),” TWOT, 2:909–10 [909]), e.g., notes the contrast be-
tween the use of the term bwv by Jeremiah and Isaiah, and suggests the paucity of reference
in the latter as opposed to the former may be due to the fact that “the die ha[d] already
been cast” regarding the certainty of the coming judgment. This may well be a factor, but it
seems another crucial element is the centrality of the redemptive promise in Isaiah, and
hence the continuing emphasis on faith within the prophecy.
On this shift from repentance to faith in this section of Romans, see Käsemann, Ro-
mans, 55, and below, p. 192, note 152.
129
See below, p. 287 and note 12.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 185

Christian to the Christian era,130 as the examples of Abraham and David,

which close the section, are meant to give further support for the principle of
salvation by grace through faith alone from the lives of OT believers who
were themselves the direct bearers and recipients of God’s covenant promis-
es. Paul, therefore, seems undoubtedly to be emphasizing the concept of
“continuity to climax,” presenting a revelational and covenantal continuity
that climaxes in the gospel. 131

2. Isaiah (45): Equality in Judgment under Divine Law and the Gospel’s
Fulfillment of the Covenant Call to Repentance (Rom 2:1–16)
In keeping with the salvation-historical perspective discussed above, with its
“collapsing of eras” (a perspective evident already in Rom 1:18–32), Romans
2 presents a “layered reading” of the human plight based in large part upon
Isaiah’s typology of captivity. This typology conveys a solidarity of plight
and a continuity in promise which in both respects points to the climax of
redemption in Isaiah’s “good news.”132 Isaiah’s typology of captivity mirrors
the fall and portrays the plight of humanity in its captivity to sin and death
and so helps to create and convey this layered conception of plight. This same
typology, therefore, creates the backdrop for an emphasis within this “layered
reading” on the continuity in response. The typology reveals an inherent unity
in the saving promise which climaxes in the Isaianic gospel, a interpretive
dynamic confirmed in Paul’s tracing of the redemptive promise to its climax
in Romans 9–10.133
In Romans 2, then, this “layered reading” aligns the repentant response
called for in general revelation (inherent in creation and conscience), the
repentance called for in Deuteronomy’s covenant context, and the response of
faith in the [Isaianic] gospel. The repentance divinely urged upon the (not
exclusively Jewish) “moralist” in Rom 2:4 intertextually relates both to Deu-

130
Again, see above in chapter two, pp. 115–36.
131
In this respect, the interpretive framework advocated here for Romans 2 is quite dif-
ferent from, e.g., Francis Watson (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 351–53). Watson
understands Romans 2 to be hypothetical, expressing on a large scale the principle of Lev
18:5 (“So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he
does them; I am the LORD”) as a false antithesis to the principle of appropriating salvation
by faith.
132
Therefore, Douglas Campbell’s assertion (Deliverance of God, 37–39) that the tradi-
tional approach to this section of Romans (the “justification by faith” model) necessarily
creates contradictory epistemologies – the disjunction between general revelation’s disclo-
sure of the “problem phase,” and special revelation’s disclosure of the solution in the
gospel – is not accurate. General and special revelation are mutually reinforcing, as the
ensuing discussion will attempt to demonstrate.
133
See above, p. 132, note 188; and also above in chapter three, “Paul’s Understanding
of Isaiah as Answering the Fall.”
186 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

teronomy’s covenant plight alluded to in Rom 2:21–24 as well as to the

promised covenant restoration through the “divine circumcision of the heart”
in Rom 2:29 (alluding to Deut 30:6). Paul’s use of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 ex-
plicitly evokes this covenant context; it conveys through the Isaianic typology
the human plight as variously conceived (particularly as it stands in relation
to Rom 2:1–4), and links this plight with Isaiah’s larger narrative of redemp-
tion as described in 1:16–17 and 3:21–26, and entered into by faith. In Rom
2:16 this is intimated, with the repentant response of Rom 2:1–4 measured in
the judgment by Jesus Christ “according to the gospel,” which thereby simi-
larly relates this response to faith in the gospel as described in Rom 1:16–17
and 3:21–26, passages which frame the section.134
Rom 2:16, then, as it stands in relation to 2:1–4 (and augmented by
Isaianic allusions in the intervening verses), reflects a scenario very similar to
Isaiah 45 and its larger context. In Isaiah 45, the repentance called for within
the conceptual state of curse and exile (as Israel’s captivity typologically
portrays the plight of the world) melds with an acceptance of God’s redemp-
tive plan through [Cyrus, but ultimately through] the Servant, a redemptive
plan encapsulated in the larger context in the proclamation of good news. The
idolatrous, guilty captives, typified in Israel, are called to a response which
unites the covenant repentance in Deuteronomy 30 with faith in the saving
promise as fulfilled in the gospel; this relation, developed throughout the
prophecy, thus expresses and fulfills the pentateuchal, intertextual interplay
between the Abrahamic promise and the promised restoration of Deuterono-
my 30 (cf. Rom 2:29; 4:9–25; see Appendix).
This “layered reading,” therefore, is facilitated in large measure by Isaiah’s
typology which comes to its climactic expression in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5. Neg-
atively, it reiterates the fall and portrays the plight of humanity in its guilt
before God and its captivity to sin and death, so that, positively, it sets the
backdrop not simply to the repentance advocated in Rom 2:4, but to the faith-
embrace of the eschatological redemption disclosed in the sacrificial death,
burial, and resurrection of the Messiah – the Isaianic good news (Rom 1:1–6,
16–17a; 3:21–26; 4:25).135 In Romans 2, therefore, Deuteronomy’s covenant
scenario of sin-exile-restoration marked by the circumcision of the heart is

134
This “outer frame,” therefore, informs the nature of the repentant response of Ro-
mans 2, a relation confirmed by the intertextual connection between the heart circumcision
of Rom 2:29 with the discussion of circumcision in Romans 4, in which circumcision is a
sign of the righteousness of faith.
135
As mentioned above, this central role of Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5 within the larger section
of Rom 1:18–3:8 in terms of evoking the essential nature and character of plight and solu-
tion, is confirmed in part by its intertextual relation to Rom 3:9. Rom 3:9, itself an allusion
to the concept of captivity to sin as derived from Isaiah 50:1, characterizes the preceding
section under this heading, a reality conveyed in that previous section through the
intertextual relation between Rom 1:18–32 and 2:17–24.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 187

taken up and incorporated into the larger Isaianic framework of redemptive

recreation through the messianic sacrifice. The repentance and circumcision
of the heart called for in Deuteronomy, then, with the dawning of the new era
of salvation-history, comes to be expressed as faith in the gospel.
Because of the importance of Rom 2:1–4, not only for the larger section(s)
of which it is a part (2:1–16/1:18–3:20), but for the following section of the
epistle as well (3:21–4:25), additional space will be allotted to its treatment.
Rom 2:1–4 introduces the theme of universal equality in guilt before the
divine judgment, a theme that remains prominent throughout the remainder of
the section. For that reason much of the relevant background from Isaiah’s
trial motif will be covered here and referenced more briefly throughout the
ensuing discussion. Also, Rom 2:1–4, as a key transition in the apostle’s
argument, carries forward the typology of 1:18–32 and uses it to bolster the
analogous and parallel dealings of God toward Jew and Gentile throughout
the old era as a precursor to the foundational and vital teaching of equal ac-
cess to salvation by faith alone in the new.
The study, therefore, will proceed with an examination of Rom 2:1–4 with
a view to establishing its conceptual links with the trial motif of Isaiah, par-
ticularly Isaiah 45. This, then, will be followed by a discussion of Isaiah’s
trial motif itself and some of the relevant background that further demon-
strates both thematic coherence and likely dependence. The validity of Paul’s
use of this scriptural backdrop, as well as Paul’s particular understanding of
this backdrop, will then be bolstered by various interpretive trajectories evi-
dent in his use of Isaiah in chapters 9–11.

(1) Romans 2:1–4 – Humanity before the Pre-Eschatological Tribunal

The rich typology of Rom 1:18–32 depicts an essential equality in transgres-
sion and guilt which is reiterated and augmented in this section of the epis-
tle.136 Rom 2:1 forms a vital bridge in the typology as it both looks backward
to the nexus of chapter 1 (avnapolo,ghtoj, “without excuse;” cf. Rom 1:20) as
136
On the connection between Rom 1:18–32 and 2:1–10, see Andrew A. Das, Paul, the
Law, and the Covenant (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), 172. Das observes
the chiastic structure that unites the sections:
A VIoudai,w| te prw/ton kai. {Ellhni (1:16)
B VApokalu,ptetai ga.r ovrgh. qeou/ (1:18)
C eivj to. ei=nai auvtou.j avnapologh,touj (1:20)
C’ Dio. avnapolo,ghtoj ei= (2:1)
B’ evn h`me,ra| ovrgh/j kai. avpokalu,yewj dikaiokrisi,aj tou/ qeou/ (2:5)
A’ VIoudai,ou te prw/ton kai. {Ellhnoj (2:9, 10)
Das goes on to cite other features that link the texts, noting that Rom 1:16 and 2:11 cre-
ate a further bracketing feature that emphasizes divine impartiality (175).
On this continuity between chapters 1 and 2, see also, e.g., Jewett, Romans, 196.
188 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

well as forward to the overt display of Israel as a type (“you who judge prac-
tice same things;” cf. 2:17–24).137 The equality inherent in this typology is
extended in this section of Romans, as in Isaiah, to the equality of Jew and
Gentile in guilt before the present “divine tribunal of the soul,” a guilt that,
along with captivity, portends eschatological judgment (Rom 2:1–3, 5–6, 8–9,
12, 16). This equality in guilt becomes explicitly an equality before divine
law, not only in terms of condemnation, but also in terms of grace through
repentant response to revelation (Rom 2:4, 7, 10, 13), a revelation that cli-
maxes in the gospel (Rom 2:16; cf. 3:21ff). The Isaianic typology of Israel,
therefore, will be seen to convey a continuity in salvation-history, a continui-
ty on the divine side in terms of revelation and covenant, and on the human
side in terms of response and reception of the covenant blessing.
Rom 2:1 is in a sense universally applicable as every person is both guilty
and yet seeks to find others with regard to whom he or she may relish a fa-
vorable comparison.138 This “judging of others,” as the apostle describes, is a
vain attempt through comparison to allay guilt and secure a measure of self
137
This connective strand offers further support for the broader influence of the quota-
tion of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24. For the contextual connection of 2:1ff with 1:18–32, see, e.g.,
Bell, No One Seeks for God, 137–40. On the contextual connections between the indict-
ment in Rom 2:1ff and the indictment of the Jew in 2:17–24, see, e.g., Kӓsemann, Romans,
52; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 54; Seifrid, “Unrighteous,” 120–21.
Seifrid notes the close association, yet distinction, between the figures Paul addresses in
2:1–16 as opposed to 2:17–24, in which the Jew comes clearly into focus. On 2:1–16, and
against the “new perspective,” he observes (120), “This variation in portraiture indicates
that Paul is not attacking an identifiable group, but a failing which has a certain range of
outworkings in thought and behavior, and which as a human problem is not limited to a
distinct ethnic group” (italics his). (This narrow, ethnocentric appraisal of the Judaism of
the first century era that initiated a re-reading of the traditional approach to Paul received
its greatest impetus from E. P. Sanders. See Paul and Palestinian Judaism; Paul, the Law
and the Jewish People [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983]).
138
N. T. Wright focuses attention in Romans 2 upon the national plight of Israel con-
ceived as still in exile. This is in keeping with his understanding of redemption as focusing
on the people through whom the blessing of Abraham would flow to the world. See “The
Law in Romans 2,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn, WUNT 89
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 132–43.
Paul, however, is dealing with the universal plight as applied to the individual, a plight
explicitly highlighted through the typology of Israel. Paul’s typological assertion of Israel
in exile through his quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 is, after all, a reflection of the reality
that “Jews and Greeks are all under sin” (Rom 3:9; cf. Rom 7:14/Isa 50:1). It is this reality
toward which the redemption in Rom 3:21–26 is directed.
Seifrid (“Unrighteous,” 122–24), over-against N.T. Wright’s reading of Romans 2 in
terms of corporate concerns, points out the emphasis on the individual in Rom 2:1–16, as
well as on the “hidden failure of false self-estimation” (124) as opposed to ethnocentrism.
Richard Bell (No One Seeks for God, 200) correctly observes that, “. . . the focus through-
out Romans 2 has not been on issues of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles, but
about questions of the final judgment.”
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 189

justification; it is superlatively representative of the religious expression of

fallen humanity and anticipates Paul’s indictment of the hypothetical Jew in
2:17–24. This verse dramatically, almost shockingly, incorporates the guilt of
Rom 1:18–32, in which the condemnation of others on the part of this guilty
“moralist” clearly demonstrates his own knowledge of and accountability to
God’s law (cf. Rom 1:18–21, 32; 2:14–16).139 His keen perception of the
glaring transgressions of others with regard to that law are accompanied by a
blindness or disregard of his own seemingly “less severe” transgressions (cf.
Mat 7:1–5), yet these are just as culpable. It is a hypocritical pride, and a
subtle, insidious rebellion that maintains a veneer of morality, yet the guilt is
just as real. Verses 1–3 reveal a similar “exactitude” to the antitheses.140
Though there might be a difference in degree as to the outward expression of
sin, there is no difference in its essential nature, except that in the case of this
“moralist” it is accompanied and exacerbated by pride, hypocrisy and the
idolatrous illusion of self-preservation.
That Rom 2:1 incorporates this idolatrous guilt of 1:18–32 is evident in
that the moralist is “without excuse” (avnapolo,ghtoj; cf. Rom 1:20) for “prac-
ticing the same things,” reintroducing a theme prominent within the trial
motif of Isaiah. 141 It is evident also in that the moralist, in the very act of
judging, is usurping the sole prerogative of God, which fact Paul makes clear
later in the epistle with a quotation from Isaiah 45 (Rom 14:10–13/Isa 45:23;
cf. James 4:11–12).142 It is precisely this measurement by comparative degree
that betrays an essential idolatry in several respects, first in its refusal to
acknowledge the absolute nature of God’s requirement for and claim upon the
human heart, but also in the changing and lowering of the divine standard to
oneself, with its pretension of independence and self-sufficiency. 143 Paul’s
attack on the hypocritical moralist, then, rips away the darkened shroud of
self-deception and reveals him captive in sin and equal in guilt with the bla-
tantly idolatrous humanity of 1:18–32 in its rejection of its Creator (cf. Isa
44:20).

139
On the “moralist” referencing both Jew and Gentile as Paul’s target in these verses,
as well as the important relation the passage sustains to the indictment against the Jew in
2:17ff, see Seifrid, “Unrighteous,” 120–24. He also discusses the inappropriateness of
understanding Rom 2:1ff as directed against the ethnocentric Jewish mindset as understood
by the “new perspective.”
140
So Cranfield, Romans, 142; see also Barrett, Romans, 41–42.
141
See further below, and on Rom 3:19 later in the chapter.
142
Barrett comments, “Behind all the sins of i. 29ff lies the sin of idolatry, which re-
veals man’s ambition to put himself in the place of God and so to be his own Lord. But this
is precisely what the judge does, when he assumes the right to condemn his fellow-
creatures” (Romans, 42).
143
See, e.g., Seifrid, “Unrighteous,” 124.
190 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

As mentioned above, Rom 2:1 creates an essential connection between the

allusive typology of Romans 1 and the overt portrayal of Israel as typical of
humanity in captivity and guilt in Rom 2:17–24 (cf. Rom 3:9). Though ex-
pressly directed to Jew and Gentile alike (cf. Rom 2:9–11),144 Rom 2:1 never-
theless echoes very clearly the essence and sentiment of 2:17–24, so that in
the continuing logic of Paul’s argument the hypothetical Jew, typified by
captive Israel, becomes complicit in and exemplary of the idolatrous rebellion
of humanity that began at creation. 145 Rom 2:1, therefore, as a transitional
verse in the typological thought of Paul’s argument both incorporates that
typology and extends it so as to convey an equality in judgment and guilt
before the divine tribunal, an equality based in the essential revelatory con-
nection between God as creator, law-giver, and covenant redeemer.146
In Rom 2:1ff the trial motif becomes prominent as the idolatrous, world
captives are brought to trial, a picture strongly resembling Isaiah 40–55 with
the Lord’s call to the captive peoples of the earth to “come together for judg-
ment” (Isa 41:1; cf., e.g., Isa 42:6–7). Yet in both epistle and prophecy this
essential equality in captivity and guilt conveyed largely by the typology has
its positive counterpart. The typology also communicates an essential equali-

144
Contrary to Dodd (Romans, 30), who views Rom 2:1ff to be directed to the Jew,
Barrett (Romans, 41) rightly notes concerning Paul that, “It is not till v. 17 that he turns
specifically to the problem of the Jews; here, as vv. 9ff, 12–16, show, his thought applies
to both Gentiles and Jews.” Moo (Romans, 129–30) likewise sees 2:1ff as applying to all
humanity, though with particular relevance to the Jew.
145
See especially Cranfield (Romans, 105–6) for a description of the manner in which
the idolatry which began at the fall and subsequently remained characteristic of both an-
cient Israel and pagan Gentiles is incorporated by Paul into the “therefore” of Rom 2:1ff.
In keeping with the apostle’s purpose (cf. Rom 3:9, 19–20), a principle theme of Ro-
mans 1:18–3:20 is man before the law of God. Rom 1:18–32, leveled against humanity in
general, stresses the breach against the first table of the law, which results in a breach of
the second table; while 2:17–24, leveled against the Jew in particular, stresses the breach
against the second table of the law, which implies the breach of the first (cf. Matt 22:35–
40). The relation between these two tables is evident in Romans 1 and 2. The fundamental
requirement to honor, thank, and acknowledge God (cf. Rom 1:18–23, 25) is essentially
connected with His requirements in terms of one’s fellow man. A refusal to acknowledge
God, therefore, results in sin against man (cf. Rom 1:24, 26–31). Conversely, sin against
one’s fellow man (cf. Rom 2:21–22) reveals a refusal to acknowledge God (cf. Rom 2:23).
See, e.g., Michel on Rom 1:18 (Römerbrief, 98–99). Though see also Cranfield, Romans,
111–12, whose comments nevertheless seem to imply a similar import.
146
This equality comes to more explicit expression in Rom 2:9–13. Regarding this
equality J. Ross Wagner states, “The equal standing of Jew and Greek before God (though
not apart from acknowledgment of Israel’s priority in both salvation and judgment: ‘to the
Jew first and equally to the Greek’) must be seen as one of Paul’s major concerns in Ro-
mans; it finds expression in both the thematic statement of the letter (1:16–17) and in the
grand finale of the e.pi,logoj (15:7–13), as well as repeatedly at key points throughout the
body of the letter (2:9–10; 3:9, 22, 29; 10:12).” Heralds, 169–70, note 152.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 191

ty on the divine side in terms of revelation and covenant, and on the human
side in terms of response and reception of the covenant blessing. This salva-
tion-historical continuity in guilt and grace within the trial motif evident in
Rom 2:1–4(ff), with Israel as typical of humanity, has substantial thematic
coherence with Isaiah.
Rom 2:1–4 brings this theme of equality in judgment and guilt to the fore-
front, a theme which remains prominent throughout the remainder of the
section. Yet Rom 2:1–4 does not focus on the day of judgment itself (cf. 2:5–
13, 16), but rather, as in Isaiah, it focuses on the need for a present response
to God in light of the knowledge of this future judgment.147 It focuses on a
harbinger of that future judgment in the present “divine tribunal of the soul,”
a phrase that is meant to describe the ubiquitous experience of humanity as it
encounters within itself both a knowledge of and a guilt before God’s law,
and with this guilt the realization that it is a portent of judgment (e.g., Rom
1:18–20, 32; 2:1–3, 14–16).148 Rom 2:2, echoing the thoughts of 1:32, reflects
this universal awareness of the coming judgment in light of human guilt, and
together with 2:3 seeks to reawaken the soul to the terrible reality of its own
plight, with the express purpose in 2:4 of driving that soul to repentance.149
This pre-eschatological “judgment of the soul,” as will be seen, is a major
focus of Isaiah 40–55, particularly Isaiah 45, and is intended to drive Israel
and the nations to repentance.
In determining the full significance of Rom 2:1–4, however, it must be
kept in mind that, as discussed above,150 Rom 1:18–3:20 presents a collapsing
or reading together of salvation-historical eras designed to convey continuity,
a continuity depicted in large part by Isaiah’s typology of captivity. This
continuity embraces and emphasizes general revelation (Rom 1:18–21),151

147
See esp. Seifrid (“Unrighteous,” 123), who states that Paul, “. . . takes his orientation
from the hour of judgment which yet impends . . . the present moment abounds in the
‘riches of (God’s) kindness, forbearance, and mercy,’ which must be grasped before the
day of judgment arrives (Rom 2:4).”
148
Käsemann (Romans, 66) describes this forensic experience of humanity before the
law of God and notes role of conscience which causes Gentiles to experience “. . . the great
disturbance which affects those who encounter in themselves what is written by another
hand and who find themselves engaging in self-criticism and self-defense before an alien
forum. Precisely in his innermost being a person is not his own master. He does not him-
self establish the criteria which are directed against him . . .”
149
On the possibility of acquittal before the final judgment held forth by Paul in this
chapter, see, e.g., Dunn, Romans, 181–82.
150
See above in this chapter, “Salvation-history – From Continuity to Climax.”
151
On natural revelation in Paul and the expectation and possibility of a positive re-
sponse, see esp. Oepke, “kalu,ptw, etc.,” TDNT, 3:556–92 (see 586–87). He states (586),
“It cannot be contested that the apostle repeatedly says that God has made Himself known
avpo. kti,sewj ko,smou even to those who have not been reached by His special biblical
revelation.”
192 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

which, as also noted above, communicates to humanity not simply a

knowledge of God and his law, but of man’s guilt before that law, and with
that guilt a realization of certain judgment (Rom 1:20–21, 32; 2:1–3). This
“inner tribunal” as it portends the coming judgment in Rom 2:1–3 is in verse
4 accompanied by a further revelation and reality, that of God’s “kindness
and forbearance and patience.” Verse 4, then, becomes descriptive of a state
in which the knowledge of personal guilt and its consequent, impending
judgment is coupled with the knowledge of God’s kindness, a kindness dis-
closed in the gifts of providence (Rom 1:21), but expressed most poignantly
in the deliberate delay of the execution of his justice. This period of patience
is divinely intended to “lead [one] to repentance,”152 and therefore, in light of
and coupled with [guilt before] divine law, has the nature of promise. It
communicates to the soul God’s desire not only to forgive sin but also to
restore the fallen creature to the image of his Creator whose law he has so
willfully and continually broken. This restorative intent in light of divine law
is confirmed and expressed in the immediate context both in one’s “persever-
ance in doing good” (Rom 2:7),153 and ultimately in the reinstatement of the
repentant soul to the glory, honor and immortality lost in the fall as he is
granted the gift of eschatological life (Rom 2:7; cf. Rom 6:23).154

152
Both Cranfield (Romans, 144–45, note 2) and Käsemann (Romans, 55), for example,
recognize “repentance” as an integral element of faith. Cranfield and Moo (Romans, 134–
35) surmise that the relatively small use Paul makes of the concept of repentance could be
due to the connotation the term had in [some circles of] Judaism at the time (see also J.
Behm and E. Würthwein, “metanoe,w, meta,noia,” TDNT, 4:975–1008).
Käsemann, however, seems to view the shift from “repentance” to “faith” in Paul along
salvation-historical lines, as the relative revelatory emphasis of law is eclipsed by promise
with the coming of Christ and the gospel. He states, “meta,noia is alien to the Greek world
. . . and means ‘turn around’ (Hebrew bwv) rather than ‘change of mind.’ If, surprisingly,
Paul uses this word elsewhere only in 2 Cor 7:9 and the verb in 2 Cor 12:21, it is because
pi,stij replaces it in missionary preaching.”
153
Cf. Rom 1:5 and 16:26 which bracket the epistle by describing the “obedience of
faith” as the goal of redemption in the gospel. Glenn Davies (Faith, 25) notes, “If the final
doxology of ch. 16 is original to Paul, then the bracketing function of eivj u`pakoh.n pi,stewj
at the opening and close of the letter would suggest it is structurally significant for the
epistle as a whole.”
154
This interpretation of the passage as “repentance unto life” is confirmed by the run-
ning contrast presented throughout the chapter and set forth in the chart below. This sec-
tion of Romans, as discussed above (see “Salvation-history: From Continuity to Climax”),
is likely presenting a collapsing of salvation-historical eras designed to convey continuity.
In keeping with this, the language used to describe the positive side of the contrast in
Romans 2 is OT faith language, in which surfaces the OT paradigm for NT justification by
faith in Christ apart from the works of the law, the theme of the next section of the epistle
(as well as a dominant theme of chapters 9–11).
Romans 2, rather than presenting a “works salvation” and contradicting the rest of the
epistle, or simply condemning a works approach to salvation through a hypothetical model,
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 193

According to this understanding of Paul, therefore, the law in general reve-

lation, particularly as it is placed within the context of this period of patience,
has also the character of promise and so mirrors the context of the Mosaic
law within the salvation-historical framework of the Pentateuch.155 The law is

rather appears to be contrasting the “repentant” and the “unrepentant” within a dual-era
framework, consistent with the salvation-historical correspondence implicit in the typolo-
gy. The emphasis, however, in light of the salvation-historical shift of 3:21ff, seems to be
on the old era as it anticipates the new.

Language of Repentance/Faith Language of Unrepentance/Unbelief

repentant (2:4) unrepentant, stubborn – consequence is
wrath on the day of God’s righteous judg-
ment (2:5)
perseverance in doing good (2:7; cf. selfishly ambitious (2:8)
Is 56:1)
seek glory and honor and immortality does not obey the truth but obeys un-
– consequence is everlasting life (2:7) righteousness (cf. obedience of faith 1:5;
See below on zhte,w (“to seek”). 16:26; 2 Thess 1:8) – consequence is wrath
and indignation (2:8)
does good – consequence is glory and does evil – consequence is tribulation
honor and peace (2:10) and distress (2:9)
doers of law – will be justified (2:13) hearers of law – not just before God
[Gentiles] do by nature the things of bear the name “Jew,” rely upon the law,
the Law (not having the Law); the work boast in God, know His will, confident that
of the Law written in their hearts (2:14– you’re a guide to the blind, etc., yet a law-
15) breaker (2:17–24)
[uncircumcised] keeps the require- transgressor of the Law – consequence
ments of the law – consequence – re- – circumcision regarded as uncircumcision,
garded as circumcision (2:26–27) judgment (2:25, 27)
inward, circumcised heart by Spirit, outward, flesh-circumcision (praise
praise from God – conclusion – is a Jew from men) – conclusion – not a Jew (2:28
(2:29) [29])

(zhte,w in the LXX is a “faith term.” Cf. Exod 33:7; *Duet 4:29; 1 Chr 16:10–11; 22:19;
28:8–9; 2 Chr 7:14; 11:16; 15:12, 15; 16:12; 20:4; 22:9; 26:5; 33:12; 34:3; Ezra 8:22–23;
Pss 24:6; 27:8; 40:16; 69:6; 70:4; 105:3–4; Prov 2:3, 4; 8:17; 16:8 (LXX); 28:5; Zeph 1:6;
2:3; Mal 3:1; Is 8:19; 21:12; 51:1; *55:6; *65:1; 65:10; Jer 50:4; *29:13; Lam 3:25.)
It is important to note that the nature of the running contrast in Romans 2 (facilitated in
part by the chiasm of vv. 6–11, discussed further below) requires one to take the descrip-
tions of each category as a whole. For example, the “doer of the law” is also one who has
repented, and whose heart has been circumcised by the Spirit of God (see note below).
155
In Romans 2, then (see note and chart above), “doing good” and “doing the law” are
contrasted, not with faith, but with “doing evil” and “hearing the law” (respectively). This
contrast, therefore, necessarily parallels the contrast between “faith” and “works of law”
done by the flesh in chapter 3. It would seem that for a proper interpretation of this chapter
these parallel contrasts must be recognized. As part of the “repentance/faith language” in
the faith/unbelief contrast of Romans 2, “doing good” and “doing the law” flow from a
194 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

by nature a reassertion of the sovereignty of the Creator over his fallen crea-
tion, and in that respect also it has the character of invitation, or promise. In
the Mosaic law gospel or promise is inherent as revealing God’s intention, in
the face of human failure, to reestablish his righteous character in man, as
interpreted within the larger redemptive-promise framework of the Abraham-
ic covenant and Deuteronomy’s promise of restoration and circumcision of
the heart. In gospel or promise, on the other hand, the law is implicit as the
condemnation upon sin that makes necessary the provision in Christ (Rom
3:23–24).156 In Paul’s view, then, law, whether in the form of general or spe-

repentant and “circumcised” (regenerate) heart, while “works of the law” in Romans 3 is
specifically a product of the flesh, an attempt to circumscribe God and His requirements
without true repentance. The law is not simply the external demands of God, but God’s
demands upon the very “heart” of man, and therefore cannot be done by the flesh. Even the
law has to be approached in repentant faith (see note below). Understood in this vein, Rom
2:13 does not stand in contradiction to Rom 3:20. Rather, “those who do the law” as the
fruit of repentance in 2:13 describes a class of persons that is coextensive with those who
will be justified (see on 2:13 below).
The future tense of “will be justified,” as contrasted with the present (3:24) and the past
(5:1) in the following sections, adds support to a likely dual era framework intended to
convey continuity in 1:18–3:20. The divine verdict of vindication which was a future
prospect in the old era is, with the gospel, ushered into the present.
Cranfield, e.g., acknowledges the positive side of this contrast and believes the descrip-
tion can apply to Christians, OT believers, and OT Gentiles. See Romans, 151ff.
Though Thomas R. Schreiner is certainly correct in asserting that a central role of the
law is to increase sin and reveal human inability (The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline
Theology of Law [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993], 73–91), Paul’s treatment of the role
of the law is a bit more nuanced. On the various uses of the mosaic law in Romans includ-
ing that of “promise,” see Richard B. Hays, “Three Dramatic Roles: The Law in Romans
3–4,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn, WUNT 89 (Tübingen: J. C. B.
Mohr, 1996). Hays comments that with Paul’s conviction of the eschatological events
realized in the death and resurrection of Christ, “. . . the Law [now] functioned primarily as
promise and narrative prefiguration of the gospel” (italics his), 163. On the faith-context
of the law within the Pentateuch, see, e.g., John H. Sailhamer, “The Mosaic Law and the
Theology of the Pentateuch,” WTJ 53 (1991): 241–261. On the law as promise and fulfilled
in Christ, see esp. Cranfield, Romans vol. II, 515–20ff, 848–62.
156
For a clear description of this complimentary nature of the Mosaic law as both prom-
ise and commandment, see, e.g., Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 104–5.
As Klyne R. Snodgrass observes (“Justification by Grace – To the Doers: An Analysis
of the place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul,” NTS 32 [1986]: 72–93; see p. 78),
Judaism’s[/scripture’s] dual emphasis on judgment according to works and mercy in judg-
ment based on the covenant often led to dual abuses when emphasizing one aspect while
neglecting the other – either casuistry and works-righteousness or an unfounded trust in
national privilege without true repentance. Both are evident in the NT and Romans, and
both are countered by this dual emphasis of the law.
This is not to offer a caricature of the Judaism of the first century, against which Sand-
ers rightly warns (Paul and Palestinian Judaism). Yet it is to acknowledge that Paul’s
teaching with regard to the law must at times be understood against the background of
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 195

cial revelation, though indeed bearing witness to human guilt and universal
solidarity in the fall, though indeed pointing to promise, has in itself the na-

what he conceived as misconceptions of the role of the law in God’s saving plan and pur-
pose. In terms of works-righteousness, for instance, which many scholars (against Sanders)
understand as reflected to some measure in the literature of the period, Paul insisted that
the law should be understood through the prior, vital, and programmatic lens of the faith of
Abraham (i.e. faith in God’s covenant, saving promises), which should have heightened the
awareness of the need for repentance and faith in these promises. Paul in various passages
seems to indicate that in the case of many, the law was instead flattened and made to relin-
quish the absolute depth of its claim on the human heart. A considerable number of schol-
ars perceive this dynamic in the gospels, being particularly evident, for instance, in the so-
called antitheses of Matthew 5, or in Luke 10:25–37. In the latter passage, this absolute
nature of the claim of God’s law upon the human heart is attempted to be evaded by the
question, “And who is my neighbor?” Paul’s use of the absolute requirement of the law in
Rom 2:1–4, then, likely reflects Jesus’ understanding and application of the law as ex-
pressed, e.g., in Matthew 5, where he himself is the fulfillment of the law (v. 17), so that
“righteousness” refers to an eschatological righteousness based in his person and issuing
from one’s relation to him.
On this significance of “righteousness” in relation to the law in Matthew, see esp. the
excellent essay by Roland Deines, “Not the Law but the Messiah,” 53–84. He states (71),
“The main task of Jesus is ‘to save his people from their sins’ (1:21). Matthew connects
this with the name of Jesus, Jehoshua. The name is programmatic, and the question is to be
raised: Why do the people of Israel need a ‘new’ forgiveness for their sins? Is this not right
from the beginning of the Gospel at least an indirect hint as to how Matthew understood
the Torah and the Messiah’s main task?” He goes on to state (72), “From the core of the
gospel it becomes clear: to enter the kingdom of God . . . means salvation . . . and (eternal)
life . . . The way to enter into it is through the eschatological righteousness that Jesus has
come to impute (3:15; 5:20).” Deines discusses the significance of the term perisseu,ein in
relation to righteousness in Matt 5:20 (“. . . unless your righteousness surpasses
[perisseu,ein] that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven”),
stating (80), “Perisseu,ein is an eschatological catchword in the Gospel of Matthew (as it is
for Paul) that refers to the fact that the content of what it signifies exists thanks to the
working and giving of God . . . What is demanded is a different quality of life according to
the kingdom of God that is about to appear. It is the eschatological, overflowingly rich
righteousness that Jesus fulfilled and made available to his disciples that from now on
alone opens the way into the kingdom of God.”
On the various approaches to the Law in Paul, see James D. G. Dunn, ed., Paul and the
Mosaic Law, WUNT 89 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996). On the law in Judaism and [as it
informs] Paul, and as over-against the “new perspective,” see D. A. Carson, Peter T.
O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds., Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. I – The
Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, WUNT 140 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001);
and D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds., Justification and Variegat-
ed Nomism: Vol. II – The Paradoxes of Paul, WUNT 181 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2004).
See also Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant; Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boast-
ing? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 2002); Hans Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, trans. James C. G. Greig, ed. John
Riches, SNTW (Edinburgh: T&T clark, 1984 [orig. Germ., 1978]).
196 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

ture or character of promise as it reflects the will of God to refashion humani-

ty after his moral likeness.157 The apostle is presenting a forensic reality and
redemptive possibility in general revelation that is independent of its scriptur-
al expression, 158 thereby conveying a revelational as well as salvation-
historical continuity in general revelation/moral law, Mosaic law, and gos-
pel.159 This continuity is evident in this section particularly through the man-
ner in which Paul moves the argument to its minor climax in Rom 2:16, in
which the final judgment is through Jesus Christ in accordance with the gos-
pel. This revelatory and redemptive continuity as conveyed to a significant
extent by the typology of Israel and set within the context of captivity to sin
and guilt before God’s judgment has strong roots in Isaiah.160

157
This truth is foundational for Paul in Romans 10 as he sets forth the fundamental
continuity between the law and promise/faith.
Paul views the covenants in continuity as part of the saving purpose of God. His con-
trast between the Old and New covenants in which the Old is disparaged seems to have a
polemical thrust in argument against those who view the law as gra,mma as opposed to
grafh,, in other words, against those who view the law in any other context than in its
salvation-historical context of promise. See Käsemann, Romans, 76–77.
Mays, e.g., on Psalm 19 (which Paul quotes in Rom 10:18), states (Psalms, 99), “It is
not too much to say that the psalm understands the torah of the Lord as revelation by
which the Lord revives, enhances, and guides human life; it is the divine medium of right-
eousness for human beings.”
158
Barrett (Romans, 47) comments, “The law of Moses is the plainest statement (out-
side the Christian revelation) of the claim of God upon his creatures, but the claim is inde-
pendent of the statement of it, and failure to acknowledge the claim can never be anything
other than culpable and the result is simply destruction.” Dodd (Romans, 36–37) also
states, “Now for Paul the Mosaic Law is the most complete revelation of the will of God
there is, in terms of precepts and prohibitions; but the ‘law of nature’ is not a different law,
but only a less precise and complete revelation of the same eternal law of right and wrong.
Thus the pagan’s obedience or disobedience to the law of nature is on all fours with the
Jew’s obedience or disobedience to the Law of Moses.”
159
This revelational continuity is reinforced and extended through the Lord’s act of
handing over humanity into the power of sin, typologically reflected in his acts toward
Israel (Rom 1:24, 26, 28) and preeminently expressed in the Babylonian captivity (Rom
2:24/Isa 52:5).
This continuity, moreover, is expanded throughout Romans to include the Adamic
(Rom 5:12–21; 16:20), abrahamic (Rom 4:1–25; 9:6ff), and Davidic (Rom 1:3; [4:6–8;
11:9–10;] 15:12) covenants.
160
This characteristic of typology as conveying a salvation-historical correspondence is
emphasized by Ellis (Use, 126–35). Specifically with regard to the redemptive correspond-
ence created by typology throughout the various revelatory phases (127, 128), he writes
that the OT types, “. . . view Israel’s history as Heilsgeschichte, and the significance of an
OT type lies in its particular locus in the Divine plan of redemption.” He continues, “NT
typology . . . points to a correspondence which inheres in the Divine economy of redemp-
tion. And this appears to be true not only in the Exodus typology, in which the two Cove-
nants are so expressly contrasted, but in the other OT ‘types’ as well.” Cf. Acts 14:14–17.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 197

This general portrait of humanity before the “pre-eschatological tribunal of

the soul,” particularly as it is typified in a captive and condemned Israel and
accompanied by a universal call to repentance (Isa 45:22), strongly suggests
Isaiah as the scriptural backdrop. The typology of the prophecy’s redemptive
narrative presents a revelational correspondence between the world and Israel
which not only points to an equality in guilt and grace, but ultimately and
preeminently directs the eyes of faith to the covenantal source of redemption
in the sacrifice of the Servant.

(2) Romans 2:1–4 – The Isaianic Backdrop

Rom 2:1–4, particularly as it is related to the larger section of Rom 2:1–16,
appears to be an allusive reference to Isaiah 45 and its wider context by
means of Paul’s thematic development of uniquely Isaianic themes. This
allusive reference to Isaiah’s theme of man before the judgment of God in this
passage is supported by the two criteria of recurrence and thematic coher-
ence.161 In terms of the criteria of recurrence, Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in
Rom 2:24, especially in light of both its wider significance throughout the
section and its specific intertextual relation to this passage, establishes a con-
siderable degree of credibility to a proposed Isaianic background. But more
specifically with regard to Isaiah 45, Paul’s quotation of Isa 45:23 in Rom
14:11 reveals unequivocally that Paul derives the concept of humanity before
the judgment of God, at least in part, from this very chapter of Isaiah, and he
has it in mind in his writing of Romans. Phil 2:10–11, moreover, which is a
recognized allusion to that same passage, demonstrates further that the apos-
tle interpreted Isaiah 45 christologically. But also, and very significantly,
Paul in Philippians 2 combines his allusion to Isaiah 45 with further, specific

161
Though the margin of the NA27 lists Wis 11:23, and several commentators mention a
possible allusion to Wisdom 15, most of those who do insist that Paul is here presenting a
polemic or refutation against this tradition with its unfounded trust in national privilege.
See, for instance, Barrett, Romans, 43; Kӓsemann, Romans, 53; Moo, Romans, 133.
Watson (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 405–11), similarly, argues that Paul is
dependent on Wisdom in Romans 1–2, yet also cites the fundamental differences between
Paul (Romans 1–2) and Wisdom, noting the apostle’s explicit indictment of Israel for
idolatry and so the denunciation of Wisdom’s teaching in this regard (410–11). He states
(411), “The earlier author [i.e., Wisdom] fails to mention the Golden Calf, preferring to
maintain the righteousness of the holy people by projecting their unrighteousness onto the
Gentiles. That for Paul is to pervert the truth of God and the sacred scriptures.” (Watson
also notes Wisdom’s dependence on Isaiah [405].)
For a brief history of early twentieth century scholarship on the question of Paul’s use
of Wisdom, see Ellis, Use, 77–80. Ellis concludes that, “. . . the evidence points more to a
mutual tradition, often originating immediately in the OT, than to a Pauline dependence on
the apocryphal work,” 79. So also Michel, Paulus, 18. For more recent discussion, see
pp. 145–46, note 18 above.
198 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

allusive references to the humiliation, death and subsequent exaltation of

Christ as the Servant of Lord in Isaiah 53.162 This understanding and use of
Isaiah 45 on the part of Paul is thoroughly consistent with and strongly sup-
ports the interpretation here proposed.
The thematic coherence between this section of Romans and Isaiah, as will
be discussed, is considerable, and interlaces with the broader context of
Paul’s typologically oriented quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, a context
reflected in 1:18–32 and incorporated into the present passage. This points to
Paul’s use of Isaiah’s larger redemptive-narrative framework.
Rom 2:1–4 presents a scenario that in many respects uniquely reflects Isai-
ah. Although, admittedly, the definitive linguistic links that often accompany
allusions are weak, Paul appears to be developing uniquely Isaianic themes,
so that the coherence nevertheless seems compelling. To summarize, verses
1–4 describe a divinely-given trial metaphor in which the irrefutable guilt of
the defendants in their rejection of their Creator (cf. Rom 1:18–25) reflects
their actual spiritual state before God. These defendants are depicted as cap-
tives brought to trial, with Israel (in the larger context, Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5)
typologically representing the world in its breach of God’s law, epitomized in
the sin of idolatry. The scenario in its entirety, moreover, serves as a warning
against the coming eschatological judgment, a warning which graciously
leads to the universal call to repentance. But most importantly, this universal
call to repentance is equated in the context of both Isaiah and Romans with
the acceptance of God’s redemptive plan through his Servant/Jesus Christ,
expressed in the “good news.” All these ideas represent the conceptual over-
lap between Rom 2:1–4 (within its context) and the trial motif of Isaiah,

162
Phil 2:5–11, like Rom 3:9, 19–20 and (as will be demonstrated) many other sections
of Romans, evidences a wide contextual reading of Isaiah’s redemptive narrative. In addi-
tion to the allusion to Isa 45:23 in Phil 2:10–11 there is the description of Christ as “serv-
ant” (Phil 2:7 – dou/loj [cf. Isa 49:3, 5, 7], generally rendering the Hebrew db,[, [e.g., Isa
42:1; 49:3, 5, 6, 7; 50:10; 52:13; 53:11]) who yielded Himself to complete obedience (Phil
2:8; cf., e.g., Isa 50:4–5, in which u`ph,kooj [“giving ear”] reflects the emphasis on the
Servant’s obedience), even unto death (Phil 2:8; cf. Isa 53:7–9), and so was “highly exalt-
ed” by God (Phil 2:9 – u`peruyo,w; cf. Isa 52:13 in which u`yo,w renders daom. Hb;g"w>), all of
which resonate strongly with the Servant passages of Isaiah. The further emphasis in chap-
ter 3 both on the disparagement of confidence in the flesh (v. 3) and the reception of a
righteousness that comes from God through Christ on the basis of faith adds further weight
to the likely Isaianic backdrop. See, e.g., Bockmuehl, Philippians, 135–36; Ralph P. Mar-
tin, Philippians, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19872), 100–114. Additionally, Martin,
along with many scholars, asserts that the passage alludes to both the account of the fall in
Genesis 3 as well as the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53, as Jesus, in contrast and in an-
swer to the sin of Adam, “. . . did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped . . .”
Paul’s use of Isaiah 45 in both Romans 14 and Philippians 2, moreover, suggests that
Rom 2:16 is, in fact, a reflection of that same chapter. See on Rom 2:12–16 further below
in this chapter, “The Isaianic Gospel as the Climax of the Eschatological Verdict.”
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 199

which similarly drives the argument from helpless guilt to the world-wide call
to repentance in chapter 45.
Further, Rom 2:1–16, as part of the larger context of 2:1–4, not only con-
tains additional supporting allusions to Isaiah, but as a whole evidences a
combination of themes which strengthen this background. This broadened
Isaianic background includes justification in the eschatological judgment
based on repentance and anticipated in God’s law written upon the heart. But
most importantly, in both Isaiah and Romans this justification, with the salva-
tion-historical climax of the revelation of God’s righteousness, ultimately
comes to be based in faith in the redemptive promise centering in the messi-
anic sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. Both Rom 2:1–16 and Isaiah 45
conceptually align the universal call to repentance and the covenant repent-
ance of Deuteronomy with trust in God’s redemptive plan through his Serv-
ant/Jesus Christ as ultimately expressed in the “good news.”
(a) The trial motif of Isaiah. The trial motif of Isaiah 40–55 builds upon
the earlier chapters of the prophecy, in which (broadly speaking) the covenant
guilt of Israel in chapters 1–12 is set in parallel with the guilt of the nations in
chapters 13–23, and then brought to universal expression in such chapters as
24–27 and 34–35.163 Isaiah 24, as mentioned above, not only creates the nega-
tive parallel between the primeval sin, humanity’s breaking of God’s moral
law, and Israel’s breaking of the Mosaic law (vv. 5–6),164 but through
intertextual allusion links the world remnant (Isa 24:13) with the repentant
remnant of Israel (17:6 [see vv. 4–7]; cf. Isa 1:9/Rom 9:29; Isa 10:22–
23/Rom 9:27–28).165 In light of the above considerations, it would seem that
this intertextual allusion unites the concepts of response to God as Creator
through repentance in light of guilt before divine law (Isa 24:5–6; cf. 17:[6-
]7), with response to God as Redeemer through faith in the covenant promises
mediated through Israel (cf. esp. Isa 17:6–7).166 This parallel rises to promi-

163
On this parallel between these major sections of the prophecy, see esp. Grogan,
“Isaiah,” 95.
The relation expressed above between chapters 13–23 and 24–27 is recognized, e.g., by
Childs, Delitzsch, Oswalt, Edward J. Young (The Book of Isaiah, 3 vols. [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1965]), Wildeberger.
164
See above, pp. 161–64.
165
So, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 179; Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 444. Regarding this remnant ter-
minology, Oswalt comments, “. . . the application of the Judahistic terminology is an
indication that the prophet sees God’s treatment of, and expectations for, Judah and Israel
as being the model for his treatment of the whole world (cf. Rom. 1–3).”
166
Within this eschatological section of Isaiah 24–27 the mediation of Israel is a fairly
prominent theme and is set forth as a paradox. In Isa 26:17–18 Israel is not able to “ac-
complish deliverance for the earth,” yet in 27:6 the nation takes root, blossoms, sprouts,
and “will fill the whole world with fruit.” This paradox is picked up again in chapters 40–
55, finding its resolution in the Person of the Servant of the Lord, called Israel (Isa 49:3),
who provides the basis of the atonement spoken of in 27:9 (cf. the paradigmatic Isa 6:7).
200 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

nence in chapters 40–55, in keeping with the previously discussed parallel

within that section of the prophecy between the Lord’s witness of himself as
both Creator and Redeemer.167 The revelatory and covenantal continuity im-
plicit in Isaiah’s canonical, intertextual allusions, together with its universal
significance, are taken up in this major section of the prophecy and form part
of the backdrop to the trial motif, a motif which is introduced by Israel cap-
tive in its sin for transgression of God’s law.
In the context of Isaiah 40–55 (and Isa 52:5, which Paul quotes in Rom
2:24) it was through the breaking of God’s law that Israel, as a type of idola-
trous humanity, was sold into slavery. This relation between transgression of
the law and captivity is evident from the commencement of chapter 40, as the
words of comfort (anticipating the universal call to repentance in Isa 45:22)
come to Israel in her internment, who had “received of the Lord’s hand dou-
ble for all her sins” (Isa 40:2). This relation is unequivocally stated in Isa
42:20–25,
20
You have seen many things, but you do not observe them; your ears are open, but none
hears. 21The LORD was pleased for His righteousness' sake to make the law great and
glorious. 22But this is a people plundered and despoiled; all of them are trapped in caves, or
are hidden away in prisons; they have become a prey with none to deliver them, and a
spoil, with none to say, "Give them back!" 23Who among you will give ear to this? Who
will give heed and listen hereafter? 24Who gave Jacob up for spoil, and Israel to plunder-
ers? Was it not the LORD, against whom we have sinned, and in whose ways they were
not willing to walk, and whose law they did not obey? 25So He poured out on him the heat
of His anger and the fierceness of battle; and it set him aflame all around, yet he did not
recognize it; and it burned him, but he paid no attention.

In the more immediate context of 52:5, Isa 50:1 states: “Thus says the LORD,
"Where is the certificate of divorce by which I have sent your mother away?
Or to whom of My creditors did I sell you? Behold, you were sold for your
iniquities, and for your transgressions your mother was sent away” (cf. Isa
59:1–2). Similarly in Romans, it is transgression of God’s law that brings the
world into captivity (1:23–28; 3:9) as typified in Israel (2:17–24; 3:9), a
theme which Paul draws predominantly from his quotations and allusions to
Isaiah (Rom 1:23/Isaiah 40; Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5; Rom 3:9/Isa 50:1; Rom
3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8) and which comes to a minor climax in his quotation of
Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24.
It is this theme of transgression of God’s law substantiated by the universal
reality of captivity that within the redemptive narrative of Isaiah evokes the
courtroom motif, a unique combination of themes reflected in this section of
Romans. This motif, moreover, brings the dual issues of human guilt and
God’s [saving] righteousness to the fore. This is much like the movement of

167
See in chapter three above, “The Witness of Creation within the Trial Motif.”
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 201

Paul’s thought in Rom 1:18–2:6, 168 as the idolatrous world captives, typified
in Israel (cf. 1:23–24, 26, 28; 2:17–24), are brought before God’s tribunal. In
both Isaiah and Romans these seemingly irreconcilable issues (human
guilt/God’s saving righteousness) are deliberately broached and antagonisti-
cally situated by means of the trial motif, and await their further resolution in
the intercession and justification effected by the Servant of the Lord/Jesus
Christ. Throughout the opening phase of the trial motif (Isaiah 40–48), then,
the initial covenant comfort given to Israel in the prologue (Isa 40:1ff) transi-
tions into the idolatrous solidarity between Israel and the nations in guilt
before the heavenly bar of justice. It is precisely here that the Isaianic back-
drop to Rom 2:1–4/16 seems to be situated. Like Romans 2, this dire, forensic
plight of the idolatrous captives leads to the universal call to repentance as
the basis of its as-yet-unexplained prospect of justification (Isa 45:25; Rom
2:13). Yet within both Isaiah and Romans it is a justification anticipated in
the “covenant comfort” of the given prologue as encapsulated in the message
of good news (Isa 40:9; Rom 1:16–17) and resolved in the justification medi-
ated through the messianic sacrifice (Isaiah 53 [v. 11]; Rom 3:21–26), the
fulfillment of all previous covenant expressions in the “everlasting covenant”
inaugurated by the Servant of the Lord (Isa 55:3; cf. Rom 11:26–27 [as
intertextually related to Rom 3:21–26; 10:15–16]).
The conceptual provenance of Isaiah 40–55, then, is Israel languishing in
[Babylonian] captivity, helpless, and inextricably mired in the exile into
which their sin had plunged them. 169 Near despair, they believed their judg-
ment (tP'vm . i) had been passed over by God (Isa 40:27), which perspective
serves as a prelude to the trial motif in this section of the prophecy. 170 Was
God willing and able to redeem his people from the power of Babylon and to
demonstrate himself master over the heathen gods? Would the Lord show
himself true and righteous in fulfilling his promises to Israel? Following the
initial words of comfort, Isaiah 40 reveals the Lord, in contrast to the idols
(vv. 18–20), as the sovereign Creator of the universe, infinite in power, infi-
nite in wisdom and understanding, who nullifies the rulers and power struc-
tures of this world as effortlessly as the wind carries away the scorched grass
(vv. 12–17, 21–27). It is this infinitely wise and powerful Creator who has
purposed to redeem his people (vv. 28–31; cf. 41:2–4), introducing in this
section of the prophecy the prominent conceptual parallel of creation and
redemption (cf. Rom 8:19–23).171 As this section of the prophecy begins to
unfold, however, divine redemption comes to find its basis in judgment and

168
On God’s righteousness in judgment within this context in Romans, see 2:5, 13. For
the movement of thought from captivity to judgment, see also 2:17–3:5; 3:9–20 [21–26].
169
See, e.g., Hanson, Isaiah, 1–4; Westermann, Isaiah, 3–6; Whybray, Isaiah, 20–21.
170
Childs, Isaiah, 308, and 317.
171
See, e.g., Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 324.
202 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

vindication, as in Rom 3:21–26 (cf. Isa 1:27). The Lord reveals that in this
redemption he would not only righteously uphold the covenant nation of
Israel (yqId>ci !ymiyBi ^yTikm
. ;T.-@a;; Isa 41:10), but that he would “faithfully bring
forth justice” to the nations (jP'vm . i ayciAy tm,a/l,; Isa 42:3–4).
This establishing of justice in the earth, then, must of necessity deal with
the sin that rendered both Israel and the world captive (e.g. Isa 42:6–7; etc.),
so that the clarion voice of comfort to the captives of Israel with which the
section opens (Isa 40:1–2), which calls on the perishing grass and fading
flower of humanity to enter into the eternal promises of redemption (a parallel
conveying typological solidarity), soon becomes the onerous tone that calls
all peoples to trial (hb'r"q.nI jP'v.Mil; wD"x.y:; Isa 41:1).172 As these world captives
are brought to trial Israel again bears a uniquely representative role, as the
previously discussed typological link between “all flesh” as captive to corrup-
tion and death and Israel captive in Babylon is now extended into the trial
motif.
This parallel in Isaiah 40 between captive Israel and captive humanity in-
troduces the defendants that are “called together for judgment” in Isa 41:1, so
that the conception of humanity as captive at this trial frames the first trial
sequence (41:1–29; cf. Isa 42:6–7; cf. also Rom 2:1–4; 3:9–20).173 This fun-
neling of the typology of captivity into the trial motif, very similar to Paul’s
approach in Romans, points to the fact that the solidarity and typological role
in which Israel stands in relation to the world extends to and is clarified by an
equality in guilt before the divine judgment that is epitomized in the sin of
idolatry (cf. Rom 1:23, 25; and note the implication of 2:21–22). This typo-
logical role within the trial motif is evident within the ongoing sequence of
the trial as the idolatry of the peoples/humanity elides into the idolatry of
Israel, so that the covenant people in Isaiah 40–48, as in Rom 1:18–2:24,
become supremely representative of the world in its guilt. 174

172
E.g., Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 79. Grogan (“Isaiah,” 280) notes that this oscillation be-
tween comfort and rebuke “. . . is characteristic of this section of the prophecy.”
173
Motyer (Isaiah, 309), e.g., notes the link between Isa 40:31 and 41:1 by means of the
phrase “renew their strength,” which is used to unite the situation of Israel and the Gentiles
in terms of both guilt and grace.
Throughout these chapters there comes to be a distinction within Israel that takes up the
concept of the remnant of the earlier chapters, a concept conveyed in part by the term
“seed” ([r;z,; e.g., Isa 6:13; 41:8; 43:5; 44:3; 45:19, 25; [*48:19;] 53:10; 54:3) which occurs
in both sections of the prophecy. Though Israel indeed stands in guilt and solidarity with
the nations throughout the trial motif, there is an oft-repeated covenant-assurance to an
Israel conceived as those who have come to place their trust in God’s saving promise, a
promise which ultimately comes to center on the redemptive work of the Servant.
174
See esp. Motyer’s description of the climactic nature of the indictment against Israel
in Isaiah 48 (Isaiah, 375). In this chapter the trial motif comes to focus exclusively upon
the covenant people. On Isaiah 48 (esp. vv. 4–5) as representative of the human condition
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 203

Though the “defendants” and the trial motif are introduced in chapter 40
(v. 27), the “trial” itself is brought clearly to the fore in Isa 41:1 and contin-
ues throughout much of chapters 41–48, both through the explicit statement
of the metaphor and through terminology which evokes it.175 This virtually
gives the impression of an ongoing court case which proceeds in successive
sessions, similar to the ongoing court motif in Rom 1:18–3:20ff. The defend-
ants at this trial are the captives in need of redemption – the peoples of the
world in general (Isa 41:1; 43:9; 45:20) and Israel in particular (Isa 43:8;
44:21; 46:3; 48:1, 12).176 The captive state of the defendants itself – portrayed
most clearly and forcefully in the historical and typological plight of Israel –
serves as evidence in the trial, pointing undeniably to the transgression of
divine law (see esp. Isa 43:8ff; see also, e.g., Isa 42:20–25; 50:1). The man-
ner in which the defendants at the successive sessions of this trial are alter-
nately addressed as either [all] peoples/nations or Israel suggests, again, both
the solidarity between Israel and the nations as well as the typological role of
Israel which under girds this section of the prophecy.
The evidence marshaled to confirm the guilt of the defendants within Isai-
ah’s trial motif begins with an assertion of the idolatry of the nations (Isa
41:1, 21–24, 27–29), recalling the many indictments against Israel’s idolatry
in the earlier chapters of the prophecy (Isa 2:8, 18, 20; 10:10–11; 17:8; 31:7)

as manifested in a stubborn resistance to trust God, with its resulting idolatry, see Oswalt,
Isaiah 40–66, 259, 262–63.
Similarly, the focus on the redemption of Israel in chapters 49–54 becomes a pattern of
world redemption. It leads to the universal invitation in chapter 55, in which the covenant
mediated through the Servant is extended to the world, fulfilling the universal nature of the
Servant’s mission (Isa 55:1–5; cf. 42:6; 49:8).
175
The trial imagery comes explicitly to the surface in Isa 41:1–29 (note vv. 1, 21);
43:8–28 (note vv. 9, 26); 44:6–28 (note vv. 6–8); 45:20–25; [46:1–13;] 48:1–22 (note that
48:14 employs the identical niphal imperative of cbq as 45:20 to gather the defendants to
trial; for this term see also 43:9 and 44:11); 50:[1–3]4–11.
Outside of these explicit trial references the motif is found in such passages as Isa
42:10–17, in which, in the context of redemptive recreation, those who trust in idols will
be put to shame (vAb used in the forensic sense, cf. esp. Isa 45:24; 50:7; cf. also 41:11;
44:9, 11; 54:4); Isa 45:16–17, in which the shame of idolaters is contrasted with the lack of
shame, or vindication, of Israel (the term ~lk being used with vAb in these verses to con-
vey the concept; cf. 41:11; 50:7; 54:4). Though Isa 46:1–13 does not contain explicit legal
terms, the content of the divine speech is extremely similar to that found in the “trial pas-
sages”: Isa 46:1–2 – the invective against idols (cf. Isa 41:6–7, 22–24; 44:10–20); Isaiah
46:3–4 – the Lord’s assertion/pledge of faithfulness to Israel (cf. Isa 41:8–16; [43:1–7;]
44:21–23); Isaiah 46:5–13 – [the contrast between the impotence of idols and] the sover-
eign God who declares and brings about His redemptive plan (cf. Isa 41:1–4, 21–29; 43:8–
14; 44:6–9, 24–28; 45:20–25; 48:1–7, 14–15).
176
The argument against the idols themselves in Isa 41:21–24 is ultimately directed
against the idolaters and the utter foolishness they exhibit in trusting in these non-realities
(cf. Isa 41:24, 27–29).
204 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

and preparing for the typologically oriented focus on the guilt of Israel as
representative of the world. In the next trial sequence, therefore, though Israel
is indicted for sin in general (Isa 43:22–24), she becomes complicit with the
idolatry of the nations (Isa 43:8–9). In these verses (vv. 8–13) captive Israel
is brought forth as a principle witness to God’s sovereign power and preroga-
tive in both judgment and redemption (cf. esp. v. 13).177 Ironically, however,
the witness is described as both “blind” and “deaf,” which both looks back-
ward in the narrative to Israel’s transgression of God’s law and resultant
captivity (Isa 42:20ff), as well as forward to the idolaters of the nations (Isa
44:9, 18),178 connections which reiterate Israel’s unique typological role in
mediating the knowledge of God. In chapter 44 again, though Israel’s trans-
gressions are in view (v. 22), the lengthy diatribe against idolaters (vv. 9–20)
is applied to Israel (v. 21), and the great call to turn to God for salvation in
chapter 45, given to Israel (v. 25) and the nations (v. 22), is a call out of idol-
atry (v. 20). In chapter 46 Israel’s transgression (v. 8) is again in the context
of a contrast between God and the idols (vv. 1–7), and in chapter 48 Israel’s
disregard of God’s commandments (vv. 1, 18) includes the specific indict-
ment of idolatry (v. 5).
So as Israel’s breaking of God’s law issued in a captivity which betokened
her guilt before God’s seat of justice, so the breaking of God’s law, epito-
mized in idolatry (cf. Rom 1:23, 25), likewise renders all peoples captive and
guilty before God, subject to the primeval curse of death reflected in the met-
aphor of the perishing grass and fading flower.179 During the course of this
trial, the reality of the exile and captivity of the covenant people hovers in the
background as a dark specter, bearing silent yet irrefutable testimony to the
nations of the coming eschatological assize (Isa 43:8–13; 45:20–25; cf. Rom
1:24, 26, 28; 2:2–3, 24). These are among the primary truths that the apostle
seeks to convey in Rom 1:18–2:24: an equality in guilt, epitomized by the sin
of idolatry, confirmed by captivity, stemming from the fall, universally expe-
rienced in an eschatological pre-trial, and reflected preeminently in the typol-
ogy of Israel.

177
Delitzsch (Isaiah, 192) notes that the term “bring out” (acy; Isa 43:8) “. . . does not
refer here to bringing out of captivity . . . but rather to bringing to the place appointed for
judicial proceedings.” Childs, moreover (Isaiah, 335), observes that the word “. . . is a
technical term within the context of a juridical process . . .”
Regarding the scope of God’s witness through Israel, Childs also remarks, “The events
of the past are also far broader than only a reference to Cyrus, but include the entire se-
quence of events connected with Israel’s entire history . . .”
178
On these forward and backward links, see, e.g., Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 144.
179
Cf. the previously discussed allusions to Adam and the curse of death in Rom 1:23,
32; cf. 6:23. See in chapter three above, “The Typological Nexus of Rom 1:23,” and “The
Universal Covenant Context of Wrath and Captivity.”
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 205

(b) The role of Isaiah 45 and its significance in Paul’s thought. Many of
the main features of Isaiah’s trial motif come together powerfully in chapter
45. 180 This chapter continues a prominent theological parallel of this major
section of the prophecy, in which the theme of God as Creator is repeatedly
placed alongside his role as redeemer, conveying two complimentary revela-
tory phases.181 In the trial sequence of chapter 45 (see v. 20), however, the
revelatory crescendo implicit in the parallel comes more forcefully to the
surface, in anticipation of the work of the Servant. The God who reveals
himself as Creator (v. 18) is uniquely and fully disclosed through his redemp-
tive covenant with Israel (v. 19; cf. Isa 52:6), which in both respects displays
the folly and transgression of idolatry (v. 20).182 God’s revelation of himself
as Creator, therefore, is reinforced through his redemptive acts toward Israel,
so that in keeping with the typological parallel between Israel and “all flesh”
in Isaiah 40, this redemption takes upon itself the ultimate eschatological
significance of recreation. This significance is made clear in the allusion to
Genesis 1 (Isa 45:18; cf. v. 12) by means of which God’s sovereign power in
bringing order out of chaos is used to form part of the conceptual backdrop to
the Babylonian redemption. 183 This ultimate significance of redemption is
further evidenced as the chapter surges to its climax in the eschatological
judgment.
In this movement towards the climax of the final judgment, the idolaters,
when asked to present their case, have no answer to substantiate their mis-
placed trust. Only the God who reveals himself as Creator can also declare
180
Though there is disagreement (see, e.g., Oswalt’s discussion of the many approaches
to Isa 45:13–47:1; Isaiah 40–66, 212–14), many scholars take the unit as extending from
44:24–45:25 (Childs, Delitzsch, Grogan). This unit as a whole focuses on the Lord’s sov-
ereign use of Cyrus in His redemptive plan for Israel, yet with a wider significance that
ultimately relates to His redemptive purposes through the Servant (see Childs, Isaiah, 348).
Childs understands this chapter as the climax of chapters 40–48 (348).
181
Commenting on Isa 45:7–8 in which he sees allusions to the creation account in
Genesis, Grogan (“Isaiah,” 271), e.g., states, “The God of creation and the God of redemp-
tion are one God, and so the one may be used to illustrate the other.” On this emphasis on
the complimentary roles of God as both Creator and Redeemer extending throughout this
unit, see also Childs, Isaiah, 350–51, 353; Hanson (apparently), Isaiah, 109–10;
Westermann, Isaiah, 155–56, 168. On Isa 45:18–19, Whybray (Isaiah, 111) writes, “Yah-
weh has always spoken out clearly and openly, with a definite and reliable purpose no less
effective than the purpose which he showed in creation.”
182
On the theme of Gentile salvation in Isa 45:14–17, and its relation to the perspicuity
of revelation in vv. 18–19, see Motyer, Isaiah, 364–65. The close relation between crea-
tional and special revelation, as well as the perspicuous nature of the former, is apparent in
the similar assertions of God’s absolute uniqueness which follows, and so is conveyed by
each type of revelation (e.g., vv. 18, [19,] 21). It is this absolute uniqueness of the eternal,
self-existent God which serves as the ground within the trial motif for the condemnation of
idolatry.
183
Childs, Isaiah, 355. See also 353.
206 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

and bring to pass his redemptive purposes, which he did in the past in his
deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and which he is poised to do now in the
redemption of Israel from Babylon through Cyrus (vv. 1–7, 11–13, 20–21a).
This leads to the conclusion of God’s line of reasoning, in which he again
aligns his complimentary and mutually reinforcing self-revelation as Creator
and Redeemer: “. . . there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a
Savior; There is none except Me” (v. 21b; cf. Isa 40:12–31).184 Then, that the
defendants might escape the inevitable verdict of guilt (cf. v. 24b) comes the
impassioned plea disclosing the universal nature of the forensic confronta-
tion, “Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and
there is no other” (v. 22). Therefore, within this forensic narrative a vital truth
clearly emerges, implied in verse 21: it is solely through the ringing silence of
guilt at this trial that Jew or Gentile can subsequently enter by faith into the
confession, “only in the Lord are righteousness and strength” (Isa 45:24), and
in this helpless state of accountability his people will come to acknowledge
that “in the Lord [alone] all the offspring of Israel will be justified and will
glory” (Isa 45:25).185 This universal call to repentance against the coming
judgment (vv. 23–24) given the idolatrous world captives within Isaiah’s trial
motif, in which a clear parallel is created through the typology of Israel be-
tween the revelation of God as Creator and the revelation of God as covenant
Redeemer, presents a remarkable conceptual resemblance to Romans.
In this chapter of Isaiah, then, repentance toward the Creator for the sin of
idolatry is closely aligned with both Deuteronomy’s covenant call to repent-
ance (note again the allusion to Deuteronomy’s covenant context of the curse
in Isaiah 1, 186 and its conceptual outworking in the Babylonian captivity in
chapters 40–55) and submission to God’s redemptive plan through Cyrus. Yet
this redemptive plan through Cyrus must picture a redemption that is much
more far-reaching, for it is a redemption that, in keeping with God as Creator
(cf. Rom 3:27–31), encompasses “all the ends of the earth” (v. 22) and is

184
For the significance of predictive prophecy within the trial motif, see, e.g., Oswalt,
Isaiah 40–66, 144–49 (esp. 146); Westermann, Isaiah, 156–57. This is, in fact, a signifi-
cant factor in Roman’s trial motif (and Paul’s defense of His message), which is itself
informed by the wider theological framework of the promised messianic deliverance ex-
pressed and fulfilled in the gospel (Rom 1:1–2, 16–17; 3:21). The Lord’s ability to declare
and bring about His saving purposes is conveyed more subtly throughout 1:18–3:20
through allusion to God’s covenant promises which are confirmed by His typologically-
infused historical acts toward Israel and brought to fulfillment in Christ’s redemption. This
theme, however, does surface explicitly in Rom 3:1–4, expressed in part through an allu-
sion to Isaiah’s trial motif. See on Rom 3:1–8 in chapter three below.
185
Motyer (Isaiah, 367) notes the implication of imputed righteousness and the contex-
tual connection with Isa 53:11.
On this theme of “silence before God’s judgment,” see further the section on Rom 3:19
below.
186
See above pp. 153, note 38; 161–64.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 207

thoroughly eschatological in nature (vv. 23–25).187 This, again, conveys the

typological significance of the Egyptian and Babylonian deliverances intro-
duced in the prologue. Isaiah depicts the nations, represented by Israel, as
captive in sin and helpless in guilt before God’s justice in order to drive both
Israel and the nations to the sole, divine source of righteousness as the basis
of redemptive recreation (Isa 40:6–10; 51:1–16). This righteousness, moreo-
ver, is granted at the eschatological assize to the seed of Israel (Isa 45:25),
pointing both to the origin of the covenant promise (cf. Isa 10:22/Gen 22:17;
32:12; Isa 51:1–2) as well as to its fulfillment in relation to the Servant (cf.
51:1–3ff; 53:11).188 In the continuing context, therefore, this repentant rem-
nant comprised of both Israel and the nations (cf., e.g., Isa 17:4–8; 24:13)
comes to be identified ultimately through faith in God’s redemptive work
through the Servant. The righteousness ultimately granted them by God (Isa
45:25), then, anticipates its basis in the justification the Servant mediates
through his self-sacrifice (Isa 53:11), with its ensuing “eternal covenant” (Isa
55:3).189 This relationship between the universal call to repentance echoing
Deuteronomy (Isa 45:22; Rom 2:4), the anticipation of justification to the
repentant (Isa 45:25; Rom 2:13), and the basis of that justification disclosed
in the gospel (Isa 40:9; 52:7; Rom 2:16) mediated through the messianic
sacrifice (Isa 53:11; Rom 3:21–26), points to the background of Paul’s
thought in Isaiah 45 as it anticipates the revelation of God’s righteousness in
the proclamation of good news in chapters 52–53.
This, then, is the conclusion toward which Paul drives his argument in
1:18–3:20: that both Israel, and the world of which she is a type, are both
captive in transgression and silenced in guilt. But as the next section of Ro-
mans opens (3:21–4:25), it is this absolute silence of the captives in their
guilt (Rom 3:19) that leads them to receive a righteousness that finds its
source in God alone, and the redemption through atonement he provides in

187
Motyer (ibid., 365), e.g., discerns just such a significance, stating, “In the central
chapters of the section (45:9–46:13) Cyrus has dropped into the background and Isaiah’s
concern is that Israel should be enabled to see the Cyrus-event in the context of the Lord’s
world-wide and eternal purposes.”
188
Many scholars, therefore, see in these verses a widening of the concept of the “seed
of Israel” to include the Gentiles who turn to the Lord and so enter into His promised
salvation. See, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 355–56; Motyer, Isaiah, 366–67; and esp. Westermann,
Isaiah, 176, who notes the contextual accuracy of the text’s use by Paul in Rom 14:11 and
Phil 2:10ff, stating, “The crucial change in the concept of the people of God is already
present here in Deutero-Isaiah.”
189
Motyer (Isaiah, 366 [note 1], 367), e.g., observes the intertextual connection be-
tween Isa 45:22 and 52:10 by means of the phrase “the ends of the earth,” which appears
only in these two verses in chapters 40–55. Both texts convey a universal invitation to
enter into salvation, with this sense being substantiated in the latter case by Isa 55:1. The
strongest connection, however, is made by means of the justification granted the seed of
Israel, which in Isa 53:10–11 comes through the sacrifice of the Servant.
208 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Jesus Christ (Rom 3:21–26). Therefore, this unique complex of themes re-
flected in Isaiah 45 – the trial motif of the world captives typified in Israel;
the parallel of God’s self-revelation in creation and redemption, with the
former pointing to the nature of the latter; the typological role of Israel’s
redemption; God’s call to faith in his redemptive plan through Cyrus, typical
of his redemptive plan through the Servant of the Lord; and directly related to
this, the universal call to repentance, with its prospect of redemption depend-
ent on the verdict of either shame or vindication at the final assize; and par-
ticularly as this entire complex anticipates the eschatological redemption and
justification effected by the sacrifice of the Servant – creates a revelatory and
redemptive correspondence and thus a remarkably close conceptual fit with
Rom 2:1–4 and its larger context. The Isaianic typology, therefore, if it is
indeed contributing significantly to the background of Paul’s thought, points
not simply to an equality in plight and guilt before the Creator, but to an
overarching and universal continuity throughout salvation-history – a conti-
nuity in revelation and covenant [mercy], a continuity in response to the Cre-
ator expressed variously as repentance and faith.
(c) Confirmation of Paul’s use of Isaiah’s trial motif in the larger context
of the epistle. This broad contextual continuity is strengthened by the fact that
Paul in subsequent sections of his epistle draws from Isaiah through quotation
and allusion the positive counterparts to guilt and captivity in the interces-
sion/justification and redemption achieved by Isaiah’s Servant of the Lord
(thus strengthening the criterion recurrence). These elements of contextual
correspondence point to Paul’s use of the broader “story-line” of Isaiah’s
redemptive narrative, with the typology of Israel both confirming guilt and
affirming the forgiveness and restoring grace available in the covenant medi-
ated through the chosen people.190
This understanding of Paul in Rom 2:1–4, moreover, is consistent with his
use of Isaiah in chapters 9–11. In chapters 9–11 Paul uses his quotations from
Isaiah as a coherent whole, each bearing upon a particular facet of the gospel.
The manner in which he employs Isaiah chapters 52 and 59 in both the earlier
and later sections of his epistle to convey both plight and solution through the
prophecy’s redemptive narrative points to the fact that this coherence extends
to this earlier section of the epistle. The clear Isaianic interpretive trajectories
from chapters 9–11 are, therefore, legitimately extended into this earlier ma-
terial with which they seamlessly cohere.
Though space limitations prevent a more detailed discussion, one of these
interpretive trajectories involves the identification of Isaiah’s repentant rem-

190
This typology, then, not only highlights Israel’s mediatorial role in conveying both
human guilt and divine grace, but communicates an equality with regard to them, and
therefore quite possibly stands behind Paul’s frequent use of the phrase “to/of the Jew first
and also to/of the Greek” (Rom 1:16; 2:9, 10; cf. 10:12).
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 209

nant with the “seed” formed through faith in the Lord’s redemptive promise
through his Servant. In chapters 9–11, Paul, utilizing his quotations from
Isaiah, identifies Israel’s repentant remnant (within Isaiah, representative of
the repentant world-remnant) ultimately in terms of faith in the good news of
redemption through the Servant of the Lord.191 This continuity as derived
from Isaiah strengthens the likelihood of a similarly derived continuity in the
present passage, in which the apostle likewise coalesces the response of re-
pentance in 2:4 with the response of faith in the redemptive death of Christ as
the Isaianic Servant in 1:16–17; 2:16 and 3:21–26.192
In addition to the strong thematic coherence cited above with reference to
Rom 2:1–4/16, there are several significant allusions to Isaiah in Rom 2:5–16.
These allusions, to be verified by the criteria of volume, tie into the larger
framework of Paul’s use of Isaiah in this section of Romans and further an-
chor much of the scriptural backdrop in the Great Prophet. These allusions
extend the significance of the typology inherent in Paul’s other references and
create deeper connections between epistle and prophecy.

(3) Romans 2:5–6 – The Day of Wrath and the Covenant Refuge
The theme of a “stubborn and unrepentant heart” (Rom 2:5) is common in the
OT and is evocative of a number of texts,193 as is its ultimate consequence in
the “day of wrath (cf. Rom 1:18).”194 Paul, of course, draws on these scriptur-
al themes as a stern warning, recalling both the many instances of judgment
upon the unrepentant, as well as the predictions of the coming eschatological
wrath to which they point. This warning leads into what is itself a promise of

191
Rom 9:27–28/Isa 10:22–23; Rom 9:29/Isa 1:9; Rom 9:33/Isa 8:14; 28:16; Rom
10:11/Isa 28:16; Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1.
192
For more on the relation between these chapters in Isaiah, see on Rom 2:12–16 be-
low.
A measure of confirmation is added to this understanding of the text by the resulting
“perseverance” (u`pomonh,) which issues both from the repentance of Rom 2 (see vv. 4–7) as
well as from faith in the gospel (Rom 5:3–4; 8:25; 15:4–5). That the perseverance of Rom
2:7 issues from the repentance of Rom 2:4 is evident in that only the “unrepentant” (v. 5)
receive “wrath” in the day of judgment. See esp. Davies, Faith, 53–57.
193
The phrase is “th.n sklhro,thta, sou kai. avmetano,hton kardi,an.” Cf., e.g., Deut 9:27
LXX “th.n sklhro,thta tou/ laou/ tou,tou;” Isa 46:12 MT “hq'd"C.mi ~yqiAxr>h' ble yrEyBia;”;
63:17 LXX “evsklh,runaj h`mw/n ta.j kardi,aj;” MT: “WnBeli x:yviq.T;.” Cf. also Rom 11:7–
8/Deut 29:4; Isa 29:10; Isa 6:10; 29:13. Note also the recurring themes, first in Exodus of
the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (e.g., Exod 9:12 LXX: “evsklh,runen de. ku,rioj th.n
kardi,an Faraw;” MT: “h[or>P; ble-ta, hw"hy> qZEx;y>w:”); and then in Jeremiah of the stubborn-
ness of Israel’s heart (e.g., Jer 3:17: [r"h' ~B'li tWrrIv.; cf. also 9:13; 16:12; 18:12).
See also Moo, Romans, 134; Kӓsemann, Romans, 56.
194
The margin of the NA27 has Zeph 1:15 (“day of wrath”); Ps 110:5 (“day of his
wrath”). See also Prov 11:4 (MT); Isa (24:1ff;) 34:1–2ff (see v. 8); Jer 10:10 (MT); Ezek
7:12, 19; 38:19; Nah 1:6–7; Zeph 1:18; Rev 6:17.
210 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

that judgment in the quotation from Ps 62:12[/Pro 24:12],195 which asserts

that the Lord, “will render to every man according to his deeds.”196 A refusal
to acknowledge the divine claim in repentance inevitably brings the eschato-
logical wrath of the day of judgment which the captivity portends (Rom 1:24,
26, 28), so that the “wrath revealed” in 1:18 eventuates in the day of wrath
and revelation of the righteous judgment of God in 2:5.197
This entire psalm, however, including the phrase from the quotation, points
to far more than simply a warning of impending judgment. In fact, simply
placing the quotation in the context of its own verse demonstrates this: “And
lovingkindness (ds,x,) is Yours, O Lord, For You recompense a man accord-
ing to his work.” The Psalm emphasizes trust in the Lord in a covenantal
context, and contrasts this trust, or faith, with trust in man, and the futile
attempt to somehow and illegitimately secure life for oneself.198 The positive
side of the “recompense” of v. 12, therefore, arises out of faith in the cove-
nant-keeping, saving God, so that this verse points to the refuge of salvation
in the covenant, as well as to the exposure to wrath of those without. Within

195
This is Ps 61:13 in the LXX. These texts are close to identical in the LXX, and are
set forth as follows:
Rom 2:6: o]j avpodw,sei e`ka,stw| kata. ta. e;rga auvtou/
Ps 61:13: su. avpodw,seij e`ka,stw| kata. ta. e;rga auvtou/
Pro 24:12: o]j avpodi,dwsin e`ka,stw| kata. ta. e;rga auvtou/
Whereas Romans and Proverbs are closer in having the relative pronoun, both Romans and
Psalm 62 have the future tense of avpodi,dwmi (though in Romans the verb is in the third
person and Psalm 62 in the second person), with Proverbs having the present tense of the
verb. This is significant, for Paul is speaking of the future eschatological judgment. (The
present tense in Proverbs, however, describes God’s present activity, though likely as this
anticipates the future judgment.) Because of this, as well as the significance of the Psalm in
reference to that future judgment, the Psalm will be the focus of discussion.
196
The Lord’s judgment of each person according to his deeds is a common theme
throughout both testaments. See, e.g., Jer 17:10; Matt 16:27; 2 Cor 5:10; 11:15; Gal 6:7;
Eph 6:8; Col 3:24–25; 2 Tim 4:14; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 2:23; 20:12; 22:12. For somewhat of a
“taxonomy” of the various positions on the relation of this teaching in Paul with his em-
phasis on justification by faith, as well as brief, though interesting, insight on their compat-
ibility, see Dane Ortlund, “Justified by Faith, Judged According to Works: Another Look
at a Pauline Paradox,” JETS 52:2 (2009): 323–39. For a brief history of interpretation on
Romans 2 with a discussion of various approaches to the chapter, as well as the argument
that more than simply condemnation is in view, see also Snodgrass, “Justification,” 73–76.
197
So, for instance, Dodd (Romans, 33–34), who notes the continuity between the reve-
lation of wrath (1:18ff) and the day of wrath (2:5–6), that they are of a piece, “. . . two
ways of looking at one fact.” He states, “The only difference between Jew and Greek is
that, since the Jew received a more direct and specific revelation of God in the Law, he is
in a sense more immediately exposed to the operation of the moral order, for good or ill
. . .”
198
See Kidner, Psalms 1–72, 223–23; Mays, Psalms, 215–16; VanGemeren, “Psalms,”
421–23.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 211

this context of Romans, then, the repentance of man in light of both divine
law as well as the promise implicit in the divine kindness, forbearance and
patience, is thus set in parallel with those who enter by faith into the saving
promise of the covenant (cf. Isaiah 1–5; 45).
The eschatological life (Rom 2:7) which issues from the repentance of
Rom 2:4, therefore, is a life derived from the covenant, a covenant which,
while in the larger context of the epistle evokes both the Abrahamic (e.g.,
Rom 4:9) and Deuteronomic covenants (e.g., Rom 2:4, 25–29), ultimately
finds its consummate expression and fulfillment in the redemptive “good
news” of the Isaianic Servant and the covenant established by his sacrificial
death.199 In the present context, this covenantal backdrop with regard to Isai-
ah is introduced by the aforementioned parallel between 2:1–4 and 2:17–24,
with its accompanying typological and covenantal connections. This cove-
nantal link is reinforced by the strong covenantal context of Paul’s quotation
of Ps 62:12 (Rom 2:6) as it anticipates Isa 52:5 (Rom 2:24). The covenantal
wrath upon the sinful, hypocritical moralist of 2:1–4 comes to expression in
Paul’s argument in an ultimate sense in the eschatological wrath of Rom 2:5–
12. But it also comes to realized expression in the typologically conceived
covenant curse of Israel’s captivity in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5, as this points to the
ultimate expression of “realized wrath” in the “handing over” of the Isaianic
Servant in Rom 4:25 (cf. Rom 1:24, 26, 28; see Appendix). This reference to
the covenant curse of captivity within the Isaianic context in Rom 2:24/Isa
52:5, then, is a captivity on the verge of redemption, and which therefore
points to the fulfillment of the covenant refuge of Ps 62 in the covenant inau-
gurated by the Isaianic Servant’s death for sin and subsequent resurrection
(Rom 3:21–26; 4:25), ultimately embraced by Israel (Rom 11:26–27/Isa
59:20–21; 27:9 [see esp. Rom 11:27/Isa 59:21]).

(4) Romans 2:6–11 – The Eschatological Verdict and the Mediatorial

Role of the Isaianic Typology
In this next section, Paul uses the mediatorial role of Israel as expressed
through the Isaianic typology both to reinforce the sobering reality of the
eschatological judgment as well as to allusively depict the necessity of re-
sponding in repentance/faith in light of God’s saving, covenant provision.
The verses contrast human response to God in terms of either repentance or
unrepentance, a response which determines the divine rendering as issuing in
either eternal life or eschatological wrath. The contrast is described in chias-
tic arrangement, an arrangement whose central elements contain allusions to

199
Note the wider context of Isa 52:5 quoted in Rom 2:24. Cf. also Rom 10:15–16/Isa
52:7; 53:1; and esp. Rom 11:25–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9, with its explicit use of the term
“covenant” within the quotation of Isa 59:21 to convey the fulfillment of God’s covenant
promises to the chosen nation.
212 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

both to Isaiah and Deuteronomy and highlight eschatological wrath as it is

prefigured in captivity.
6
o]j avpodw,sei e`ka,stw| kata. ta. e;rga auvtou/\
7
toi/j me.n kaqV u`pomonh.n e;rgou avgaqou/ do,xan kai. timh.n kai.
avfqarsi,an zhtou/sin zwh.n aivw,nion(
8
toi/j de. evx evriqei,aj kai. avpeiqou/si th/| avlhqei,a| peiqome,noij de. th/|
avdiki,a| ovrgh. kai. qumo,jÅ
9
qli/yij kai. stenocwri,a evpi. pa/san yuch.n avnqrw,pou tou/
katergazome,nou to. kako,n( VIoudai,ou te prw/ton kai. {Ellhnoj\
10
do,xa de. kai. timh. kai. eivrh,nh panti. tw/| evrgazome,nw| to. avgaqo,n(
VIoudai,w| te prw/ton kai. {Ellhni\
11
ouv ga,r evstin proswpolhmyi,a para. tw/| qew/|Å

The first of the central elements of the chiasm that allude to the OT is the
phrase ovrgh. kai. qumo,j (“wrath and indignation;” bold, v. 8).200 This phrase
(or the terms used in conjunction) is employed in several passages in the OT,
mostly to depict God’s wrath upon Israel for their transgression of his law.201
In Isaiah, however, though this sense is present (Isa 5:25) it is expanded (cf.
Isa 24:1–6), so that the phrase/terms ultimately come(s) to have primary ref-
erence to God’s eschatological judgment upon those outside his saving cove-
nant (Isa 34:2), as in Rom 2:8.202
The second of the central elements in the chiasm is the phrase qli/yij kai.
stenocwri,a (bold, v. 9). This phrase, “tribulation and distress,”203 echoes both
Deuteronomy (28:53, 55, 57) and Isaiah (8:22; 30:6), though it is both textu-
ally and contextually closer to Isaiah.204 In Isa 8:22 (contextually related to

200
Sanday and Headlam, e.g., note that “ovrgh. is the settled feeling, qumo,j the outward
manifestation, ‘outbursts’ or ‘ebullitions of wrath’” (Romans, 57). See also Richard
Chenevix Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trübner
& Co., 189412), 125.
201
Jer 7:20; 43:7; 51:6; (Bar 1:13); Ezek 5:13; Dan 9:16.
202
E.g., Oswalt, Isaiah, 606–9; Seitz, Isaiah, 236ff.
203
The terms in their literal sense refer to “pressure” and “narrowness (in the sense of
being in a tight or narrow place),” respectively, and have the mostly synonymous, figura-
tive sense of “distress” or “trouble” as it is applied to a variety of circumstances (Thayer,
in loc.).
204
The margin of the NA27 lists simply Deut 28:53 and Isa 8:22 (LXX [the margin actu-
ally reads Is 28,22 though this is certainly an error]), but the phrase also occurs in the LXX
of Esther 1:7. Cf. also the use of the related terms in Rom 8:35 and 2 Cor 6:4.
Both Rom 2:9 and Isa 8:22 have the identical phrase: qli/yij kai. stenocwri,a. Isa 30:6
has: evn th/| qli,yei kai. th/| stenocwri,a|. Deut 28:53, 55, and 57 have: evn th/| stenocwri,a| sou
kai. evn th/| qli,yei sou.
In Deuteronomy, moreover, the “tribulation and distress,” though arising from the curs-
es of the covenant and containing the theme of captivity in the wider context, has more
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 213

Isa 8:14 quoted in Rom 9:33), the phrase occurs in a form identical to Rom
2:9 and refers to the “tribulation and distress” of captivity as a consequence
upon Israel for its breach of the covenant (epitomized in its stubborn refusal
to trust God’s saving promise, cf. Isa 8:6, 11–14).205 This theme recurs
throughout Isaiah, but, as discussed above, comes to center stage in chapters
40–55 in which Israel’s captivity is set in parallel with the evanescence of
humanity. By means of this parallel, captivity comes to portend eschatologi-
cal death and thus is remedied by the redemption accomplished by the Serv-
ant of the Lord, of whom Cyrus was but a type. Though a somewhat subtle
allusion here, this motif soon comes to surface more explicitly in Paul’s quo-
tation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24.206
So then, as bearing upon the Romans context, the outworking of the cove-
nant curse in eschatological wrath is pictured in terms of the captivity motif
of Isaiah. This motif reasserts the typological role of Israel in its captivity as
portending the eschatological judgment of death, as the “tribulation and dis-
tress” designed to turn humanity back to God is for the unrepentant extended
into eternity. This stands as the severest of warnings, for the sphere of escha-
tological judgment conveyed by the phrase “anger and wrath” is, for the un-
repentant, reaching into the present, prefigured both by the typology of Israel
as well as by the personal reality of captivity to sin.

specific reference to the hardship of enduring a siege by the enemy. It’s relation to cove-
nant breach, however, is quite clear.
Bell (No One Seeks for God, 143) notes the use of these terms in Deuteronomy and
Isaiah and states, “. . . they refer there to punishment experienced in this life. Paul applies
the words in v. 9 to the eschaton.” This points again to Paul’s typological use of Isaiah’s
captivity motif.
205
Interestingly, in Isaiah 30 the phrase “tribulation and distress” is joined with the
concept of divine judgment upon Assyria in “wrath” and “indignation.” Isa 30:6 depicts the
journey of Israel’s ambassadors to Egypt through a land of “tribulation and distress,”
which in the context describes Israel’s foolish and rebellious reliance upon Egypt (Isa
30:1–9) and their refusal to repent and trust God’s saving promises of deliverance in the
face of the Assyrian threat (Isa 30:10–18; see esp. v. 15). The phrase as used here could be
a deliberate recollection of its earlier use, intimating the captivity to which their refusal to
repent will eventually lead. Yet in spite of Israel’s stubbornness, the Lord will indeed save
Israel from Assyria in token of His covenant faithfulness to His chosen people (Isa 30:19–
33), though ultimately, deliverance from the final outpouring of wrath and indignation (Isa
30:27; cf. Isa 34:1ff) is vouchsafed only to those whose faith is in the Lord (Isa 30:15, 18,
22). On the relation and inter-textual and thematic connections between Isaiah chapters 8
and 30, as well as the strong emphasis on faith in the Lord and His saving promise as over
against trust in the nations, see esp. Seitz, Isaiah, 215–22.
206
In terms of the criterion of volume, these allusions are clear, though relatively minor.
They are strengthened by the criterion of recurrence, especially through Rom 2:24/Isa
52:5. They gain significance, however, by virtue of their connection with the larger
Isaianic framework of covenant captivity, which they reinforce.
214 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Within this chiastic warning, on the positive side (vv. 7, 10),207 the repent-
ant are described in terms possibly reminiscent of Isaiah’s theme of restora-
tion to glory, in which recreation plays a major role.208 The outer elements of
the chiasm (vv. 6, 11) highlight not simply the reality of judgment, but,
through the association of the broader context of the quotation and allusion
(respectively), the covenant context of that divine judgment, with verse 11
reinforcing God’s impartiality. The phrase, “there is no partiality with God”
(Rom 2:11) echoes Deut 10:17 and 2 Chr 19:7, both of which are set in a
covenant framework.209 In 2 Chr 19:7, Jehoshaphat’s exhortations to the
judges whom he had appointed communicates an essential truth that Deuter-
onomy had applied to the relationship between Israel and the world, a back-
ground more in keeping with Romans 2. In Deut 10:12–22 the divine impar-
tiality (10:17) is balanced on the one side by God’s sovereign choice of Isra-
el, yet on the other by his love for the alien, a balance further expressed by
his command, on that basis, for Israel to extend to the alien this same [cove-
nant] love. 210 In conjunction with Isaiah’s typology in the inner elements of
207
Barrett (Romans, 44–45) asserts that there are two key terms contrasted in these
verses (vv. 7–8) that depict the nature of the persons so described – “endurance,” and
“selfish ambition.” He notes that endurance is a characteristic of hope or faith, and that the
works are a mark of hope in God.
208
On the theme of the Isaianic return to glory in Romans, see in chapter four on Rom
3:23. As noted above, Rom 1:23 constitutes a play on words, alluding to man’s fall as an
exchange of God’s glory for a corruptible image, with a background partially derived from
Isaiah. In this exchange man, who was God’s image and glory (cf. Psalm 8), became cor-
rupt, the image defaced and glory lost. In Rom 1:18–3:20 the loss of this glory results in
condemnation and captivity, major themes of Isaiah 40–55. In repentance, however, this
glory is both sought and regained (Rom 2:4, 7, 10; cf., e.g., Isa 45:22–25 LXX). In the
context of several additional passages of Romans, moreover, and furthering the line of
thought in Romans 2 (vv. 4, 7, 10), the theme of recreation, and hence of man being re-
stored to the glory (and image) of God is prominent, and the recreation finds its source in
justification through the redemptive sacrifice of Christ, the Isaianic Servant (3:23; 5:2; 6:4;
8:18, 21, 29–30; see Appendix). If, as it will be argued, Rom 3:21–26 is a reflection of the
redemption through righteousness in Isaiah 40–55 (with 3:23 a possible reflection of Isa
6:1–5), then, as in the Isaianic narrative, it similarly issues in “peace” (Rom 5:1; cf. Isa
52:7; 53:5; 54:10, 13) and “glory” (Rom 5:2/8:18–25; cf. Isa 40:3–11; 43:7; 45:24; 60:1–
2).
For “honor” (timh,; Rom 2:7, 10) as related the eschatological gift of the presence of
God in Isaiah, and so related to “glory,” cf. 11:10; 35:2. On the concept of “immortality”
(avfqarsi,a) as derived from Isaiah in Paul’s thought, see above in chapter three, “Paul’s
Understanding of Isaiah as Answering the Fall” (and footnote 48), as well as pp. 161–64.
209
The Greek term proswpolhmyi,a reflects the Hebrew concept of “lifting up the face”
( p' afn), which was sometimes used to convey the idea of partiality (see also, e.g., 2 Kgs
~ynI
3:14; Ps 82:2 (LXX 81:2). See Bell, No One Seeks for God, 143, note 52.
210
Included in this context are the added themes of loving and obeying the Lord’s
commandments from the heart, as well as circumcision of the heart from whence this
obedience derives; the apostle employs these concepts at the end of Rom 2 (vv. 25–29).
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 215

the chiasm, the quotation and allusion in the outer elements again highlight
the role of Israel in mediating the divine covenant to the peoples of the world.
The eschatological judgment of Romans 2, therefore, is firmly placed within
a world-wide covenantal context, including its saving implications, with Isra-
el serving in the role of rearticulating and mediating this covenant to the
world in both its negative and positive aspects.

(5) Romans 2:12–16 – The Isaianic Gospel as the Climax of the

Eschatological Verdict
In Isaiah 45, the eschatological judgment by the Lord with its attendant justi-
fication is subsequently taken up into the good news and so mediated through
the Servant in Isa 53:11 – a unique integration of themes that appears to stand
behind this passage in Romans. In the wider context of both Isaiah 45 and
Rom 2:1–16 (as understood in intertextual relation to 1:16–17 and 3:21–26),
the God who justifies in the eschatological judgment is the God who justifies
in and through his Messiah, and particularly through the proclamation of
good news that announces and reveals his eschatological redemptive right-
eousness in the Messiah’s sacrifice for sin. In this depiction of the eschato-
logical judgment within both prophecy and epistle there is a unique identity
between the Lord and the Messiah, so that, again, christology becomes the
basis of Paul’s soteriology. 211
This thesis asserts that Paul’s use of Isaiah’s typology to mediate the na-
ture of the eschatological verdict comes to a climax in Isaiah’s “good news.”
This “good news” is expounded in Rom 3:21–26, in which the final judgment
and vindication become a present reality. In this section of Romans, however,
there are several possible allusions to both Isaiah and Jeremiah that the apos-
tle could be employing to convey the same basic concept, yet from a more
salvation-historically nuanced perspective, a perspective that encompasses
the earlier eras but points to a final consummation with reference to the gos-

211
This creates in both texts a “christology of divine identity,” with the Messiah coming
in the promised redemptive role of Israel’s God. On this general topic see Richard
Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel. More specifically in relation to the role of the
Servant in Isaiah, see his God Crucified, 51. On Isaiah as the preeminent expression of this
phenomenon of “the christology of divine identity,” and with specific reference to Isaiah
45, see Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 681–82. On this phenomenon in relation
to the distinction in Paul between the Servant and the servants formed in relation to him,
see Gignilliat, Paul and Isaiah’s Servants, 51–54, 88–89. In Rom 2:16 and 3:21–26, the
Messiah acts in the role of Israel’s God as the mediator of justification, so that christology
becomes the basis of soteriology (as was seen in the relation between Rom 1:1–4 and 8:1–3
[9:5], with the divine Son bearing the sin of his people).
On the divine identity in Isa 52:13–53:12, see also Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ:
Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 384–39.
216 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

pel, as expressed in Rom 2:16.212 The allusive backdrop to the trial motif of
Isaiah 45 is bolstered here by the reference to a justification in the judgment,
based in repentance (cf. Rom 2:4), that anticipates the fuller disclosure of its
basis in relation to the gospel.
The emphasis on equality in judgment emphasized in the outer elements of
the chiasm discussed above (vv. 6, 11) is continued in verses 12 and 13. In
these verses Paul describes a total impartiality in the final judgment with
respect to the possession of the Mosaic law (v. 12),213 which, as noted above,
is also reminiscent of the judgment motif in Isaiah 40–55. Irrespective of the
possession of the Mosaic law, “the doers of the law will be justified” (v. 13).
In light of both the foregoing discussion of the trial motif beginning at 2:1, as
well as the assertions of Rom 2:25–29 in which that theme is continued
(2:27), it seems clear that implicit in this “doing of the law” is the repentance
of Rom 2:4. This repentance, arising out of the helpless condition of absolute
guilt and captivity to sin revealed by the law (cf. Gal 3:10; 5:3), results in
entrance into God’s covenant (Rom 2:6) with its accompanying circumcision
of the heart. This circumcision of the heart points to a recreative work which
alone enables one to do the law of God (Rom 2:25–29), a divine enabling
reflected in Rom 2:7, 9, 14, and 15.214 In Rom 2:15, then, this recreative act
of the Spirit of God is alternately described as “the work of the law written on
the hearts” of the Gentiles, the basis of their “doing by nature the things of

212
Barrett, e.g., writes on Rom 2:13 (Romans, 48), “The present passage refers only to
the sentence, whether of condemnation or acquittal, pronounced at the last judgment; that
is, it does not deal with the specifically Christian conception of justification which rests
upon the anticipation of the eschatological righteousness of God in the saving event of
Jesus Christ.”
213
With regard to the term “law” in v. 12, Cranfield (Romans I-VIII, 154 and note 2)
states that in Paul it refers to the OT law unless the context clearly shows otherwise.
On Paul’s use of no,moj, see e.g., Moo, Romans, 145–46, note 7; Sanday and Headlam,
Romans, 53; but esp. Cranfield, Romans IX-XVI, 845ff.
Regarding Rom 2:12 Käsemann observes, “The gifts granted to the Jew in salvation his-
tory do not protect him against universal judgment. This [statement] is directed first
against any reliance on the reception and possession of the Torah as the true mark of the
difference between Jew and Gentile” (Romans, 61–62). Barrett (Romans, 47) similarly
comments, “The law is not a talisman calculated to preserve those who possess it. It is an
instrument of judgment, and sin is not less sin, but more, when it is wrought within the
sphere of the law (cf. vii. 13).”
214
On the relation of Rom 2:12–16 to 2:25–29, the non-hypothetical nature of the “doer
of the law” in 2:13 and its wider context (2:1–29), and its compatibility with Rom 3:20, see
Seifrid, “Unrighteous,” 124–25, 129–30. Sanday and Headlam state (Romans, 60), “Since
the time of Augustine . . . the orthodox interpretation had applied this verse, either to the
Gentile converts, or to the favoured few among the heathen who had extraordinary divine
assistance.”
For a detailed discussion on both the interpretive issues and background of Rom 2:14–
16, see Bell, No One Seeks for God, 145–83. On Rom 2:25–29 see in chapter three below.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 217

the law” in Rom 2:14. 215 Therefore, “doing the law” is not conceived in this
passage as the basis of justification, but rather “doers of the law” in Rom 2:13
is descriptive of a category that is coextensive with those who “will be justi-
fied.”216
This understanding of Romans 2 is supported in this section by the pres-
ence and significance of several allusions. The term “will be justified” in
Rom 2:13 (dikaiwqh,sontai) is very possibly an allusion to Isa 45:25, which
states that “. . . all the seed of Israel will be justified and will glory.” Rom
2:13 and Isa 45:25 are, in fact, the only two places in the LXX and NT in
which that precise form of the word occurs. In the context of both passages,
moreover, “the divine tribunal of the soul” comes to eschatological realiza-
tion on the day of judgment, yielding either condemnation or justification,

215
Cranfield (Romans, 155ff) argues for understanding the Gentiles in 2:14–16 as
Christians. If, however, simply (heathen) Gentiles are [also] in view, he would be arguing
for a positive response to general revelation, an interpretation which he himself seems to
strongly consider (155–56). In fact, he asserts earlier with regard to the passage as a whole
that Paul was probably also referring to OT believers as well as OT Gentiles (152).
Cranfield’s argument for a reference to Christians appears to depend somewhat upon
the referent of fu,sei in v. 14. He understands it with the preceding (ta. mh. no,mon e;conta
fu,sei) rather than the following phrase (fu,sei ta. tou/ no,mou poiw/sin). The overall con-
text, however, beginning with 1:18 (esp. 2:12) emphasizes that Gentiles, though not having
the Mosaic law, nevertheless have received revelation to which they are accountable. This
contextual connection is noted by Dodd (Romans, 35) who states, “Verses 14–15 are con-
ceived in the same spirit as 1:19–20.” Further, the repetition of the phrase “these not hav-
ing the law” (ou-toi no,mon mh. e;contej) in the very same verse, yet unaccompanied by the
modifier fu,sei, indicates that the reference is to those who actually do not possess the
Mosaic law, which would not be true of the Gentile churches started, e.g., by Paul. On
fu,sei being taken with the following finite verb rather than the preceding participle, see
Seifrid, “Unrighteous,” 129, note 68.
Barrett states (Romans, 50), “Paul writes not ‘The Gentiles’ but ‘Gentiles’, that is,
some, not all. Gentiles therefore cannot be equivalent to Gentile Christians.” See also
Käsemann, Romans, 65. Käsemann asserts (62), “The reference is not to all Gentiles . . .
but not to exceptions either . . .”
Watson (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 352–53, note 57) holds that these obedi-
ent Gentiles, retrospectively considered in light of Romans 3, turn out to be “unreal.” Yet
he notes the difficulty of this position as these Gentiles are described in Rom 2:25–29,
stating (353, note 57), “Is Paul describing his anonymous righteous Gentiles as though they
were Christians? Within Romans 2 itself, he certainly wishes them to sound like real peo-
ple.”
216
See especially Ortlund, “Justified by Faith,” 323–39. As Ortland well observes, this
understanding of the passage avoids the apparent conflict with Rom 3:20. Seifrid (“Un-
righteous,” 125) notes that Paul’s use of these ideas in Romans 2 “. . . indicates that he
regards the Law to demand our ‘heart,’ i.e. all that we are and have . . . ‘Works of the
Law,’ as particular, identifiable and observable deeds simply do not encompass our whole
person. Paul rejects the opinion . . . that such deeds in themselves bear any saving signifi-
cance.”
218 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

with justification granted to those who respond to the Lord’s universal call to
repentance (Isa 45:22; cf. Rom 2:4).
But how does the assertion in Rom 2:13 that “the doers of the law will be
justified” relate to a possible Isaianic background? In the verses which follow
2:13, “the doers of the law” are described as those who “do by nature the
things of the law” (v. 14) and “show the work of the law written on their
hearts” (v. 15). These ideas are present in the combined contexts of Isaiah 45
and 50–51 (chapter 51 being alluded to in Rom 2:15). In Isaiah 50–51 the
subject of the eschatological justification of the remnant is resumed from
chapter 45, focusing on the Servant as the sole mediator of this justification
and the one around whom the remnant is ultimately formed. Paul, in fact,
alludes to both of these chapters (Isaiah 50 and 51) in relation to these very
concepts in Romans 8 and 9 (satisfying the criterion of recurrence; see Ap-
pendix).
In the context of Isaiah 45 God’s righteousness in his redemptive acts
causes righteousness to spring up on the earth, so that the righteousness of his
redeemed people is a creation of the Lord (v. 8).217 This is consonant with the
parallel of creation and redemption (vv. 12–13, 18–19), a parallel which por-
trays the redemption of Israel as recreation after the pattern of Adam (vv. 11–
12; cf., e.g., Isa 43:1, 7, 21).218 It is this recreated humanity that is coexten-
sive with the assembly of the justified, the “seed of Israel” (v. 25), so that
works, far from being the basis of justification, are rather the fruit of a divine-
ly wrought salvation (v. 8) granted through repentance (v. 22).
It is just such a recreated humanity that in Rom 2:14–15 does “by nature
the things of the law” and “show[s] the work of the law written upon their
hearts.” The second phrase alludes to both Jer 31:33 and Isa 51:7,219 both
having eschatological, covenantal contexts, and both likely alluding to the
covenant context of Deuteronomy which advocates repentance (Deut 30:2,
10) and a “faith-embrace” of God’s law in the heart to escape the covenant
curse of captivity (Deut 30:11–14ff; cf. Rom 10:6–8).220 Interestingly, Deu-

217
See esp. Knight, Deutero-Isaiah, 136–37; Motyer, Isaiah, 359–60.
218
See above, p. 165, note 75.
219
So, e.g., NA27.
220
On this allusion to Deuteronomy in Jer 31:33, see, e.g., C. F. Keil, Jeremiah, Lamen-
tations, trans. David Patrick and James Kennedy, vol. 8, Commentary on the Old Testa-
ment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 [reprint]), 38–39 (vol. 2). On Isa 51:7, Grogan (Isai-
ah, 295) notes the connection with both Deut 30:14 and Jer 31:31–34. Westermann (Isaiah,
236) and Whybray (Isaiah, 157) note the likely connection with Jeremiah.
For Deuteronomy’s emphasis on love and obedience to God’s law from the heart, which
is closely aligned with and based upon God’s circumcision of the heart, see McConville,
Deuteronomy, 427, 429. For the relation of this emphasis to faith in Christ, see 432–33.
On Paul’s advocacy and understanding of a faith-embrace of the law in Deuteronomy
30 as reflected in Rom 10:6–8, see, e.g., Matthew Bates, Hermeneutics, 230.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 219

teronomy 30 contains a blended address to both future Israel in exile and the
current Moab generation. The significant result of this blended reference is
that the “present” Moab generation is called to repentance (cf. v. 2) and a
faith embrace of the law (vv. 11–14) on the basis of human inability to keep
the law (cf. v. 6), an inability reflected in this very prophecy of Israel’s future
covenant breach and captivity (vv. 1–10).221 It is this repentance that results
in a circumcised heart, the capacity to love and obey God (cf. vv. 2, 10), and
ultimately the promised life of the covenant (Deut 30:6, 15, 19; cf. Rom 2:4–
7).222
In Jeremiah 31 the “new covenant” context is explicit, and echoes the es-
chatological renewal promised Israel in this chapter of Deuteronomy (30), as
well as in the Song of Moses (chapter 32), a renewal corresponding to Deu-
teronomy’s consistent emphasis on the necessity of receiving the law in one’s
heart. This is particularly relevant in that Paul specifically draws the theme of
God’s law in the heart from Deut 30:12–14 (Rom 10:6–8). He uses the pas-
sage to create a parallel that points to a continuity in the faith-response to the
redemptive revelation given first in the law and then fulfilled in Christ (Rom
10:4, 9–10; cf. 9:31–33).223 This faith-response to Christ as the end of the law
is then supported by several quotations from Isaiah which culminate in the
redemptive promise of Isa 52:7 and 53:1 (Rom 10:11/Isa 28:16; 10:15/Isa
52:7; 10:16/Isa 53:1). Further, Paul quotes a key verse of the Song of Moses
(32:43) in Rom 15:10 (“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people”), in which he
emphasizes Gentile inclusion in the blessings of Israel’s restoration, and
similarly ends with a quotation from Isa 11:10 as the Gentiles place their faith
in Israel’s Messiah (Rom 15:12).
The allusion to Isa 51:7 in Rom 2:15 builds on the allusive backdrop of
Isaiah 45 and extends the covenantal framework of Jeremiah through its focus
on the mediator of the covenant. The justification to be granted the repentant
remnant (“seed”) in Isaiah 45 is eschatological in nature (Isa 45:23–25; cf.
Rom 2:13), and therefore, while connected with God’s redemptive plan
221
McConville, Deuteronomy, 427–29.
222
On this “life” as the goal of the covenant, see, McConville, ibid., 430.
223
See esp. Cranfield, Romans, 515ff, 848–61.
Roland Deines astutely observes that the crucial issue which ultimately divided Judaism
and Christianity was the place or relevance assigned to the Torah. In contrast to Judaism,
which centered both individual and national existence around the Torah (even placing the
Messiah in subordination to the Torah), Christians, on the other hand, centered their indi-
vidual and communal lives around Christ. He states, “Even where Torah was observed
with sincerity in the Jewish-Christian congregations, it had still lost its absolute, eschato-
logical dimension. It had, even in these congregations, reached its te,loj in Christ.” See his
essay, “The Pharisees Between ‘Judaisms’ and ‘Common Judaism,’” in Justification and
Variegated Nomism: Vol. I – The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, ed. D. A. Car-
son, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, WUNT 140 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001),
500.
220 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

through Cyrus (e.g., Isa 45:1–7, 9–10, 13, 19, 21), is based in his world-wide
redemptive plan through the Servant (Isa 45:22 “all the ends of the earth”; cf.
49:6). It is the Servant who mediates the promised eschatological justification
of Isaiah 45, a theme picked up in Isa 50:4–9 (cf. Rom 8:31–34; see Appen-
dix); therefore it is faith in God’s redemptive plan through the Servant that
ultimately identifies the remnant (Isa 50:10–11; cf. 52:15–53:1; 53:10–11).224
It is this remnant, then, who come to be described as those “who pursue
righteousness” (Isa 51:1; cf. Isa 56:1; cf. also Rom 2:7; 9:30–33 and Appen-
dix) and “a people in whose heart is [God’s] law” (Isa 51:7; Rom 2:15), who
are to look for God’s imminent redemptive act through the Servant. The rem-
nant in Isaiah, therefore, though legitimately identified and formed through
repentance in light of God’s law (Isa 45:22; cf. Isa 1:9, 27), must, in the un-
folding of God’s redemptive plan, ultimately come to be identified on the
basis of faith in the Servant, who alone mediates divine righteousness and
redemption, and who alone inaugurates the everlasting covenant based in his
very Person (Isa 55:3; cf. 42:6; 49:8). This scenario is extremely similar to the
present context of Romans, particularly as that context speaks to the issue of
the identity of Israel (cf. Rom 2:25–29). Paul, then, in his allusions to Isaiah
45 and 51, brings together the concept of repentance with its subsequent mor-
al renewal in anticipation of eschatological justification (Isaiah 45), with the
concept of the renewed remnant formed in relation to and through faith in the
Servant/Christ who mediates this final justification (Isaiah 50–51; cf. Rom
8:31–34; see Appendix). These are the thoughts that appear to stand behind
Rom 2:13–15 as they build upon the earlier verses of the chapter.
Rom 2:16 bolsters this likely Isaianic background through its reference to
the Isaianic gospel, which provides the basis of both forensic acquittal and
redemption from the power of sin. Again, Paul’s use of Isaiah 45 in both Rom
14:11 and Phil 2:5–11 (vv. 10–11) to convey various aspects of the eschato-
logical judgment renders its background here more certain.225 Rom 2:16 de-

224
See above, e.g., p. 87, note 61; and also in chapter two, “The Gospel as the Revela-
tion of God’s Righteousness: A Uniquely Isaianic Background,” and footnotes 120, 121
and 123. In Isaiah 45, moreover, transgression of God’s law epitomized in idolatry is
closely associated with resistance to God’s redemptive plan through Cyrus (vv. 1–7, 16,
20–21). Likewise, those who repent of their idolatry are by implication those who trust in
God’s redemptive plan, and so come to comprise the remnant (vv. 21–22, 25).
225
In this section, then (as understood in relation to 2:1–16 as a whole), the relatively
low volume of the minor allusions (“will be justified,” “work of the law . . . in the heart,”)
would combine with Paul’s very significant development of uniquely Isaianic themes
(justification in the eschatological judgment messianically mediated and based on the
gospel [in the larger context of Isaiah and Romans, mediated through the gospel as the
revelation of God’s righteousness in the Messiah’s redemptive sacrifice]) to convey a
powerful allusive reference to Isaiah 45 and its wider context, particularly as it augments
the allusive reference to Isaiah 45 in Rom 2:1–4 (discussed above). This would be substan-
tiated through recurrence in terms of Paul’s use of Isaiah 45 and 51, the concept of “gos-
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 221

scribes the necessary eschatological conclusion to the forensic situation cre-

ated by and anticipated in the work of the conscience and the divine law writ-
ten upon the heart.226 The inner tribunal (e.g., 2:1–4, 14–15), as in Isaiah 40–
45, inevitably leads to that which it portends, the final judgment. It is in this
final assize that God will judge the secrets (krupto,j) of men, pointing again
to this necessary connection between the inner tribunal and the eschatological
judgment.227 This judgment, moreover, is “according to my gospel” (kata. to.
euvagge,lio,n mou), which, granted the Isaianic background, would point to the
fact that the justification granted will be based solely upon the Serv-
ant’s/Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. But “judgment according to the gospel”
would also point to the legitimacy of one’s inner response to God (in terms of
repentance and faith) being measured in the judgment by the recreated right-
eousness of the Servant which necessarily issues from the gospel – the stand-
ard of recreation (and hence the standard of truly “doing the law”). The na-
ture of this gospel in the judgment (as God’s sole and definitive redemptive
act in the outpouring of eschatological wrath in the sacrifice of Christ as the
only basis of justification), moreover, would disclose in a superlative manner,
a manner which eclipses all previous revelation, the bankruptcy of the human
condition in its state before God. 228 It supremely exposes humanity as ines-
capably captive in its sin and confirmed in its guilt, just recipients of the
wrath of God, and so by corollary sets the standard for the proper human

pel” and the continued use of Isaiah to convey the theme of justification (e.g., Rom 3:21–
26; 4:25; 8:31–34; see Appendix). To this is added the fact that this allusive reference as a
whole ties into Paul’s use of Isaiah’s redemptive-narrative framework both in 2:24 as well
as 1:16–17 and 3:21–26. Therefore, in terms of relative significance, Paul’s allusion to
Jeremiah 31 (as well as Deuteronomy which stands behind it) points to eschatological
realities experienced in the present, but scripturally disclosed more fully in the Isaianic
good news.
226
See, e.g., Käsemann, Romans, 66–68. He observes (66), “The shadow of the Judge
does not just surround us on the outside as in 1:22ff. It falls on our inner being . . . and
makes it the tribunal.”
227
Cranfield (Romans, 163) notes that “the secrets of men” (ta. krupta. tw/n avnqrw,pwn)
should be compared to the double contrast in vv. 28–29 in which the same term occurs
(krupto,j). The contrast in vv. 28–29 is between the outward Jew and the inward Jew, and
between outward circumcision and circumcision of the heart. Verse 29 says “. . . he is a
Jew who is one inwardly (o` evn tw/| kruptw/| VIoudai/oj); and circumcision is that which is of
the heart, by the Spirit . . .” This link points to the possibility of a positive outcome to the
judgment of 2:16.
228
Cf. esp. Gal 6:14–15. Similarly in Matthew, e.g., the primary purpose of Jesus, as
indicated by his divinely-given name, is “to save his people from their sins” (1:21). As
Roland Deines points out through rhetorical question (“Not the Law but the Messiah,” 71),
“Is this not right from the beginning of the Gospel at least an indirect hint as to how Mat-
thew understood the Torah and the Messiah’s main task?”
222 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

response in a repentance that reflects the immensity of this debt and in a faith
that desperately lays claim to its only hope in the saving promise. 229
The apostle, then, appears to be alluding to a redemptive continuity and
recreative reality present throughout history but that has now come to fuller
[though not yet complete] eschatological realization with the advent of the
messianic redemption. Paul, here, appears to be integrating the universal call
to repentance based in general revelation, Deuteronomy’s call to repentance
with its promised circumcision of the heart (cf., e.g., Rom 2:4, 14–15, 25–
29), and Isaiah’s call to faith in the good news of the redemption achieved by
the messianic Servant of the Lord. This integration is central to Paul’s under-
standing of Isaiah itself (as discussed above), which again points to Paul’s
dependence. This salvation-historical, intertextual relation between Deuter-
onomy and Isaiah, moreover, points to the truth that one’s response to God’s
law is most accurately reflected in one’s response to the gospel. And so as
Paul’s continuing discussion will demonstrate, a proper repentant/faith re-
sponse to the law as properly understood within its context of promise – with
the realization of the saving event – must necessarily come to expression in
“. . . those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He
who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because
of our justification” (Rom 4:24b-25/Isa 53:4–6, 11–12; see Appendix). The
gospel, in its disclosure of Christ and his redemptive work, thus becomes the
criteria for establishing the true nature and role of the law, as well as its prop-
er appropriation.

3. Isaiah 52:5: The Covenant Curse and the Source of Its Promised
Restoration (Rom 2:17–29)
In this passage, the relation between Deuteronomy and Isaiah is continued.
The conception of equality in judgment from the previous section surfaces
here through the typological role of Israel. As noted above, the universal call
to repentance (Rom 2:1–4), though a reflection of Deuteronomy’s covenant
call to repentance issuing in the circumcision of the heart (Rom 2:14–15, 29),
finds its clearest expression in the universal call of Isaiah 45 and its unique
alignment of repentance [based on the covenant] with faith in God’s redemp-
tive plan ultimately expressed in the “good news” (Rom 2:16). Here, these
basic relations are reaffirmed as Paul depicts the covenant curse through his
quotation of Isaiah, which is itself used by the apostle to direct attention to
the scriptural portrayal of its resolution.
Romans 2:17–29 presents the scenario of covenant curse, exile and restora-
tion, with the quotation of Isa 52:5 (Rom 2:24) pointing, not simply to plight,
but (particularly in light of the Isaianic nature of 1:16–17a; 2:16; 3:21–26;

229
For a similar emphasis, see on Rom 3:1–4 below.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 223

4:25) to the basis of Deuteronomy’s promised restoration and circumcision of

the heart (Rom 2:29) as accomplished through the sacrifice of the Servant of
the Lord. Paul’s deliberate choice of Isaiah to explicitly depict the covenant
curse of captivity (as opposed to Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, e.g.) is
based upon both its typological nature in portraying humanity’s captivity to
sin as well as the prophecy’s continuing role within the epistle in disclosing
the messianic salvation, so that Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5 integrally connects to
Paul’s use of Isaiah’s larger, redemptive-narrative framework. Isaiah’s por-
trayal of humanity’s guilt and captivity to sin and death is answered by Isai-
ah’s portrayal of humanity’s justification and redemption through the sacri-
fice of the Servant.

(1) The Typology of Plight and Promise (Rom 2:17–24)

Much has already been said regarding the textual, typological, and contextual
significance of Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24.230 As mentioned
above, within the trial motif of Isaiah 40–55 the idolatrous sin and captivity
of humanity is epitomized in the sin and captivity of Israel, a typological
scenario that is reflected in this section of Romans. This comes to clear ex-
pression in Rom 2:17–24, particularly as it stands in intertextual relation to
Romans 1. In Romans 1, the rebellion of humanity that began at creation,
together with its subsequent captivity to sin and death (Rom 1:23–24, 26, 28,
32), come to be expressly reflected in the present passage in its recounting of
the fulfillment of Deuteronomy’s covenant curse of exile through the quota-
tion of Isaiah. Paul, therefore, is typologically portraying this rebellion and
plight of humanity through the sin and captivity of Israel in its experience of
the Babylonian exile. Israel in its history was thus the divinely-chosen in-
strument to mediate the knowledge of God through projecting a large-scale
and graphic portrait of the state of the world in its guilt and alienation from
God, a revelation reinforcing both the forensic confrontation within general
revelation as well as God’s overt action in “handing over” humanity (corpo-
rately and individually) to the tyrannical dominion of sin and death (de-
scribed above). This relation is reinforced as the condemnation of the hypo-
critical moralist in Rom 2:1–5, equal in guilt with the blatantly idolatrous
humanity of 1:18–32, comes to full expression in Paul’s description of the
hypothetical Jew in vv. 17–23,231 with each being condemned by the typolog-
ical portrait of captive Israel in Rom 2:24.

230
See above in chapter three, “Warrant for Viewing a Broad Isaianic Influence on Ro-
mans 1:18–3:20,” and “Isaiah 52:5/Romans 2:24 in the Context of Romans 1:18–3:8.”
231
Cranfield (Romans, 163) notes that the opening de. of Rom 2:17 sets vv. 17ff in an
adversative relation to vv. 12–16. On the relation between Rom 2:1ff and 2:17–24,
Käsemann comments (Romans, 68), “The phrase in v. 3, o` kri,nwn . . . kai. poiw/n auvta,, is
now established.” Sanday and Headlam, observing the significance of the conjunction in
224 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

The three major allusive movements of this section appear to be: 1) the al-
lusion to the Servant of the Lord as a guide to the blind and a light to those in
darkness in Rom 2:19 (Isa 42:6–7, 16, 19; Isa 49:6, 9; cf. also 29:10); 2) the
allusion to the covenant law of Deuteronomy 5 in Rom 2:21–22; 3) the quota-
tion of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, which recalls Deuteronomy’s promised curse of
exile both by virtue of its connection with the preceding, as well as through a
subtle echo of Ezekiel 36 and the theme of the profanation of God’s name.232
Item one employs irony to signify both Israel’s guilt as well as the answer to
that guilt in the ministry of the Servant of the Lord. Item two highlights the
covenant context out of which arises both Israel’s captivity as well as the
redemptive promise inherent in the covenant (cf., e.g., Rom 2:25–29; 10:4–
8). Item three takes up this covenant context in describing Israel’s captivity as
a result of its sin, yet by implication, both in reference to items one and two,
points to the answer to that plight in the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord
(the goal toward which Paul drives his argument in 3:21–26). These items,

Rom 2:21, state, “ou=n : resumptive, introducing the apodosis to the long protasis in vv. 17–
20 . . . Here is the ‘Thou art the man’ which we have been expecting since ver. 1” (Ro-
mans, 66). On this relationship between the self-righteous person in Rom 2:1–5 and the
self-righteous Jew in Rom 2:17–24, see also Richard Bell, No One Seeks for God, 184–
85(ff). He writes, “. . . whereas 2.1–5 concerns any self-righteous person, 2.17–24 con-
cerns the self-righteous Jew. But why the self-righteous Jew? Is not such language a step
backwards in the light of the ‘progress’ made in Pauline studies? I think not, for there are
indications in the Pauline writings that Paul can write about the self-righteous Jew . . . if
Rom. 2.1–5 refers to the self-righteous person generally, why cannot 2.17–24 refer to the
self-righteous Jew? Not only are both passages in the second person singular, but also the
content is similar. Both passages deal with people who think they are righteous and judge
others, but in fact are really no better than those they judge.”
Regarding the nature of the Jew’s false confidence, Bell observes, (187), “. . . the alter-
natives either boasting in possession of the law or boasting in performance of the law are
false alternatives in Rom. 2:17–24. I suggest that both ideas are to be found in 2.17 and
2.23.” On this boasting as including performance, see also Rudolf Bultmann, “kauca,omai,
etc.,” TDNT, 3:645–54 (see esp. 648–50).
On the nature of “boasting” in Romans, see also Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, 113–
24. Of particular note is Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting? (see esp. 200–15). He
concludes his discussion on Rom 2:17–24 by stating (215), “We saw first that Paul’s dia-
logue partner is a Jew throughout Romans 2, and that he, being unrepentant, is heading for
condemnation. Further, this is a very serious charge because this Ioudaios represents the
nation as a whole . . . the relationship between obedience and reliance on the Law in the
texts above might be better described as reliance upon the Law presupposing or including
obedience to it.”
232
The subtle allusion to the profanation of God’s name in Ezek 36:20–23 is discerned
by virtue of the fact that it carries into Rom 2:25–29 with the themes of heart renewal and
obedience to God’s commands through the work of the Spirit (Ezek 36:24–27). Ezekiel is
thus used to reinforce the covenant context of Deuteronomy with its promised restoration,
a restoration which Paul scripturally conveys through allusive and overt reference to Isai-
ah.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 225

therefore, both build upon and reinforce one another. Similar to Paul’s use of
the Psalms in Rom 2:6 and 3:4, each of these scriptural references have both
negative and positive significance; though powerfully used to bring the full
weight of guilt to bear upon the soul, they nevertheless overwhelmingly point
to the sure refuge from guilt and wrath found in the covenant.
(a) The allusions to the Servant of the Lord in Romans 2:19. One of the
principal metaphors strongly associated with Isaiah’s typology of captivity is
that of spiritual blindness,233 a theme introduced in chapter 6 (vv. 9–13) in
what many consider to be a paradigmatic chapter, an adumbration of the
prophecy. 234 The theme recurs throughout Isaiah and is explicitly employed
by Paul in his quotation of Isa 29:10 in Rom 11:8. 235 Paul’s use of this text
demonstrates the fact that he draws the theme of spiritual blindness from
Isaiah, and could also point to Paul’s allusive use of Isaiah 29 in the present
passage in conjunction with Isaiah 42 (vv. 6–7, 16, 19) and 49 (vv. 6, 9).236 In

Seifrid (“Unrighteous,” 133) describes the relation of Rom 2:24 to 1:24–32, 3:9 and
7:14 in terms of its typological portrayal of captivity to sin. He states, “This last passage
[7:14] directly recalls the description of Israel’s exile in Isaiah 50:1 . . . and suggests that
the same image lies behind Romans 3:9 and 2:24.”
233
Wagner (Heralds, 246) discusses the prevalence of this theme throughout the proph-
ecy. Commenting on Isa 29:10 (quoted by Paul in Rom 11:8, and likely standing behind his
use of the motif in this passage), he states that it is “. . . one link in a chain of texts, an-
chored in Isaiah 6:9–10 and extending as far as chapter 61, that depicts Israel’s alienation
from God as blindness and deafness and that correspondingly picture Israel’s redemption
as the opening of the eyes and ears.” See, e.g., Isa 6:9–12; 29:9–10, 18; 32:3–4; 35:5;
(40:26;) 42:7, 16, 18–25; 43:8; 44:18; 52:8, 15; 56:10; 59:10; 61:1. The necessity of this
spiritual perception relates ultimately to the gift of actual sight in eschatological recreation
with its vision of the King (e.g., Isa 6:5; 25:9; 29:18–19; 32:1–3; 33:17, 20–24; 35:1–10 [v.
5]; ?42:16; ?52:8; 60:1–5).
234
See, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 53–54.
235
This is a conflated quotation with Deut 29:4, and so is similar to Paul’s use of Isaiah
together with Deuteronomy in the present passage. On the use of these texts together in
Romans 11, which includes an allusion to Isa 6:9–10, see Wagner, Heralds, 244–57. Cf.
also the Appendix.
236
Most scholars recognize this section of Isaiah to run from chapter 28 through either
chapter 32 or 33 (with 33 connected either with its preceding or following section). So,
e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 200; Grogan, Isaiah, 174–75; Kaiser, Isaiah, 234ff; Oswalt, Isaiah,
504–5; and esp. Seitz, Isaiah, 203–8. The remaining segments of the larger section (chps.
28–39) would be chapters 34–35 and 36–39.
That this section of Isaiah is significant to Paul is obvious. From this section Paul also
draws the themes of the messianic stone of testing (Isa 28:16/Rom 9:33; 10:11), the ad-
monition to repent in light of coming judgment (Isa 28:22/Rom 9:28), and Israel’s re-
sistance to trust the Lord’s redemptive promise (Isa 29:16; 45:9/Rom 9:20).
In addition to the theme of blindness (Isa 29:9–12, 18), other possible allusions to this
section of Isaiah in Rom 2:17–24 could include: the proper object of faith and source of
rest being the redemptive promise (e.g., Isa 28:12; 30:15; cf. Rom 2:17); the prophetic
vision of judgment and promise understood in conjunction with the law and its covenant
226 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

the context of Isa 29:10, Israel’s spiritual blindness corresponds both with her
deliberate refusal to trust in the saving promises of the Lord and her foolish
and vain attempts to secure deliverance for herself (Isa 29:13–16; 30:1–3);237
it is a culpable blindness, a rejection of truth, which results in captivity (29:1–
4; 30:15–17), themes which resonate powerfully in this section of Romans.
This linking of the themes of blindness and captivity carry over into Isaiah
40–55, and similarly form the backdrop of Isa 42:6–7, 16, to which Paul
likely alludes in 2:19. 238 In fact, three of the key terms of Rom 2:19, tuflo,j,
fw/j, and sko,toj, appear within one verse of each other in the LXX only in Isa
42:6–7, 16; and 59:9–10,239 though in Isaiah 49 fw/j and sko,toj, echoing
Isaiah 42, stand in close contextual relation (vv. 6 and 9), and are accompa-
nied by the theme of the granting of spiritual sight (v. 7; cf. 52:15). In all
three passages “blindness” and/or “darkness” refer/s to the spiritual state of
captive Israel, though in Isaiah 42 and 49 the reference widens to include the

framework (e.g., 29:11–12; 30:8–9; Rom 2:18, 20, 21); and the theme of the prophetic
word as teacher (28:9; 30:20–21; cf. Rom 2:20–21). The emphasis of the overall context,
moreover, is the divine call to repentance and faith (e.g., Isa 28:12, 16; 30:15, 18), yet this
emphasis is combined with Israel’s misplaced trust and resistance to believe God’s saving
promise (e.g., Isa 28:9–22; 29:13–16; 30:9–17).
On the theme of Isaiah 28–33 as misplaced trust, see esp. Oswalt, Isaiah, 504ff.
237
Paul alludes to Isa 29:16 and 45:9 in Rom 9:20–21 (Ellis, Shum, Wagner, Wilk),
with both passages describing resistance to God’s saving plan. This use of these two sec-
tions of Isaiah together in Romans 9 supports a similar approach here with reference to
both the blindness motif as well as Paul’s earlier use of Isaiah 45.
238
So, e.g., Barrett, Romans, 53 Cranfield, Romans, 166; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 112;
Fitzmyer, Romans, 317; Käsemann, Romans, 70; Kuss, Römerbrief, vol. 1, 85; Moo, Ro-
mans, 162. Most of these scholars include Isa 49:6, 9 as well.
Though Berkley (Broken Covenant, 74–77) cites this as an allusion and gives clear evi-
dence of the verbal and thematic connections between the passages, he surprisingly con-
cludes that it does not function as an exegetical reference for Paul. He bases this conclu-
sion on his perception that “. . . there is no recurrence of Isaiah 42 obvious in Paul” (76).
But while there might not be the recurrence of this specific text, there is (as just discussed)
the recurrence of this very theme, together with Paul’s consistent use of this section of
Isaiah (see notes 236 and 237 above). Berkley also states, “. . . Isaiah 42 gives no evidence
of being used exegetically to interpret another text, nor does it give evidence of being
interpreted itself” (77). Contrary to Berkley’s assessment, however, this theme is signifi-
cantly related to the concept of redemption from the covenant curse of captivity, and
points, along with Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, to the source of that redemption in the person of
the Servant of the Lord. See the continuing discussion.
239
The themes of blindness and captivity are also linked in the larger context of Isa
59:9–10, verses which immediately follow those which Paul quotes in Rom 3:15–17 (cf.
Isa 59:7–8) to depict Israel captive in her sin.
The other key term in Rom 2:19, o`dhgo,j (“guide”), is conceptually reflected in Isa
42:16 as the Lord through His Servant (cf. Isa 42:6–7; cf. also Isa 49:3, 5–6) “leads” (MT
$lh; LXX a;gw) the blind. Paul’s use of o`dhgo,j likely reflects its popularity in metaphorical
discourse.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 227

world. This tragic state of spiritual captivity, portrayed with the metaphors of
blindness and darkness and typified (in Isaiah 42 and 49) in the actual foreign
subjugation and expulsion of Israel from Palestine is vividly illustrated in Isa
8:21–22, alluded to by Paul in Rom 2:9 (see Isa 8:22 and Appendix; Ellis).240
In these verses Israel is depicted as captive, filing out of her land in bitterness
and despair on the way to exile, and is described as being “driven away into
darkness.”
In answer to this dismal state of Israel and the world, it is the Servant in
Isaiah 42 and 49 who shatters the oppressive and enslaving darkness with his
redemptive light (Isa 42:6; cf. Isa 9:1–2). He “. . . open[s] blind eyes and
bring[s] out prisoners from the dungeon, and those who dwell in darkness
from the prison” (Isa 42:7). The Servant as a redemptive light to the nations
in the darkness of captivity, are concepts metaphorically used to depict the
fundamental spiritual component of redemption, a redemption Paul under-
stands as brought to fulfillment in the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord
(e.g., Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5; Rom 3:21–26; 4:25; 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1). Simi-
larly, in Isaiah 59, the spiritual nature of Israel’s captivity comes to the fore-
front as the nation is portrayed as helplessly mired, not in political exile, but
in its sin, and thus separated from its God (Isa 59:1–2ff).241 Israel, groping in
its own blindness and darkness, hopes for light (v. 9), a light that, according
to Paul, dawns only with the rise of messianic redeemer who provides atone-
ment for his people (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9; cf. Rom 3:21–26; cf.
also Rom 1:1–6; 15:12/Isa 11:10).
As Paul reads Isaiah, therefore, it is into this darkness of captivity (Isa
52:5/Rom 2:24; cf. Isa 50:1–2/Rom 3:9; 7:14) that the messianic light of
deliverance shines as the only hope for both Israel and the world (Isa 42:6–7,
16; 49:6, 9/Rom 2:19; cf. Isa 59:15–21).242 Paul, then, very likely reflecting
the irony of Isaiah’s replacement theme (Isa 41:8ff; 42:18, 20–25; 49:3, 5–6),
contends that what the hypothetical Jew considered himself in Rom 2:19, the
o`dhgo,j (“leader/guide”), the one who would deliver captive people from the
blindness and darkness of spiritual bondage, is, in fact, what he himself (and
the majority of the nation) desperately needs. Paul’s description of Israel as a
“light to those who are in darkness,” then, is deliberately intended to evoke

240
See above, pp. 212–13.
241
Westermann comments on chapter 59 (Isaiah, 350), “Everything said in vv. 16–20
points to an intervention of this kind against foes from without, which means the interna-
tional sphere. But as against this ch. 59 has never even mentioned foes from without.
According to vv. 3–8 and 13–15a the threat comes from the transgression or the actions of
the transgressors within Israel.”
See also, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 486–88; Hanson, Isaiah, 210; Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 513,
note 28.
242
In reference to Isa 8:21–22 cited above, cf. also Isa 9:1–2.
228 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

this contrast in Isaiah 40–55 between Israel and the Servant, a contrast that
itself points to the need for the Servant’s redemptive sacrifice.243
This point raises the question of the appropriateness of Paul’s treatment of
“the Jew” throughout this section.244 The hypothetical Jew in this scenario
represents neither a caricature of Jews nor Judaism, but represents (as in Rom
2:1–4, 14–15 above) the universal, this-worldly forensic confrontation that
anticipates the final judgment, intended to disclose one’s place as either with-
in or without God’s saving covenant. In this forensic confrontation the law
plays the crucial and discriminating role – either “standing without” as judge,
or residing within as a testimony to the recreated life through the Spirit (cf.
Rom 2:25–29).245 It is this role of the law – based on the view of Rom 2:16
discussed above – that is incorporated into and reinforces the primary dis-
criminatory role of the gospel. Paul’s “target,” therefore, is not Judaism in the
sense of the faith and obedience rightly advocated by the scriptures of Israel,
but, contextually, a hypothetical Jew representative of the nation in its unbe-
lief (cf. 2:17–20; 3:3–6; chaps. 9–11).246 The sin of this hypothetical Jew
reveals that he has not, in fact, repented and experienced the subsequent cir-
cumcision of the heart, a reality ultimately disclosed through the rejection of
the gospel.247 This hypothetical Jew, then, in the darkness of his own captiv-

243
See, e.g., Gignilliat, Paul and Isaiah’s Servants, 72–75, 80. He states regarding Isa
54:17, “What is taking place is a backward looking at the suffering of the Servant who has
become ~[ tyrb, that is, the one who in connection with the first servant song is a light to
the nations and the restorer of Israel. The Servant is God’s demonstration of covenant
loyalty to both Israel and mankind.” On this ~[ tyrb (“covenant of the people”), see Isa
42:6; 49:8; as it comes to fulfillment in 55:3–4.
244
See Christopher Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 146–47.
Steve Moyise has a helpful discussion on this issue (Evoking Scripture, 34–36), and sets
out various scholarly approaches to this difficult subject. He notes, e.g., the view of Rom
2:17–24 as a blanket indictment of the Jews in general (e.g., Dodd, Romans, 64); those
who take a “Sermon on the Mount” approach, that emphasizes the inward nature of the law
against which all fail (e.g., Barrett, Romans, 169); and the view of the passage as reflecting
the Jews national pride in possession of the law over against the failure of some, which
nullifies the advantage of its possession (e.g., Dunn, Romans 1–8, 116).
245
This metaphor is intended to reflect Rom 2:25–29. It is, of course, true that God’s
law is “inward” to all inasmuch as it is inscribed upon the human conscience. Though
inward in that sense, the law nevertheless plays a role in which it stands independently
over-against the individual as the standard of judgment through which the conscience
renders its verdict of guilt. Cf., e.g., Rom 1:32; 2:2–3, 14–15, and p. 191, note 148 above.
246
Simon Gathercole (Where Is Boasting, 199) states, “. . . this Jew is not merely an in-
dividual but a representative of the nation. This is clear from the designations in Romans
2:19–20.” Gathercole concludes (200), “So, three elements can be affirmed as to the identi-
ty of the interlocutor in Romans 2: he is a Jew; he is a Jew who has not believed the gos-
pel; and he is a representative of the nation as a whole.”
247
Paul’s discussion, therefore, has intended implications in his continuing discussion
for the nation as a whole. Paul’s ultimate point, hinted at in this section in Rom 2:16 but
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 229

ity to sin, desperately needs the redemptive light of the Servant of the Lord, a
reality powerfully conveyed through Israel’s own history in Isaiah’s typology
of captivity.
But the blindness of national Israel within the Isaianic typology also plays
a vital role in disclosing the universal nature of the redemptive plan of God.
Israel as a blind and deaf witness (Isa 43:8–10) highlights God’s sovereignty
with reference to his use of the chosen people to mediate the knowledge of
God to the world, even in their unbelief.248 Israel’s role as a witness comes
prominently to the fore in Isa 43:8ff. Here the covenant nation, though blind
and deaf, is called forth within the trial motif to bear silent testimony to
God’s unique power in his role as Creator (vv. 1, 7, 15), Judge (vv. 9, 13, 26–
28), and Redeemer (vv. 11–12, 14–21). This use of Israel as a witness in spite
of its blindness is intended to emphasize that God’s acts with regard to that
nation in its exile and deliverance are designed to bear testimony to all peo-
ples, not only of universal guilt and coming judgment, but also of the redemp-
tion available to all in the saving covenant he mediates through his chosen
people. 249 God’s acts toward Israel reiterate the fall, reiterate God’s act of
handing over humanity into the power of sin, reiterate the witness of the inner
tribunal, and so reiterate God’s sole and absolute claim upon the human heart;
this combined testimony expressed preeminently through the typology of

brought to the forefront in Romans 9–11, is that one’s position with respect to Israel’s
promised final deliverance is disclosed through one’s response to the gospel. As Paul’s
argument continues, the “hypothetical Jew” is related to the unbelief of “some” in Israel in
Rom 3:3, which subject is then taken up on a large scale in chapters 9–11, culminating in
the nation’s reentrance into the saving covenant through faith in the Isaianic redeemer in
Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9 (a passage the significance of which is more closely
defined through its intertextual connection with Rom 3:21–26 and Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7;
53:1).
Most non-Christian Jews of Paul’s day would readily acknowledge that the promised
restoration of Israel described in such passages as Deuteronomy 30 and 32, Isaiah 59–60,
Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 had not yet occurred. This fact, together with the historical
reality of national Israel’s covenant breach and exile recounted by Paul in this passage,
would at least cause some to wonder where they stood in relation to the promised restora-
tion characterized by the circumcision of the heart, and how this standing related to this
new claim of redemption through the sacrificial death and resurrection of the Messiah.
248
This theme of God triumphing through Israel’s unbelief becomes central to Rom
3:1–8, and is then taken up in greater detail in Romans 9–11.
249
This is expressly stated in Isa 45:6 in which God’s purpose to redeem Israel through
Cyrus is “. . . that men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no
one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other . . .” This uniqueness of God demon-
strated through Israel is repeated throughout the chapter in vv. 14, 18, 21 and culminates in
v. 22: “Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no
other.” With this unity of saving purpose established and brought to somewhat of a climax
in chapter 45, the focus of the prophecy shifts to center more directly on Israel as repre-
sentative of and central to God’s saving purposes.
230 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Israel points to the necessity of the messianic redemption. This necessity,

therefore, surfaces powerfully within Paul’s scriptural argument in Rom
2:24/Isa 52:5, as Israel bears witness through a typological reenactment that
not only recalls the fall but foreshadows the ultimate redemption through the
Servant.
(b) The allusion to the covenant law of Deuteronomy 5 in Romans 2:21–
22. The implied blindness and captivity of Rom 2:19 is reinforced in verses
21–22 and situated within a covenant context. Though these verses echo the
Ten Commandments thundered first from Sinai in Exodus 20 and then reiter-
ated by Moses in Deuteronomy 5, Paul’s continuing discussion (Rom
2:24/25–29) strongly suggests that he has the covenant context of Deuteron-
omy in view.250 Rom 2:24–29 share with Deuteronomy both the themes of
Israel’s captivity for its covenant breach (Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5; e.g., Deut
29:22–28) as well as the promise of restoration through repentance with its
subsequent “circumcision of the heart” (Rom 2:4, 29; e.g., Deut 10:16; 30:1–
10).
In Rom 2:21–22 the hypothetical Jew represents one whose lawless actions
designate him as standing outside the saving covenant, a reality reinforced

250
Berkley (Broken Covenant, 82–87) supports a reference to Jer 7:1–15 in Rom 2:17–
29 based upon their common use of the sins of stealing and adultery, as well as the misuse
of “the name of God.” For example, Jer 7:9–10 reads, “Will you steal, murder, and commit
adultery, and swear falsely, and offer sacrifices to Baal, and walk after other gods that you
have not known, then come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My
name, and say, ‘We are delivered!’ – that you may do all these abominations?” He also
attempts to derive temple robbery in Rom 2:22 from Jer 7:11, which reads, “‘Has this
house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your sight? Behold, I, even
I, have seen it,’ declares the LORD.”
The word i`erosule,w in Rom 2:22 refers either to the specific sin of “temple robbery,”
or to the more general concept of “committing sacrilege.” In the context of Jeremiah, the
acts of stealing on the part of the people, combined with their superstitious, religious trust
in the temple for protection, led to Jeremiah’s use of the metaphor of the house of the Lord
described as “a robbers’ den.” So while the specific indictment of “temple robbery” does
not find a basis in Jeremiah, there could be a possible conceptual connection with sacrilege
more generally (if that is how Paul is understanding it).
Setting this issue aside, however, the respective vice lists in Jeremiah and Romans only
match in the two instances of stealing and adultery. Vice lists, moreover, are common in
the OT (as he himself acknowledges), so that this list in itself anchors Paul’s text in Jere-
miah far less than in Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5, which of course contain the com-
mandment prohibiting idolatry. Further, in Jeremiah the name of God is consistently tied to
the temple (“this house, which is called by my name”) and the abuses specifically related
to it. Finally, there is, to be sure, a basic conceptual overlap with Romans in terms of sin
and exile in the wider context of Jeremiah, but these themes in Jeremiah undoubtedly stem
from its basis in the covenant of Deuteronomy. If there is a slight allusion to Jeremiah 7,
therefore, it points back to and reinforces the covenant context of Deuteronomy, while
highlighting the illegitimacy of false confidence.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 231

through the alignment of this one with the typology of Israel’s exile which
lies below the surface, about to emerge in 2:24. Within both the typology and
its application to the spiritual state of the imagined Jew, Paul’s reference to
the Jew’s failure to obey the commandments must be understood as a failure
to fulfill the law as understood in its fullest possible sense, i.e., in its true
sense.251 This is warranted first and foremost by the emphasis on the inward
nature of the law in the immediate context (Rom 2:14–16, 25–29),252 but also
by his prohibition against “coveting” in his more extended treatment of hu-
man inability to keep the law in Romans 7 (see, e.g., vv. 5–8). The combina-
tion of the commands of Romans 2 within both its immediate and larger con-
text, epitomized in the inward requirement not to covet, is reminiscent of the
“antithesis” of Matthew 5 and reveals the absolute nature of the demand of
the law as well as the impossibility of fulfilling it independent of divine re-
newal.253 This understanding of human inability to “do” the law is further
confirmed in Rom 13:8–10, in which the prohibitions against adultery, steal-

251
E.g., Cranfield, Romans, 169. This assertion here is meant to highlight a consistency
with the deeds done out of a repentant heart earlier in the chapter (e.g., vv. 7, 10, 13–15;
cf. vv. 25–29).
On the question of the nature and significance of the term i`erosule,w (temple robbery;
sacrilege), see the discussion in Berkley, Broken Covenant, 129–33. He rightly notes, “Any
hypothesis to account for the charges Paul makes must deal adequately with the legitimacy
and universal application of the charges, and the connection of idolatry with temple rob-
bery which Paul implies” (133).
It could well be, however, that sacrilege in the broader sense is in view. Perhaps what
Paul mentions here is meant to be understood in intertextual connection with the idolatry
expressed in Rom 1:23 and 25 and reflected also in Rom 3:3–4. The idolatrous exchange of
the truth of God for a lie within the continuing argument comes to be expressed in a nega-
tive response to both the law and the gospel. In this understanding, therefore, a refusal to
embrace the truth of God’s promise as expressed in the law and fulfilled in the gospel (cf.
Rom 2:16), with its resulting circumcision of the heart, is in effect profaning the holy – it
is refashioning the image of God, and thus a form of idolatrous exchange as in Romans 1.
This charge, then, relates to the previous two; to possess the law, yet lack the reality of
God’s law in the heart reveals a profanation of the law (and gospel). This view of the
passage, in which rejection of the law and gospel is considered profanation, would be
similar to the sentiment expressed in Heb 10:28–31, “Anyone who has set aside the Law of
Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer
punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and
has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has
insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will re-
pay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the
hands of the living God.”
252
Note again this emphasis in the linguistic connection between “the secrets of men”
(ta. krupta. tw/n avnqrw,pwn) in Rom 2:16, and Rom 2:29 in which the same term (krupto,j)
occurs: “. . . he is a Jew who is one inwardly . . .” (o` evn tw/| kruptw/| VIoudai/oj). See
Cranfield, Romans, 163.
253
On Matthew, see esp. Roland Deines, “Not the Law but the Messiah,” 77–81.
232 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

ing, and coveting are reiterated (with the additional prohibition against mur-
der) and subsumed under the command to love. This the believer alone, deriv-
ing life from the Spirit through the sacrifice of Christ (Rom 8:1–4; cf. 1:1–4;
Gal 5:22–23), has the capacity to obey. 254 This understanding of the law at
this juncture in the epistle underscores human helplessness in sin and guilt
and hence marks the necessity of recreation within the covenant promise, and
therefore also anticipates the discussion of the circumcision of the heart in
2:25–29. The source of this recreation, however, is alluded to in Rom 2:24,
and points to the basis of Deuteronomy’s promise of ultimate and final resto-
ration in the Isaianic good news, the fulfillment of God’s pledge to atone for
his land and his people (Deut 32:43).
(c) The quotation of Isaiah 52:5 in Romans 2:24. Related to this covenant
context, and as mentioned above, 255 Paul following the LXX adds two
phrases to the MT reading of Isa 52:5 (“among the Gentiles,” “because of
you”), phrases which evoke the wider context of the citation and focus atten-
tion on Israel’s sin and its resulting captivity. 256 But before this contextual
254
N. T. Wright (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 512) observes the verbal and con-
ceptual relation between the fulfillment of the righteous requirements of the law by the
uncircumcised in Rom 2:26 (ta. dikaiw,mata tou/ no,mou fula,ssh|) and by believers in Rom
8:4 (to. dikai,w ma tou/ no,mou plhrwqh/|). This link, moreover, helps to confirm the new
exodus background in Romans 2 as it is expressed in a typology that anticipates the messi-
anic redemption, and then recapped in Romans 8 with the exodus allusions framed by
Isaianic allusions to the sacrifice of the Servant (see Appendix).
255
See above, “Isaiah 52:5/Romans 2:24 in the Context of Romans 1:18–3:8.”
256
Paul is also likely alluding subtly to Ezekiel 36 here, which emphasizes the profana-
tion of God’s name during Israel’s captivity. This allusion becomes evident, however, only
as one moves into verses 25–29 with its emphasis on the divine work in the heart enabling
one to do God’s law. Even in those verses, however, the primary allusive reference is to
Deut 30:6, which shares with Rom 2:29 the concept of God’s circumcision of the heart.
See, e.g., Wagner, Heralds, 177, note 172; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 812–
14; Timothy Berkley, Broken Covenant, e.g., 90–94 (though Berkley greatly overestimates
Ezekiel’s role here, particularly as against Isa 52:5; discussed further below).
Interestingly, Ezek 36:20ff contains the themes of God’s divine work in the heart ena-
bling His people to keep the law through the Spirit, resulting in restoration to the land
which is made like Eden. This is very similar to the Isaianic material, which extends the
continuity with the context of Romans not only through its typology, but by basing this
divine work of restoration in the “good news” of the messianic redemption.
On this relationship between OT backgrounds, Moo notes that while Isaiah 52:5 is lin-
guistically closer to Paul’s citation, Ezek 36:20 is conceptually closer to Paul’s application
(Romans, 166). In response it may be said that if simply blasphemy on the part of Gentiles
due to Israel’s sin is in view, this could very well be true (see, e.g., Dodd, Romans, 39;
Käsemann, Romans, 69). Paul’s purposes, however, are to draw on the broader categories
of captivity to sin and liability in divine judgment that are the necessary prelude to access-
ing the grace of God, a grace that is messianically mediated. Though the context of Ezek
36:20 includes several aspects of continuity with the Romans context, Isa 52:5 forms part
of the cohesive, Isaianic theological narrative that links Paul’s theological points in this
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 233

significance can be discussed in detail, the question of whether or not Paul’s

quotation is itself contextual must be addressed. 257 Some have contended that
Paul’s citation is simply a proof-text,258 or worse, manifestly uncontextual.259

section with his continued development of these themes throughout the rest of the epistle.
(See more in the discussion further below.)
257
For a full discussion of the question of the contextual nature of Paul’s citation of Isa
52:5 in Rom 2:24, see Steve Moyise, Evoking, 36–48. He discusses primarily the views of
Stanley, Berkley, Hays, and Wagner. The first two support a “non-contextual” view of the
passage, while the latter two argue for a “contextual view.” (For a condensed introduction,
reference also Moyise, “Quotations,” 22–23.) See further below.
258
So, for instance Timothy Berkley, Broken Covenant, 136–40. Berkley, remarkably,
states, “There is no evidence that Isaiah 52 functions exegetically as a reference for Paul. It
serves the separate rhetorical function of a proof-text offering supporting authority for
Paul’s conclusion, which has its basis in Ezekiel 36” (139).
The basis of Berkley’s argument is his methodology for uncovering Paul’s “reference
texts,” which he understands to be the site of Paul’s exegetical activity. To “uncover” these
reference texts, he employs a set of criteria that have much overlap with Hays’ criteria (see
60–64). These reference texts, however, do not operate like allusions which are often
understood as deliberately employed to convey information to the readers, but are rather
intended to remain hidden from view; yet through the employment of criteria they may in
fact be uncovered. For example, he states, “Pauline exegesis in Romans 2 lies below the
surface of the text, and is not set out for the readers’ inspection” (24). He seems to rely
heavily on the criteria of “links with other texts” (62), which, while often demonstrable
within the OT, creates a breadth of interrelated themes that necessarily appear here and
there in Paul, but which do not always strongly suggest a specific OT context in a given
Pauline passage.
Berkley’s greatest methodological weakness, however, is his disparagement of Paul’s
overt OT citations, particularly in light of the fact that Paul’s more allusive references are
often employed in tandem with these more overt references. With respect to Berkley’s
relegation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 into the category of a proof-text, Steve Moyise writes
(Evoking Scripture, 47), “. . . it is difficult to understand why Berkley downplays the role
of Isa. 52.5 when Isa. 52.7 is quoted later in the letter. Indeed, it is difficult to see why he
downplays the role of quotations generally, when Romans contains over sixty of them.
They cannot all be summarizing proof texts!”
Moyise exposes Berkley’s self-contradictory position in claiming certain texts as
sources for Paul’s hidden exegetical activity while at the same time asserting that if Paul’s
readers were aware of this background it would contribute to greater understanding. He
quotes a particular footnote of Berkley’s, which states, “This is not to assume that the
original readers were aware of Paul’s references to those texts. But for those who were
they give a greater understanding of how this passage fits into the larger whole of the
epistle” (119, note 30). Moyise observes that the footnote “. . . reveals Berkley’s ambiva-
lence at this point” (47). He goes on to assert, “To my mind, this almost invisible footnote
undermines his whole position. He has been arguing throughout that the key exegetical
reference texts have been deliberately kept from view. To add a caveat at this point, that
readers would gain so much more if they recognized the origin of these texts, suggests that
Berkley has not done justice to Paul’s explicit quotations, where such direction is given.”
Noting that many of the Roman Christians could well have been prompted by Paul’s cita-
234 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

One primary reason some adopt the latter view is the contention that the blas-
phemy described in Isa 52:5 is based, not upon the sin of Israel, but upon the
pitiful state of the captives who, according to the context, were “taken away
without cause.”260
To this it may be responded that Paul clearly evidences a nuanced under-
standing of the passage as related to both the curse of captivity as well as the
blessing of God’s promised redemption. 261 This, in fact, reflects the dual

tion to seek the context of Isaiah 52:5, Moyise states “. . . Berkley’s suggestion that Paul
has deliberately hidden his key exegetical texts seems perverse. Why keep in the back-
ground something that would have greatly enhanced the understanding of his readers?”
These incisive observations seem quite to the point, and indicate several significant
methodological weaknesses of Berkley’s approach. Nevertheless, Berkley does draw out
the significance of Ezekiel 36 in the present passage, though in an overstated form. An
appraisal much more balanced, and cognizant of Isaiah’s relative priority in the passage is
given, e.g., by N. T. Wright, who specifically notes the role of Isa 52:5 in terms of antici-
pating the redemptive righteousness of God expressed in Isaianic terms in Rom 3:21–26.
See Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 812–14.
259
See, e.g., Christopher Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 145–50.
260
Isa 52:5. See, again, Stanley, ibid., 147–48. Stanley states (147), “The ‘informed au-
dience’ would have turned immediately to the original context of the quotation for help in
making sense of the text. In this case they would have found themselves more confused
than helped.” Stanley affirms the importance of scripture for Paul’s audience, yet in this
case their study of scripture would be nullified if Paul misused the sacred text. Certainly in
Rome Paul expected at least some of his audience to be among the informed class.
Concerning Stanley’s appraisal of Paul’s use of scripture here, Steve Moyise (Evoking
Scripture, 46) writes, “. . . Stanley’s reconstruction of even his ‘informed’ reader appears
to be deliberately distant from Paul, almost closer to a modern historical critic than a first-
century Christian. Such a reader apparently knows nothing about Jewish or Christian
exegesis and one wonders how they arrived at their ‘informed’ status.” He goes on to state
that the Romans readers “. . . would presumably have been taught the Christian interpreta-
tion of texts from the beginning. Though we know very little about early catechetical
instruction, we must assume that the contents of the New Testament bear some relationship
to what was being taught in the churches.”
261
For the contextual appropriateness of Paul’s citation, particularly in light of Paul’s
use of Isaiah throughout the epistle, see e.g., Hays, Echoes, 45–46; Conversion, 37–41, 45–
46; Wagner, Heralds, 176–78; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 812–14.
On Paul’s understanding of this passage as relating to the curse of captivity, note, e.g.,
his allusive use of Rom 3:9 and 7:14 referencing Isa 50:1, as well as his use of Rom 3:15–
17/Isa 59:7–8 as intertextually related to both Isa 52:5 and Isa 50:1 (see on those passages
further below, “Isaiah 59:7–8a/Romans 3:15–17 in the Context of Romans 3:9–20” and
“Romans 3:9–20 and the Overarching Isaianic Framework of Captivity and Condemna-
tion”). Paul’s specific assertion that “. . . we have already charged that both Jews and
Greeks are all under sin” (Rom 3:9) points not only to his understanding of Isa 50:1 as
referring to Israel’s captivity (typologically depicting humanity’s enslavement to sin), but
points to the fact that this has already been asserted in the foregoing argument. Even if one
denies the Isaianic allusion in Rom 3:9, the fact remains that Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5 is the only
place in this section in which Israel’s captivity comes specifically into view (cf. Rom 1:24,
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 235

context in which the passage is situated. The words of the passage, particular-
ly as quoted in the LXX,262 relate to what is undeniably part of the entire
context of Isaiah 40–55 – that Israel is in exile because of its sin. This is fun-
damental not only to Isaiah 40–55, but to the prophecy as a whole, from its
very commencement. The opening words of the prophecy (“Listen, O heav-
ens, and hear, O earth . . .” [Isa 1:2]) recall the covenant context of Deuter-
onomy, with the prophecy going on to depict Israel’s transgression of God’s
law leading inevitably to exile (e.g., Isa 5:13–14). This state of exile, then,
cannot be separated from the sinfulness of the people, a fact evident from the
institution of the covenant curses (e.g., Deut 29:24–28), and so clearly re-
flected in Isa 52:5.
But the context of Isa 52:5 within chapters 40–55 is a bit more complex,
for it is set within the larger context of redemption which Israel is called to
appropriate (e.g., Isa 40:1ff; 45:22–25; 54:1ff; 55:1–3ff), so that it stands, as
it were, within a dual context.263 This positive, redemptive theme opens this
major section of the prophecy with the cry, “‘Comfort, O Comfort my people’
says your God” (Isa 40:1). Yet this initial word of comfort quickly transitions
into the trial motif in which Israel’s guilt for transgression of God’s law – a
guilt evidenced by their captive state – is brought quickly to the fore, with the
express purpose of urging the captive people to appropriate the redemptive
promise. This trial motif remains a major emphasis through chapter 50, which
itself describes Israel separated from God because of its sin (to which Rom
3:9 alludes). Chapter 51 is a major transition which begins to build to a cli-
max in the disclosure of the redemptive event in the Servant’s sacrifice in Isa
52:13–53:12. Therefore, the positive light in which Isa 52:5 is set begins
more immediately in Isaiah 51 with the expectation of imminent redemption;
and in light of this imminent redemption the guilt that precipitated the exile is
viewed as already forgiven. But even within this scenario, the necessity to
realize and appropriate this redemption situates Israel conceptually as yet

26, 28); with the acknowledgement of an Isaianic allusion the connection is significantly
strengthened.
But Paul also understands this passage from Isaiah in terms of the anticipation of God’s
promised eschatological redemption. This is evident specifically with regard to his use of
Isa 52:7 and 53:1 in Rom 10:15–16 to depict the announcement of this redemption, a
redemption fulfilled in Rom 11:26–27, quoting Isa 59:20–21; 27:9. Isaiah 52:5, moreover,
ties in more immediately with Paul’s Isaianic allusive network within this section of scrip-
ture, including such significant passages as Rom 1:1–6, 16–17a; 2:16; 3:21–26; 4:25. (For
a description of the Isaianic framework within Romans 1–4 and its relation to the other
major sections of Romans, see, e.g., in chapter two, under “Introduction: The Relation
between Habakkuk and Isaiah in Romans;” see as well as under the given sections cover-
ing the passages above.)
262
See the above (chapter three) textual and contextual discussion, “Isaiah 52:5/Romans
2:24 in the Context of Romans 1:18–3:8.”
263
See the discussion in chapter three above, “Romans 2:1–4 – The Isaianic Backdrop.”
236 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

captive due to its transgression of God’s law (Isa 42:21–25; 50:1–2).264 Paul’s
quotation, therefore, reflects this dual context; it recalls the dire situation of
captivity stemming from Israel’s sin, yet within the wider framework of re-
demption, which is precisely what Paul is doing in this context in Romans (cf.
Rom 1:16–17; 3:21–26) – driving his argument from the reality of captivity
to the manifestation of God’s righteousness in the sacrifice of the Messiah (as
an allusion to Isaiah 53) which his readers are to appropriate by faith (Rom
3:21–26). It is precisely this dual context, therefore, that Paul intends to
evoke, because that is precisely where many of his fellow countrymen stand
(cf. Rom 3:3; 9:1–11:36; cf. esp. 11:11–27); redemption has been accom-
plished, the invitation extended, yet they have not believed the good news
and entered into the promise (Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1). To view Paul as
taking Isa 52:5 out of context, therefore, particularly in light of his nuanced
use of the wider context of the passage in his epistle as a whole, is short-
sighted and unwarranted.
Paul’s quotation of the LXX of Isa 52:5, then, evokes the wider context of
the citation and focuses attention (in part) on Israel’s sin and its resulting
captivity. This reference to Isaiah in the present context, therefore, forges a
thematic intertextual connection with Rom 1:18–32 in which the idolatrous
transgression of humanity that began at creation resulted in their being “given
over” into the power of sin. As also mentioned above,265 this phrase (“God
gave them over”; Rom 1:24, 26, 28) is used by Paul to create a parallel be-
tween Israel and humanity by evoking the many times in the OT in which the
Lord “gave over” Israel into the hands of its enemies because of its sin, an act
of judgment stemming from the covenant which came to its definitive expres-
sion in the Babylonian exile. In Rom 2:17–24 (following the assertion of the
equality of Jew and Gentile in divine judgment in 2:1–16), then, this pattern
reemerges, scripturally sourced in Isaiah (pointing to the wider influence of
the citation), and reinforcing Israel’s typological role. The verses build to-
ward and focus on God’s historical act in banishing Israel for its sin, and so
use this divine action to typologically indict all humanity insofar as they
stand captive in sin, unrepentant, and outside the saving grace available in the
covenant.

264
Within the larger movements of the prophecy, the great redemptive promises of Isai-
ah 40–55 continue unrealized until chapter 59, when the nation at last repents and turns to
its Redeemer (Isa 59:20–21; see above, pp. 159–60; below, pp. 262–67). As has been
mentioned, Paul quotes Isaiah 59 twice, both with reference to Israel’s (and the world’s)
captivity to sin, and with reference to its ultimate repentance and redemption (cf. Rom
3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8; Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9), passages which relate
intertextually within both Isaiah and Romans to Isa 52:5 (Rom 2:24), Isa 52:7 (Rom
10:15), and 53:1 (10:16).
265
See in chapter three above, “The Universal Covenant Context of Wrath and Captiv-
ity (Rom 1:18, 24, 26, 28, 32).”
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 237

Further, because the human exchange of Creator for creature (Rom 1:23)
began at creation (Rom 1:20), an exchange resulting in God’s handing over
humanity into the power of sin (Rom 1:24, 26, 28; 3:9), Israel as a type pow-
erfully reenacts the fall and thus portrays the inevitable human pattern issuing
from Adam.266 Thus, the manifest action of God in his “giving over” Israel
into captivity preeminently discloses the inner, spiritual bondage, not only of
the unrepentant Jew whose life bears no evidence of the circumcision of the
heart, but of the world itself in its alienation from God (cf. Rom 3:9). Finally,
therefore, the contextual relation of this passage, both with the final judgment
according to the Isaianic gospel in 2:16, as well as with the gospel’s realized
eschatological manifestation of righteousness in the messianic sacrifice in
3:21–26, points again to a crucial revelatory continuity – rejection of the
covenant as expressed in the law is part and parcel with rejection of the sav-
ing promise expressed in the gospel.
Therefore also, on the positive side, Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom
2:24 evokes the redemptive promise through its allusive anticipation of the
manifestation of the Lord’s redemptive righteousness in the sacrifice of the
Servant of the Lord (Isa 52:13–53:12).267
But first, Paul’s subtle allusion to Ezek 36:19–28 should be briefly dis-
cussed. This allusion is evident as one proceeds from Rom 2:24 through the
text to Rom 2:29, and so becomes visible primarily through a backward
glance. Ezekiel’s emotive description, given in the words of the Lord himself,
portrays a captive Israel whose sin and exile has caused God’s great and holy
name to be “profaned among the nations” (vv. 20, 21, 22, 23). In vindication
of his holy name the Lord acts to gather and restore his people, cleansing
them, giving them a new heart, and placing his Spirit within them, so as to
cause them to walk in his statutes and keep his ordinances. It is this move-
ment from profanation in captivity (Rom 2:24) to a divine work in the heart
enabling Israel to keep God’s law (Rom 2:25–29, esp. v. 29), that suggests an
allusion to Ezekiel. This text, as itself an allusion to Deuteronomy 30 and 32,
reinforces Paul’s more overt allusive reference to the promised restoration of
Deut 30:6 as expressed in God’s “circumcision of the heart.”268 Paul uses
these texts to suggest the possibility or reality of their present fulfillment in
the lives of some whose hearts have been circumcised by the Spirit. It is this
portrayal of the possibility of present eschatological fulfillment, conveyed

266
On Israel’s recapitulation of the fall, see Seifrid, “Romans,” 613. Jewett comments,
“The plural ‘you’ in the Isaiah formulation diV u`ma/j (‘because of you [pl.]’) serves to
generalize Paul’s point by confirming the universal sinfulness of all (3:9).”
267
This is evident from Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:7 in Rom 10:15 (ibid).
268
Timothy Berkley, in spite of overstating the relative importance of Ezekiel 36 for
Romans throughout his argument, nevertheless admits (Broken Covenant, 101), “Of these
few instances of the concept of heart circumcision in the OT, the context of Deut 30:6
gives the best evidence of being a Pauline referent.”
238 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

explicitly in the call to repentance in Deuteronomy 30 (cf. Rom 2:1–4), that

Paul uses to point to the fuller scriptural disclosure of eschatological realiza-
tion within the redemptive narrative of Isaiah. It is Isaiah that carries the
story, and discloses the basis of God’s realized, eschatological righteousness.
The positive allusive significance of Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5, then, is
conveyed by Paul’s continuing and consistent use of Isaiah’s redemptive
narrative to express both the realized (e.g., Rom 3:21–26; 4:25–5:1; 8:3, 31–
34; see Appendix) and consummated form of eschatological redemption
(Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9),269 both of which find their basis in the
sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. 270 Isa 52:5, moreover, allusively antici-
pates this redemption through its connection to the Isaianic redemptive
framework in both the immediate (2:16; 3:21–26) and wider context (e.g.,
1:1–6, 16–17; 4:25; 10:15–16). Within the context of Isa 52:5 itself, this
positive redemptive reality is evident in the opening of chapter 52; 271 being
justly judged and exiled, Israel’s release in light of her guilt and helplessness
was a matter of pure grace. The passage graphically portrays Israel captive in
her sin, and calls upon her to “rise up and loose herself from the chains
around her neck” and embrace the redemptive promise by faith (Isa 52:1–
2).272 This promise is encapsulated in the proclamation of good news (Isa
52:7; cf. Rom 10:15), the revelation of God’s righteousness in the redemption
achieved by the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord.273 The fulfillment of this
Isaianic redemptive promise surfaces explicitly in Rom 3:21–26; in the pre-
sent text, however, Paul evocatively walks the border line between despair
and hope, marshalling texts intended to open blind eyes to guilt and captivity

269
So also, e.g., Rom 5:1–5 as based on the Isaianic allusion of Rom 4:25; and Rom
8:10–25, as based on the above references, Rom 8:3, 31–34.
270
N. T. Wright, e.g., acknowledges that Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24 both
recalls the narrative of covenant curse and exile and points to the sacrifice of the Serv-
ant/Christ in Rom 3:21–26 (and 4:25). See Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 812–14.
271
On Isa 52:1–6 as a unit, see Childs, Isaiah, 405, who notes that the pattern of Isa
52:1–6 follows the pattern of Isa 51:17–23 in which the exhortation to arise is followed by
an oracle of divine promise.
272
The emphasis in this passage on claiming the redemptive promise by faith is well
expressed by Oswalt, Isaiah, 359–60. He states, “The opening words duplicate almost
precisely those of 51:9, which is the opening of this section. There they were a call by the
people for God to awake and utilize his strength for their deliverance. But God has shown
them (51:9–23) that there is no question concerning either his activity or his attentiveness.
The problem is not with him; he is ready to deliver them at the earliest moment when they
are willing to exercise faith in him. It is they who must awake and put on strength, not he.
This has been a recurring theme from ch. 40 onward, and . . . it comes to something of a
climax here . . .”
273
See under chapter 2 above, “The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s Righteousness:
A Uniquely Isaianic Background,” and “The Isaianic Good News: The Revelation of God’s
Righteousness in the Sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord.”
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 239

that they might also perceive and embrace the promise of redemption. Paul’s
use of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, therefore, plays a leading role (if not the leading
role) among Paul’s scriptural sources in Rom 1:18–3:20. His strategic posi-
tioning of the quotation forms a significant climax to Paul’s inner argument.
Its dual contextual nature within this climax in both typologically portraying
the human plight, and through that typology anticipating the messianic re-
demption, links to Paul’s use of Isaiah’s larger redemptive narrative (1:1–6,
16–17; 2:16; 3:21–26; 4:25), so that the quotation performs the key function
of helping to evoke an Isaianic framework for Romans 1–4 as a whole.274
As Israel, then, within this context of Isaiah, is commanded to rise up and
cloth herself in her beautiful garments, she is given the promise “the uncir-
cumcised and the unclean will no more come into you” (Isa 52:1). In this
redemptive context the assertion can only signify the true inner transfor-
mation and cleansing of those so redeemed. 275 Rom 2:25–29 goes on to dis-
cuss the need for this “inner circumcision,” recalling the covenant context of
Deuteronomy.

(2) The Covenant Promise of Restoration and Its Continuity with the Gospel
(Rom 2:25–29)
The theme of God’s circumcision of the heart evokes a number of OT texts,
including Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25–26 (cf. Ezek 44:7–9).
The theme itself points to the reality of human inability to do what the law
requires.276 In Leviticus, Deuteronomy (30:1–10) and Jeremiah an uncircum-

274
In Rom 2:17–24 the allusion to the Isaianic Servant in the description of Israel as “a
guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness” contains a unique combination of
three terms (tuflo,j, fw/j, and sko,toj) that together have a high volume. They clearly evoke
the context of Isaiah 42 and 59 (as well as chapter 49), being the only LXX passages that
contain these terms. Their use to ironically convey the theme of captivity through the
metaphor of spiritual blindness represents significant thematic coherence between the
wider contexts of Romans and Isaiah, further confirming this allusion. This allusion re-
ceives still further confirmation by the criterion of recurrence, partly by Paul’s derivation
of the theme of spiritual blindness from Isaiah (Rom 11:8/Isa 29:10), but more importantly
by Paul’s explicit quotation of Isaiah 52:5 in Rom 2:24. These references together not only
point to the theme of universal captivity, but anticipate the redemption accomplished by
the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in the larger context of both Isaiah and Romans.
They are therefore integrally related to the larger redemptive-narrative framework. The
citation of Isa 52:5, as mentioned above, is strategically situated, and so the reference
carries great theological weight within its quoted context. Paul’s quotation of Isaiah 52:5 in
particular, then, plays a major role in relation to Paul’s other scriptural references in Rom
1:18–3:20.
275
So, e.g., Motyer, Isaiah, 416; Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 360–61. See further below,
pp. 241–42 (and note 283).
276
Regarding physical circumcision in this passage, Seifrid writes (“Unrighteous,”
135), “. . . Paul understands it in a Deuteronomic manner as a witness to transgression and
240 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

cised heart leads inevitably to the divine judgment of exile and so reflects the
covenantal framework of the blessing and the curse expressed in Deuterono-
my 28. On the basis of this covenant reality, Israel is urged both in Deuteron-
omy and Jeremiah to circumcise their hearts (Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4 – likely a
call to repentance which initiates the divine work in light of Deut 30:2–6),
and thereby enter into the blessing rather than the curse of the covenant.
While these ideas certainly stand behind Paul’s thought in Rom 2:25–29,
Deut 30:6 bears a uniquely striking resemblance to Paul’s immediate and
larger theological scheme.277 In Deut 30:1–10, Israel in its captivity at last
repents (v. 2; cf. Rom 2:4), 278 a repentance marked by true obedience (vv. 2,
8, 10; cf. Rom 2:7, 10[, 14–15]) and which results in restoration from exile
(vv. 3–5; cf. Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5 [by implication]).279 This restoration to God
marked by an inner “heart” obedience to the law, however, is made possible
only by the divine circumcision of the heart (v. 6; cf. Rom 2:29),280 so that in
Deut 30:6 and Rom 2:29 alone in the Old and New Testaments, it is God who
is described as circumcising the heart. Deut 30:1–10, therefore, evidences a

as a promissory sign of the saving work of God which transcends the Law and its de-
mands . . .” One of Seifrid’s main points in his treatment of Rom 2:17–29, in fact, is that
the Judaism which Paul opposes is one which has been influenced by Hellenism at a cru-
cial point, in its positing of the law as a moral instructor intended to inculcate obedience
securing divine favor, rather than an indicator of human fallenness which points to the
desperate need for conversion through the divine promise (see 128–32, and esp. 135).
277
For the relevance of Deuteronomy 30 in Rom 2:25–29 see Seifrid, ibid., 134–35; but
especially Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 921–25, 939–40.
278
Craigie (Deuteronomy, 362), e.g., notes that the backdrop for Deuteronomy 30 is the
curse of captivity in Deuteronomy 28. He further observes that Israel’s ultimate turning to
the Lord and subsequent restoration described in Deuteronomy “. . . was to influence in
many ways the preaching of the prophets in subsequent generations” (363).
On Israel’s final repentance and restoration from captivity in Romans as understood
through Isaiah, cf. Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8; Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9.
279
On the “exploitation” of the term bwv in Deut 30:2 to refer both to repentance and
restoration from captivity, see McConville, Deuteronomy, 423, 426.
The possibility of covenant redemption stemming from repentance (cf. Rom 2:4, 7, 10)
implied in Rom 2:24–29 comes to the surface, e.g., in Rom 3:21–26; 6:6–7, 12ff; 8:1ff;
10:15/Isa 52:7; Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9. In most cases the reference to redemp-
tion is made though quotation or allusion to Isaiah.
280
See, e.g., Craigie, Deuteronomy, 364, who sees this theme of the divine renewal of
the human heart in Deuteronomy 30 reflected in such passages as Jer 31:31–34 and Ezek
36:24–32.
McConville states that Deut 30:6 envisages a future in which Israel’s inability to keep
the covenant was an accomplished fact, and hence the necessity of God’s circumcision of
Israel’s heart to enable them to obey the law of God and so “live” (427). Yet Deut 30:11–
14, which builds on 30:6, asserts that this divine enabling to do the law is available to the
present Moab generation, and therefore to all generations (Deuteronomy, 427–29; cf. Rom
10:6–10). In Deut 30:15–20, then, the coextensive themes of blessing, life, and circumci-
sion of the heart are presented as issuing from the covenant promise to the patriarchs (430).
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 241

close thematic correspondence to Rom 2:1–29, particularly as Rom 2:1–4

expresses a call to repentance likely intended to initiate this divine circumci-
sion of the heart.
This significance of Deuteronomy in the present passage is supported not
only by Paul’s use of this section of Deuteronomy later in the epistle,281 but
by Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in the immediate context in Rom 2:24, which
evokes both the covenant context of captivity as well as the ultimate hope of
redemption. Paul’s allusive reference to “the circumcision of the heart” unites
and dovetails the promise of redemption and restoration in the covenant con-
text of Deuteronomy with the redemptive narrative of Isaiah. In Isaiah the
covenant context of Deuteronomy is taken up and expanded not only in terms
of the typological role of Israel but also and preeminently in terms of the
messianic mediation of redemption through the Servant of the Lord and the
covenant he inaugurates through his sacrificial death as the basis of the prom-
ise of recreation expressed in the circumcision of the heart.282 It is this ex-

281
E.g., Deut 30:11–14 in Rom 10:6–10; Deut 29:4/Isa 29:10 in Rom 11:8. On Deut
29:2–30:20 as a section drawing out the significance of the covenant curses and blessings
of Deuteronomy 28, see McConville, Deuteronomy, 413–14, 423.
282
On the manner in which the narrative of Deuteronomy is taken up and expanded in
the prophetic books, especially Isaiah, and reflected in Paul, see N. T. Wright, Paul and the
Faithfulness of God, 734–36, 1246–47, 1453–55, 1464–65. On Paul’s use of Deuteronomy
(particularly chapters 29–32) together with Isaiah in Romans, see esp. Hays, Echoes, 163–
64; Wagner, Heralds, 354–56. For the combination of specific quotations, see Deut 32:21
and Isa 65:1–2 in Rom 10:19–20; Deut 29:4 and Isa 29:10 (cf. Isa 6:9–10) in Rom 11:8;
Deut 32:43 and Isa 11:10 in Rom 15:10–12. To this may be added the continuity Paul
presents between a faith approach to the law in Deut 30:12–14 (an allusion in Rom 10:6–
10) and a faith response to the gospel in Rom 10:11–16 (v. 11 quoting Isa 28:16; vv. 15–16
quoting Isa 52:7; 53:1), as well as the allusion to God’s provoking Israel to jealousy in
Deuteronomy (32:21/Rom 11:11–14) eventuating in the ultimate salvation of Israel depict-
ed by means of a quotation to Isaiah (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9).
Regarding Paul’s use of these two scriptural sources together in Romans 9–11, Wagner
writes (Heralds, 355), “This interpretive strategy suggests that Paul understands Isaiah and
Deuteronomy to be telling the same epic story of the triumph of God’s faithfulness over
Israel’s unfaithfulness.” On the typological use of both OT books in tandem, Hays states
(164), “Deuteronomy parallels Isaiah’s crucial hermeneutical turn: both texts have already
read the history of Yahweh’s dealing with Israel typologically, as a prefiguration of a
larger eschatological design . . . His typological reading strategy extends a typological
trajectory begun already in the texts themselves.”
The subject of circumcision in Romans appears next in Romans 4:10ff, in which it is an
outward “sign” (shmei/on) of Abraham’s righteousness which he appropriated through faith
in the saving promise while he was uncircumcised, a faith the content of which comes to
salvation-historical fulfillment in the Isaianic allusion to Jesus being “. . . delivered up
because of our transgressions, and . . . raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:25; Ellis,
Shum, Wagner, Wilk).
242 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

pression of God’s righteousness in the eschatological redemption of Israel

and the world that becomes prominent in Rom 3:21–26.
Furthering this relation, then, is the fact that in the immediate context of
Isa 52:5 the subject of circumcision is similarly taken up (Isa 52:1). In this
atmosphere of piqued anticipation and invitation the assertion to Zion that
“the uncircumcised and the unclean will no more come into you” must have
reference to those who have entered into the promised messianic salvation
and so experienced this inner transformation and renewal.283 This is evident
both in the previous “uncleanness” of Israel itself epitomized in the prophet
(Isa 6:5), as well as in the future participation of the nations in the eschato-
logical salvation of Jerusalem (e.g., Isa 2:1–4; 60:1–22). Deuteronomy uses
heart-circumcision as a metaphorical depiction of the removal of the sinful
nature and renewal of the heart that enables one to keep the commands of
God. Isaiah grounds this spiritual circumcision (which characterizes Israel’s
release from captivity) in the redemptive work of the Suffering Servant, so
that it is manifestly a work of divine grace (cf. Rom 3:24). Paul’s use of Deut
30:6 in conjunction with Isaiah, therefore, aligns the proper, repentant re-
sponse to the law advocated by Deuteronomy 30 (and reflected in Rom 2:1–
4ff) with the response of faith in the Isaianic gospel, a relation clarified in the
larger argument by the portrayal of a captive and condemned humanity typi-
fied in Israel as a prelude to the Isaianic redemptive righteousness in Rom
3:21–26.
The intertextual relation of this passage with Romans 4 via the concept of
circumcision, moreover, finds the true significance of circumcision to be a
sign of having embraced the redemptive promise by faith. This creates
(again) a salvation-historical trajectory in the promise first given to Abraham
(which includes a repentant/faith embrace of the law [e.g., Rom 2:1–4, 25–
29; 10:6–8, 16]) that culminates in the message of the redemptive death of the
Servant of the Lord (Rom 4:22–25). This combined scriptural witness, more-
over, serves as a mirror on one’s spiritual condition by pointing to “doing the
283
So Childs, Isaiah, 405–6; Motyer, Isaiah, 416; Oswalt, Isaiah, 360–61, who notes
the likely hendiadys expressed with the terms “uncircumcised” (lrE[') and “unclean” (amej'),
so that the “uncircumcised” are not only the enemy nations who have invaded Jerusalem
but certain among the Israelites, who are also specifically described as “unclean” in the
programmatic opening chapter of the prophecy (Isa 6:5).
Confirming this is the fact that Isa 52:1–2 expresses the conception of the inviolable ho-
liness of the eschatological Zion, in contrast to its desecration by the heathen which precip-
itated the captivity; so Delitzsch, Isaiah, 295; Whybray, Isaiah, 164–65, who both note the
similar conception in Ezek 44:9. Childs comments (Isaiah, 405–6), “Holy city and divine
name are indissolubly joined, and this unimpaired unity is constitutive of the new eschato-
logical order about to be realized.”
On this theme with reference to “uncleanness” in Isa 52:11–12, see in chapter two
above, pp. 69–71. On the connection of 52:1–2 to 52:11–12, see Childs, Isaiah, 407;
Westermann, Isaiah, 246.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 243

law,” rather than circumcision, as the true mark of being within the saving
covenant; it infers that those who do not practice the law are in fact uncir-
cumcised in the truest sense, that they are still in captivity to sin and outside
of the redemptive promise ultimately mediated through the messianic sacri-
fice. This, again, becomes supremely introductory to Rom 3:21–26.
Further, Deuteronomy’s covenant pattern of [divine blessing, followed by]
transgression, resulting in the curse of exile, but ultimately remedied in the
promised blessing of restoration, recalls the wider covenant context of the
Abrahamic blessing as answering the curse (Deut 30:19–20). This covenant
pattern, then, not only reveals the intrinsic relation between and unity of the
respective covenants, but provides the basis for a typology of Israel. It is this
typology within the more broadly-conceived covenant context that is taken up
in Isaiah, embracing the fulfillment of the Noahic (e.g., Isa 54:9–10), Abra-
hamic (e.g., Isa 51:1–3), Mosaic (e.g., Isa 42:21–25; 45:25; 53:11; 60:21),
and Davidic covenants (e.g., Isa 55:3–4) in the recreation achieved through
the everlasting covenant established by the Servant of the Lord. It is the Serv-
ant himself, on behalf of his people, who brings to fulfillment and realization
this prophetic pattern of sin-exile-restoration as “. . . He was delivered up
(paradi,dwmi, cf. Rom 1:24, 26, 28) because of our transgressions, and was
raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:25/Isa 53:4–5, 11–12; Ellis,
Shum, Wagner, Wilk; see Appendix).
The covenant curse of captivity in both Deuteronomy and Isaiah is there-
fore sovereignly encompassed by a broader covenant reality that compre-
hends the unbelief of Israel in God’s larger redemptive purpose. This broader
covenant reality becomes a principle topic in Rom 3:1ff.

4. The Posture of Renewal: An Unrighteous People before the Righteous God

(Rom 3:1–8)
Within the dismal plight of captivity to sin and death, the promise of restora-
tion through the divine circumcision of the heart may be realized only in a
repentance that – in accordance with the accomplishment of the messianic
salvation – comes into full alignment with the response of faith in the gospel
(Rom 2:16). This is based in the salvation-historical reality that the promised
redemption of Deuteronomy 30 is, in Paul’s understanding, fulfilled only in
Isaiah’s good news of the redemptive sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. In
anticipation of the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel, which (as
in the case of Abraham in Romans 4) calls for a faith embrace of the redemp-
tive promise, this passage clarifies and emphasizes the posture of appropria-
tion. The unbelief of Israel in Rom 3:3 evokes its history (and, typologically,
the history of the race) as understood particularly through the intertextual
connection with Romans 1 (by means of the truth/lie contrast [Rom 1:25;
3:4]). Paul is thus re-evoking the universal plight (Rom 3:4, “every man a
244 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

liar”), but doing so in this passage specifically and preeminently through the
predicament of David in relation to the covenant. Paul is indicating in v. 4
that the full admission of one’s embrace of the lie, and of one’s guilt before
covenant law, is precisely where “every man” must find himself before sav-
ing truth can be appropriated. As this passage intertextually relates to Romans
9–11, this must be the posture of Israel in relation to the law and the gospel.
Though this section of Romans contains only one allusion to Isaiah, an al-
lusion similarly evoked in Rom 1:25, 284 it is worth noting how this echo ties
into several themes drawn from other scriptural sources in Rom 3:1–8,
themes which are ultimately integrated into Paul’s use of the redemptive
narrative of Isaiah.
An additional introductory summary to the discussion would be helpful at
this point. It is important to note that Rom 3:1–4 concisely introduces a topic
which is developed in much more detail in Romans 9–11. 285 In Rom 3:2–3 the
unbelief of Israel raises the question of God’s faithfulness to his saving prom-
ises to the covenant nation (cf., e.g., Rom 4:3–9, 13, 17; 9:1–8, 27–33). In
answer to this question, verse 4 affirms God to be “true,” i.e., faithful to his
saving promises despite this unbelief, a line of argument picked up in Ro-
mans 9–10 in which the “blessed seed” of the Abrahamic promise comes to
be identified with Isaiah’s remnant. In the present passage, however, this
remnant is anticipated and formed by the truth of God as it answers the hu-
man lie (v. 4a), reflecting Isaiah’s courtroom motif with its invitation to sal-
vation and deliverance from final judgment. In conjunction with this motif,
therefore, God’s faithfulness is evidenced when, like David, one confesses his
guilt and his complicity in the human lie and in faith embraces the truth of the
covenant promise (v. 4b), a promise which comes to full scriptural expression
in the Isaianic “good news” (Rom 10:15–16; cf. Rom 1:16; 3:21–26). Ro-
mans 11 brings this theme of God’s righteousness with regard to Israel to a
fitting climax. In this chapter the present believing remnant of Israel, exem-
plified by Paul himself, becomes an earnest of God’s faithfulness to the cove-
nant nation, pointing to the day when “all Israel will be saved” through the
messianic Redeemer who provides atonement for his people (Rom 11:26–
27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9). These Isaianic texts are thematically linked to 3:21–
26, also Isaianic (as will be argued), and together demonstrate God’s faithful-
ness to his saving promises in both providing and accomplishing salvation for
his people.
The manner in which Paul’s allusion to Isaiah is employed in conjunction
with other scriptural sources must now be considered in more detail. The
question naturally arising from Paul’s imaginary dialogue partner in Rom 3:1
(“Then what advantage has the Jew?”) reflects the equality just recounted

284
See above, pp. 174–75.
285
E.g., Bell, No One Seeks for God, 203; Seifrid, “Unrighteous,” 137.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 245

between Jew and Gentile, an equality in terms of both their accountability to

divine law in the judgment as well as their access to salvation in the cove-
nant.286 The ubiquitous nature of law, sin, captivity, and guilt in 1:18–2:29
highlights the need for the saving promise of God, a promise implicit in the
divine forbearance (Rom 2:4) yet surfacing in its scriptural expression
through allusion several times throughout chapter two (e.g., Ps 62:12/Rom
2:6; Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24; Deut 30:6/Rom 2:29). In chapter three this “promise”
nature of scripture surfaces again with the concepts of the oracles of God and
the unbelief of Israel.287 The advantage of the Jew in Rom 3:2 is, in fact, that
they were entrusted with the oracles of God (ta. lo,gia tou/ qeou/). The ques-
tion, “What if some did not believe” (v. 3) would seem to indicate that, while
the phrase “the oracles of God” likely refers to scripture as a whole, there is a
particular reference to scripture as having the nature of promise, a promise
which comes to fulfillment in the gospel. 288 The entire question, moreover
(“. . . if some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of
God, will it?”), sets this theme of Israel’s unbelief against the larger backdrop
of God’s righteousness, and the question of his faithfulness to his saving
promises to the covenant nation that they, in his blessing, would be as numer-
ous as the sand by the sea (Rom 9:27–28/Isa 10:22–23; cf. Gen 22:17; 32:12).
The unbelief of a sizeable segment of the covenant people indeed raises
the question of the faithfulness of God to the ancient, covenant promises
(Rom 3:3). And while this question is treated succinctly in these few verses,
it is widely recognized, as mentioned, that in broaching the topic of Israel’s
unbelief as against God’s faithfulness, Paul raises a topic which he then re-
sumes and expands in Romans 9–11. Here, the suggestion that human unbe-
lief might nullify the faithfulness of God (v. 3) is immediately met (v. 4) by a

286
With regard to Paul’s question in 3:1, Dodd, in fact, states (Romans, 43), “. . . the
logical answer on the basis of Paul’s argument is, ‘None whatever!’” And yet in spite of
the equality presented in these chapters, and as Bell notes, “Paul’s answer is . . . polu. kata.
pa,nta tro,pon, ‘much in every way’” (No One Seeks for God, 202).
287
On the question of hvpi,sthsa,n . . . avpisti,a in Rom 3:3 as referring to either “unbe-
lief” or “unfaithfulness,” Sanday and Headlam comment (Romans, 71), “Probably, on the
whole, the former: because (i) the main point in the context is the disbelief in the promises
of the O.T. and the refusal to accept them as fulfilled in Christ; (ii) chaps. ix-xi show that
the problem of Israel’s unbelief weighed heavily on the Apostle’s mind; (iii) ‘unbelief’ is
the constant sense of the word . . . ; (iv) there is a direct parallel in ch. xi. 20 th/| avpisti,a|
evxekla,sqhsan( su. de. th/| pi,stei e[sthkaj. At the same time the one sense rather suggests
than excludes the other; so that the avpisti,a of man is naturally contrasted with the pi,stij
of God . . .”
288
Dunn, Romans 1–8, 138–39; Godet, Romans, 133; Käsemann, Romans, 78–79; Moo,
Romans, 182; Murray, Romans, 92–94; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 70–71. Dunn in-
sightfully comments that Paul’s statement about the oracles of God sets forth “. . . one of
the chief points underlying this whole opening section of the letter: the continuity between
the revelation given to Israel and the gospel of God’s Son.”
246 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

categorical denial (mh. ge,noito), and the assertion that God will be found
“true” (gine,sqw de. o` qeo.j avlhqh,j), with avlhqh,j signifying God’s faithfulness
to his promises despite Israel’s unbelief. But this question expressed pointed-
ly in Rom 3:3 (“. . . if some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the
faithfulness of God, will it?”), along with the strong assertion of God’s faith-
fulness (“. . . let God be found true . . .”) bears a strong resemblance to Rom
9:6–8ff, which reads: “It is not as though the word of God has failed,289 for
they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel . . . that is it is not the
children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of promise are
regarded as descendants (seed).” These dual themes of promise and unbelief
are then traced throughout chapters 9 and 10 so that the promised seed of
Abraham (Rom 9:7–8) comes to be identified with the remnant of Isaiah
(Rom 9:27–29/Isa 10:22–23; 1:9), and the promise itself, with its corre-
sponding unbelief on the part of Israel (Rom 10:16/Isa 53:1), with Isaiah’s
“good news” (Rom 10:15/Isa 52:7).290
In Rom 3:1–4, however, this remnant of Romans 9–11 is anticipated and
formed by the proper response to the truth of God as it answers the human lie
(v. 4). The blatantly culpable nature of the unbelief in Rom 3:3 is brought to
the forefront of the discussion by the contrast between God as true and every
man as a liar (gine,sqw de. o` qeo.j avlhqh,j( pa/j de. a;nqrwpoj yeu,sthj), which
characterizes unbelief as an expression of the universal human adoption of
the lie (cf. Rom 1:25). What is most interesting in this statement is the man-
ner in which the unbelief of Israel (v. 3) is projected upon the world (v. 4a),
so that Israel, again, is clearly presented as a type of humanity.291 Within this
trial motif of Rom 3:1–4, the culpable nature of the lie embraced by humanity
and affirmed by the typological testimony of Israel is further confirmed by
the intertextual connection to Rom 1:25 (“. . . they exchanged the truth of
God for a lie . . .”) which, along with the present text, echoes the trial narra-
tive of Isaiah 40–48. 292

289
A phrase believed to allude to Isa 40:7–8 (Wagner, Wilk; see Appendix). This de-
scription of the “unfailing” nature of the word of God as it creates a contrast between
humanity as “flesh” and humanity as “children of promise” bears a close conceptual rela-
tion to Isaiah 40, particularly as these themes in both prophecy and epistle anticipate their
further development and resolution in relation to the gospel.
290
Speaking of this unbelief of Israel in Rom 3:3, Käsemann (Romans, 80) observes
that it reflects “. . . the whole history of Israel, which reaches its logical culmination in the
rejection of the gospel.”
291
Käsemann states (ibid., 81–82), “In a most remarkable way the problem [of Israel’s
unbelief] is extended to every human being and to God’s trial with the whole world. This
makes sense only if the faithfulness of God to Israel is a special instance of his faithfulness
to all creation. The idea of the covenant then, as already often established, is oriented not
merely to Moses and Sinai but to the creation of the world.”
292
See above, pp. 174–75. On this contrast in Isaiah, see esp. Isa 43:9–11; 44:20; see
also Isa 41:26.
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 247

Within this courtroom motif of Isaiah, the Lord confronts this idolatrous
lie embraced by the nations and Israel (Isa 44:20) with the reality that he
alone can declare and accomplish redemption, as demonstrated through his
covenant acts toward Israel. Specifically at issue in the context is God’s dec-
laration of his purpose to redeem Israel from the power of Babylon, divine
testimony intended to evoke the confession “It is true” (Isa 43:9),293 a confes-
sion the significance of which surfaces in the next two verses: “. . . In order
that you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me
there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. I, even I, am the
LORD; And there is no savior besides Me” (Isa 43:10b-11). Clearly the
Lord’s intention in evoking this confession (in which the admission of guilt
for espousing the ubiquitous lie of idolatry stands implicit) is that Israel and
the nations would resort to the Lord as Savior. Therefore, this confronting of
the human lie in Isaiah with the fact that God and his saving promises alone
are “true,” serves as an invitation to salvation with its vindication in the final
judgment (cf. Isa 43:9; 45:12–25). This evidences a high degree of thematic
coherence with the context of Rom 3:1–4, particularly in terms of Israel’s
role as a “typological witness.” This role serves not only to confirm guilt, but
also to open blind eyes to their captive state and so lead them to salvation in
God’s covenant promise (cf. Luke 15:17–19).
This significance of Isaiah, however, though certainly present here, lies
more in the background, bolstering Paul’s more prominent use of Psalms 116
and 51 to convey the necessary posture of appropriation. In Rom 3:4 the
phrase “every man a liar” (pa/j de. a;nqrwpoj yeu,sthj) is believed by many to
allude to Ps 116:11, 294 a Psalm which reflects a strong thematic coherence
with Isaiah 40–55. The psalm is one of thanksgiving for deliverance from
death, with death described as binding the psalmist captive with its cords,
very similar to the imagery in Isaiah (cf. Ps 116:3; Isa 52:2). In this psalm the
“distress” that threatens death for the psalmist becomes typical of death itself,

For this allusion to the trial motif of Isaiah in Rom 3:4 as well as the intertextual con-
nection with Rom 1:25, see Seifrid, “Romans,” 614–15; “Unrighteous,” 137–38. Regarding
this relationship between Roman 1 and 3 he comments, “Idolatry, which rejects the God
who is seen in his works, is now subsumed into unbelief, which rejects the God who is
heard in his words.”
On the trial motif in Rom 3:1–8, Käsemann (Romans, 81) comments, “At this point one
sees plainly that Paul regards history as God’s trial with the world which will come to an
end only in the last judgment . . .”
293
The MT reads tm,a/ Wrm.ayO while the LXX has eivpa,twsan avlhqh/. A similar confession
surfaces in the recurring trial motif in Isa 45:24: “They will say of Me, ‘Only in the LORD
are righteousness and strength.’”
294
E.g., Bell, No One Seeks for God, 205; Cranfield, Romans, 182; Fitzmyer, Romans,
328; Godet, Romans, 134–35; Käsemann, Romans, 80; Michel, Römerbrief, 138; Seifrid,
“Unrighteous,” 137; etc.
The pertinent phrase in the LXX is virtually identical: “. . . pa/j a;nqrwpoj yeu,sthj.”
248 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

and so parallels the relation between captivity and death in Isaiah 40–55.295
Part of this context of distress for the psalmist is the reality that “all men are
liars.” This points, not simply to the antagonism and machinations of the
ungodly specific to the psalmist, but, rather, includes within its more compre-
hensive scope the universal nature of the human lie in its denial of God as the
sole source of life, and as the sole deliverer from the inevitable snares of
death (thus reinforcing the reality and significance of general revelation as
expressed throughout Rom 1:18–2:4).296 In answering the psalmist who cries
to him for help (v. 4), the Lord is described as righteous (qyDIc;; v. 5), pointing
to the covenant context from which issues his gracious and compassionate
deliverance (v. 5).297 In Rom 3:4a, then, and as drawn from both Isaiah and
Psalm 116, the universal nature of the human lie which finds its source in the
fall (cf. Rom 1:20, 25) resonates in the culpable unbelief that continues to
deny the life of God promised in the covenant.298
It is, however, only out of this universal state of guilt in the human lie, and
in the conscious confession of this guilt, that the cry for deliverance legiti-
mately arises. This cry is expressed both in Isaiah’s trial narrative (Rom
3:4a/Isa 43:9 [“it is true”]; cf. esp. Isa 43:10–13; 45:22) as well as in Ps 116
(Rom 3:4a/Ps 116:11 [“all men are liars”]), but comes to consummate expres-
sion in this passage in the words of David (Rom 3:4b/Ps 51:4). In this psalm,
the helpless plight of David in his sin and guilt is counterpoised with the
covenant mercy and love of God, to which the psalmist lays claim. 299 In what
many consider to be the most complete articulation of repentance in scripture,

295
On this metaphoric significance of the psalmist’s distress, see esp. Mays, Psalms,
369–70. For the use of this Psalm at the Passover by virtue of the cup thanksgiving and
sacrifice, as well as its use by Christians in celebration of the Eucharist as the fulfillment
of Passover in the conquest of death, see pp. 371–72.
On the relation of this psalm to Isaiah, it is interesting to note that the terms for distress
in the MT and LXX of Ps 116:3 (hr'c' / qli/yij) are used in Isa 8:22 to describe Israel being
led away into exile for its sin. See above, pp. 212–13.
296
Kidner, e.g., notes that v. 8, while referring to the earthly sphere, reflects salvation at
its deepest level (Psalms 73–150, 409).
297
In addition to “righteous” (qyDIc;), Ps 116:5 describes God as gracious (!WNx;) and
compassionate (~xr), likely alluding to Exod 34:6 (though Exod 34:6 has the cognate
adjective ~Wxr: rather than the piel participle of ~xr [~xer:m.]). See e.g., F. Delitzsch, Com-
mentary on the Old Testament, V: Psalms, trans. Francis Bolton (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1991 [reprint]), 216.
298
Confirmation of this understanding of the allusion is found in Paul’s similar use of
Ps 116:10 in 2 Cor 4:13 (“I believed, therefore I spoke”), which in the context refers to
faith in God’s ultimate deliverance from the snares of death in the resurrection of Christ.
299
Kidner comments (Psalms 1–72, 189), “The opening plea, have mercy, is the lan-
guage of one who has no claim to the favour he begs. But steadfast love is a covenant
word.”
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 249

Psalm 51,300 David states, “. . . that you may be justified in your words and
prevail when you enter into judgment” (v. 4b). The context of the Psalm is
David’s sin with Bathsheba. Admittedly guilty of two capital crimes, he
stands helplessly condemned, and in the verse Paul cites David asserts that
God is just in his words of judgment pronounced against him. Yet, ironically,
even as he says this, David rests in the Lord’s saving vindication at the final
judgment (v. 14).
This irony and apparent contradiction can only be resolved within the con-
text of God’s covenant promises that come to fulfillment in the atoning work
of Christ (Rom 3:21–26). The quotation of Ps 51:4 graphically portrays a
righteous judgment that justly condemns human guilt in embracing the lie,
yet ironically ends in a vindication arising out of the covenant; it is this con-
fession from the lips of David (v. 4; Ps 51:4) that crystallizes the seemingly
irreconcilable dual-scenario of human guilt and covenant vindication which
finds its scriptural resolution only in Isaiah 53, soon to be recounted by Paul
in “the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:24).301 It is only in the
Isaianic good news that the gaping chasm between Deuteronomy’s covenant
curse and covenant promise is scripturally bridged.
Scripture as God’s saving promise, then, while unfolded in its various as-
pects in the previous covenants, comes to complete expression in the gospel
of Christ; and consistent with the tracing of themes mentioned above, this
promise is expounded against an Isaianic background (it will be argued) in
3:21–26. But Rom 3:21–26 presents only part of the solution to the dilemma
of God’s faithfulness. Though this text indeed recounts the righteousness of
God in his accomplishment of eschatological redemption for his covenant

300
See Mays, Psalms, 197. He comments further on the many uses of the Psalm
throughout history and its “. . . incalculable influence on the theology and practice of the
Christian faith” (198). He states that “its language and thought are connected with that of
Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah 40–66.”
301
Paul seems to follow this train of thought in his use of Psalm 32, a psalm considered
a parallel to Psalm 51 (Rom 4:6–8ff/Ps 32:1–2), ending his argument with the well-known
allusion to Isaiah 53 in Rom 4:25.
Mays (Psalms, 201–203), in fact, sees several very significant thematic connections be-
tween Psalm 51 and Isaiah, such as the theme of the sinful human nature as derived from
the Genesis account and reflected both in the life of the individual and the nation of Israel
(Ps 51:5; Isa 43:27; 48:8; 50:1). He states that Ps 51:5 “. . . could well be a confession
tutored by that prophetic insight” (201). It is this fallen nature that desperately needs to
become the object of the divine action conveyed by the verb “create” (arb, Ps 51:10; e.g.,
Isa 41:20; 43:1, 7, 15; 45:8, 12, 18; 57:18–19; 65:17, 18), a term used only of God in the
OT and referring to His act of “. . . bringing into existence what was not there before . . .”,
or, in reference to persons in need of redemption “. . . God’s saving action of transforming
what is already there so that what comes to be is different . . .” (202). In both Psalm 51 and
Isaiah 40–66, moreover, arb is used in conjunction with ritual verbs that deal with the
removal of sin and subsequent spiritual renewal.
250 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

people, it is a redemption which must be appropriated through faith. Romans

11 takes up the theme of the Isaianic remnant of chapters 9–10, a remnant,
according to Paul, which ultimately comes to form the seed of the future
bloom of the nation. 302 As has often been mentioned, Paul recounts this con-
version of the covenant people by means of a conflated citation from Isaiah in
which the themes of redemption through atonement connect intertextually to
Rom 3:21–26 (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9). Paul, therefore, employs
Isaiah to convey the fulfillment of God’s promised righteousness both in
terms of its eschatological realization in the events of the gospel as well its
ultimate consummation in the salvation of Israel.303
Though developed more fully in chapters 9–11, a further crucial point Paul
makes here, and the additional emphasis of the quotation of Ps 51:4 in Rom
3:4, is not simply that God’s faithfulness to his saving promises will be vindi-
cated in spite of man’s idolatrous unbelief and denial of God (liars). But it is
rather that God’s prevailing in judgment is precisely a prevailing through and
over man’s sinful unbelief in a supreme demonstration of his righteousness.
God can render righteous judgment upon the human embrace of the lie and at
the same time be faithful to his saving promises, and so vindicate the sinner
who comes to him in repentance and faith. More specifically, God’s right-
eousness in the face of human unbelief is evident in that God: predicts human
unbelief; accomplishes his redemptive act through the vehicle of unbelief;
uses the judgment of exile which issues from unbelief as a poignant revela-
tory act which leads Israel to repentance and faith; uses the unbelief of Israel
to typologically portray a world that has embraced the lie (so manifesting his
righteousness on several levels); uses the mediation of Israel in terms of the
gospel and its related typology to bring salvation to the Gentiles; and uses the
salvation of the Gentiles to ultimately provoke Israel to jealousy and so bring
them to salvation. 304 All these elements are drawn in considerable measure
from Isaiah.305

302
See above, pp. 154–56, and notes 42 and 46.
303
Had the question of God’s faithfulness to His saving promises ended with Rom
3:21–26, it could have potentially led to the conclusion that Paul was positing a substitu-
tion model in which the church replaced Israel (and in which case his faithfulness could
still be questioned). Against this substitution model in Rom 2:25–3:4, see esp. Richard H.
Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God, WUNT 184 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 190–98.
On this issue in Paul’s epistles, see 157–217; and for the difference of Paul’s approach in
Galatians and Romans, see 216–17.
304
Considering Paul’s use of Rom 3:1–4 (and its wider context) in conjunction with
Romans 9–11, therefore, one may conceive that the apostle quite possibly employs the
combined contexts of Deuteronomy and Isaiah to depict a revelatory reverberation between
Israel and the world propelled by the mediatorial role of Israel, particularly in its typology
of captivity as it anticipates the redemptive promise in the Isaianic good news. Israel both
mediates the divine promise and, in its captivity, typologically reveals the state of the
world, both of which are used to bring salvation to the Gentiles. The salvation of Gentiles,
 IV. Rom 2:1–3:8 – Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel and the World 251

Though space prohibits further discussion on Rom 3:5–8, the following

may be noted with respect to an Isaianic backdrop. God’s demonstration of
himself as God through both creation and redemption in Isaiah’s trial motif
inevitably results in God’s vindication, and therefore, of necessity, in the
world’s condemnation. These ideas expressed in v. 4 come to the forefront
again in vv. 5–8 (esp. vv. 5, 7), and relate thematically to Rom 1:16–17,
3:20,306 and especially 3:21–26, all of which evidence a strong Isaianic influ-
ence.

5. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 2:1–3:8

In keeping with Paul’s emphasis on salvation-historical continuity in the
opening section of his epistle, Romans 2 presents a “layered reading” of the
human plight based in large part upon Isaiah’s typology of captivity. This
typology conveys a solidarity of plight and a continuity in promise which in
both respects point to the climax of redemption in Isaiah’s “good news.” In
Romans 2 this “layered reading” aligns the repentant response called for in
general revelation, the repentance called for in Deuteronomy’s covenant
context, and the response of faith in the [Isaianic] gospel.
Rom 2:1–4 as it stands in relation to Rom 2:16 (and augmented by Isaianic
allusions in the intervening verses), likely reflects an allusion to Isaiah 45 and
its larger context. In Isaiah 45, the repentance called for within the conceptual
state of curse and exile (as Israel’s captivity typologically portrays the plight
of the world), with its prospect of justification (Isa 45:25), melds with an
acceptance of God’s redemptive plan through the Servant of the Lord who
provides the basis of eschatological vindication. This redemptive plan in the
larger context comes to be encapsulated in the proclamation of good news.

then, in their present experience of certain aspects of eschatological blessing in Christ, sets
in bold relief and so makes manifest the “captive” spiritual state of unbelieving Israel, so
that the covenant people are provoked to jealousy (Rom 10:19; 11:11–14). This, in turn,
leads to the salvation of national Israel, which further creates an unparalleled world-wide
witness which brings salvation to the world (Rom 11:12, 14–15; cf. 11:30–32). Small
wonder the apostle bursts into his closing doxology: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of
the wisdom and knowledge of God . . .” (vv. 33–36; note the quotation/allusion [see Ap-
pendix] to Isa 40:13 in v. 34).
305
With reference to the last-mentioned item, cf. Rom 10:20–21 in relation to 10:19.
Paul, moreover, appears to conceive this provocation, in line with the implied relation
between his quotations of Deuteronomy and Isaiah mentioned above, as facilitated through
Isaiah’s apostolic mission of carrying the gospel to the nations, as described in Rom 1:5
(see Rom 1:1–6 and the discussion in chapter two above); 10:14–15/Isa 52:7; 15:18–24
(esp. v. 21)/Isa 52:15.
306
See Seifrid, “Unrighteous,” 138. He states, “The language of Romans 3:4–7 . . . re-
calls the pattern of divine ‘contention’ or ‘lawsuit’ in Isaiah 40–48, where God’s confirma-
tion of his word manifests that he alone is God . . .” Note also the recurrence of Isaiah’s
truth/lie contrast in v. 7.
252 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Similarly in Romans 2, the eschatological judgment mediated through Christ

is “according to [the] gospel,” so that the repentance called for (Rom 2:1–4)
and the justification granted (Rom 2:13) is ultimately based in the sacrifice of
the Servant/Jesus Christ (Isa 53:11; Rom 3:21–26).
This “layered reading,” therefore, is facilitated in large measure by Isaiah’s
typology which comes to its climactic expression in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5. Neg-
atively, the typology’s covenant context of transgression with its consequent
curse and captivity reiterates the fall and portrays the plight of humanity in its
guilt before God and its captivity to sin and death. Therefore, positively, the
typology sets the backdrop not simply for the repentance advocated in Rom
2:4, but to the faith-embrace of the eschatological redemption disclosed in the
sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah – the Isaianic good
news (Rom 1:1–6, 16–17a; 3:21–26; 4:25). In Romans chapter 2, therefore,
Deuteronomy’s covenant scenario of sin-exile-restoration marked by the
circumcision of the heart is taken up and incorporated into the larger Isaianic
narrative framework of redemptive recreation through the messianic sacrifice.
The repentance and circumcision of the heart called for in Deuteronomy,
then, with the dawning of the new era of salvation-history, comes to be ex-
pressed as faith in the gospel.
Paul’s use of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, therefore, plays a leading role among
Paul’s scriptural sources in Rom 1:18–3:20. Paul’s strategic positioning of
the quotation forms a significant climax (if not the climax) of Paul’s “inner
argument.” It’s vital, intertextual relation to its larger context is evident in a
variety of ways, from its relation to the “giving over” of humanity into the
power of sin in Romans 1 (vv. 24, 26, 28), to its essential connection with the
“captives brought to trial” in Rom 2:1–4, to Paul’s characterization of Rom
1:18–3:8 (Rom 3:9) as a description of Jew and Gentile being “under sin.”
The dual contextual nature of Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5 within this contextual cli-
max in both typologically portraying the human plight, and through that ty-
pology anticipating the messianic redemption, links to Paul’s use of Isaiah’s
larger redemptive narrative (1:1–6, 16–17; 2:16; 3:21–26; 4:25), so that the
quotation plays a key role in evoking an Isaianic framework for Romans 1–4
as a whole.
In light of the continuity in the saving promise conveyed largely through
Isaiah’s typology, the promise of restoration through the divine circumcision
of the heart in Rom 2:25–29 may be appropriated only by a repentance that
aligns itself with the response of faith in the gospel (Rom 2:16, 24). In antici-
pation of the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel, Rom 3:1–4
clarifies and emphasizes the posture of appropriation. Paul re-evokes the
universal plight (Rom 3:4, “every man a liar”), but does so preeminently
through the predicament of David. David’s absolute and helpless guilt, and
therefore also his sole dependence upon covenant grace, becomes the pattern
of appropriation. Yet David’s plight points to God’s faithfulness to bring his
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 253

saving purposes to pass in spite of (and even through) the sin of his people.
God sovereignly superintends, through the sin and unbelief of his people, to
manifest his righteousness both in the saving event disclosed in the gospel, as
well as in its ultimate appropriation by Israel, both communicated largely
through Isaiah.

V. Isaiah 59:7–8a/Romans 3:15–17 in the Context of Romans

3:9–20
VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation
Romans 3:9–20 is a powerful reiteration, primarily scriptural, of the leading
themes of 1:18–3:8. In these verses Paul strings together his longest quotation
from scripture to drive home the point that humanity is captive in sin and so
helpless in guilt before the bar of divine justice. The verses that comprise the
catena all originate in contexts that evoke the eschatological judgment, and
together include such concepts as universal sin and guilt, the fall from which
they derive, the horrifying consequences of the fallen nature in society, and
humanity’s stubborn resistance to acknowledge or respond to the reality of
the coming judgment. The quotation from Isaiah is used, as was the previous
quotation, to highlight the typological role of Israel and her solidarity with
the world. But though the depictions in the various passages of the catena are
condemnatory, in each case, as in the Psalm quotations discussed above, the
broader context serves as an invitation to a vindication and freedom from
judgment that comes only from entering God’s covenant. This is superlatively
the case in the reference to Isaiah, for in this great prophecy the storyline is
continued by the apostle as the Lord at last reveals and fulfills his long-
promised redemptive righteousness (Rom 3:21–26), and Israel ultimately
responds to the invitation and enters into God’s covenant of atonement, vin-
dication and redemption (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9).

VI. Romans 3:9–20 and the Overarching Isaianic Framework

of Captivity and Condemnation
VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation
Rom 3:9–20 form the conclusion to 1:18–3:20 as a whole. Rom 3:9, 19–20
provide, respectively, the introduction and conclusion to both this concluding
segment in the section as well as to the catena of verses (Rom 3:10–18) that
the apostle uses to clinch his scriptural argument. Rom 3:9, 19–20 emphasize,
respectively, the themes of captivity and condemnation, which, as noted
above, are prominent dual motifs in the redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55.
These verses, in introducing and concluding the catena, restate both incisively
and concisely the charge leveled against both Jew and Gentile in the section
254 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

as a whole (1:18–3:20), that all alike are captive to sin and condemned before
God’s judgment. They provide a summation of the significant truths Paul
draws from his quotations and allusions to scripture in preparation for his
exposition of the righteousness of God in the gospel of Christ in 3:21ff.307
The nature of Rom 3:9, 19–20 as summary verses, therefore, is extremely
important in terms of identifying a possible overarching interpretive frame-
work for the entire section (1:18–3:20).
The nature of Rom 3:9, 19–20 as Isaianic, it will be argued, can be sup-
ported first, from the probable derivation of the phrase u`fV a`marti,an (Rom
3:9) with its concept of captivity to sin from Isa 50:1; second, (and of crucial
importance) from the inseparable, typological relation in which Israel stands
with reference to the world within the context of the catena, and therefore
also in the summary verses; third, from the fact that the conceptual complex
in Rom 3:19–20 not only contains several likely allusions to Isaiah, but aug-
ments the typologically oriented concepts of captivity and guilt in Rom 3:9–
18 by again driving the argument to the inevitable forensic situation of help-
less accountability to God as a warning against the final judgment; and fourth
(in relation to item three), from the similar function served by this set of
themes in both the context of Romans and Isaiah, 308 as forming the necessary
prelude to the revelation of God’s saving righteousness in the redemptive
sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ.
It is contended that the nature of these summary verses as derived from
Isaiah is confirmed by the typological role of Israel within the catena. The
nature of the summary verses as Isaianic, then, lends additional support to
what has been argued above, that Paul is employing an Isaianic redemptive
framework for this section of Romans.

1. Romans 3:9 and the Isaianic Derivation of “Under Sin”

proh|tiasa,meqa ga.r VIoudai,ouj te kai. {Ellhnaj pa,ntaj u`fV a`marti,an ei=nai –
Paul uses the concluding prepositional phrase of Rom 3:9 (u`fV a`marti,an) to
depict humanity’s captivity to sin, a captivity that he has already demonstrat-
ed in his preceding discussion (proh|tiasa,meqa ga.r; cf. Rom 1:18–3:8) and
which he reinforces through the catena that follows (kaqw.j ge,graptai; Rom

307
See Moo, Romans, 198.
308
This complex of ideas includes: captivity to sin; the courtroom motif of humanity’s
guilt before the divine tribunal; the ineffectual, even idolatrous, nature of human works to
provide salvation; the characterization of such works as by nature opposed to the divine
plan and provision of salvation to be entered into by faith; the subjects of such works as
transient and perishing flesh, humanity outside the redemptive power of God’s saving word
of promise; salvation effected through the exercise of divine righteousness in redemption;
redemption accomplished through the messianic sacrifice which effects justification; salva-
tion appropriated through repentance/faith in God’s word of promise, the gospel.
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 255

3:10[–18]). In both instances Isaiah plays a key role in his argument. Paul
states in Rom 3:9 “. . . for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks
are all under sin.” The phrase “under sin” (u`f V a`marti,an), uniformly
acknowledged by commentators as a metaphorical reference to the universal
state of human bondage under the power of [the] sin[ful nature],309 has a
somewhat expanded parallel in Rom 7:14. There the apostle states, “For we
know that the law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.”
The phrase “sold into bondage to sin” renders the Greek, peprame,noj u`po. th.n
a`marti,an. In both Rom 3:9 and 7:14 the metaphorical depiction of sin as a
tyrannical overlord is conveyed by the use of the preposition u`po,, but in 7:14
it is expanded to include the concept of the sale into slavery. 310
Though the phrase peprame,noj u`po. th.n a`marti,an does not occur in the
LXX,311 the two words pipra,skw and a`marti,a occur together in the sense of
slave sale with reference to sin only once, in Isa 50:1.312 The LXX reads ivdou.
tai/j a`marti,aij u`mw/n evpra,qhte. Paul’s changing of the expression from Isra-
el’s being sold because of its sin to its being sold into sin’s power is likely an
interpretive rendering intended to draw in the typology of the larger con-
text.313 This intent is further confirmed in that Rom 7:14 places in parallel the
ideas of humanity as both “corruptible flesh” and as in bondage to sin, a par-
allel that recalls the context of Isaiah 40, the chapter that sets the stage for the
entire redemptive narrative. 314 The linguistic and conceptual relation between

309
See, e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 191; Fitzmyer, Romans, 331; Käsemann, Romans, 86;
Michel, Römerbrief, 142; Moo, Romans, 201; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 75.
310
Moo (Romans, 454), commenting on Rom 7:14, notes the parallel with Rom 3:9, as
does Käsemann more generally (“The statements are parallel to those about the pre-
Christian world in 1:18–3:20.” Romans, 199).
311
In fact, the phrase u`po. [th.n] a`marti,an does not occur in the LXX in any form.
312
The only other instance in which the words occur in the same verse is in Wis 10:13.
There, however, the terms are not used with reference to one another, and the conceptual
provenance is quite different.
On Rom 7:14 as an allusion to Isa 50:1, Fitzmyer (Romans, 474) references the verbal
and conceptual similarity with the LXX of Isa 50:1, and M. Philonenko, in his article (“Sur
l’expression ‘vendue au péché’ dans l’Épître aux Romains,” RHR 203 [1986]: 41–52),
argues for an allusion to that passage (referenced by Dunn, Romans 1–8, 388).
Seifrid (“Romans,” 615), regarding the expression “under sin” in Romans 3:9, states,
“The expression anticipates the expanded statement in 7:14, ‘I am of flesh, sold under sin,’
which reflects the language of Isa. 50:1.”
313
On the contextual relation between Isa 50:1 and 52:5 see, e.g., Seifrid (“Romans,”
612–13), who, as noted above, asserts that the additions of the LXX in 52:5 are likely
intended to draw in the broader context of Israel’s sin and resulting captivity, specifically
Isa 50:1–2. See in chapter two above, “Isaiah 52:5/Romans 2:24 in the Context of Romans
1:18–3:8.”
314
See above, e.g., pp. 166–69.
256 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Rom 3:9 and 7:14, therefore, reveals that Paul in Rom 3:9 is very likely de-
riving the concept of bondage to sin from Isa 50:1 and its larger context. 315
The likelihood of this Isaianic derivation of the concept of captivity to sin
is further confirmed by the fact that, not only the concept itself, but the entire
complex of ideas represented by Rom 3:9, 19–20 forms much of the thematic
backdrop for the two quotations of Isaiah in this section of Romans (Isa
52:5/Rom 2:24; Isa 59:7–8/Rom 3:15–17). These facts, partially verified by
the treatment of Rom 2:24 above, and further verified below, satisfy Hays’
criteria of both recurrence and thematic coherence. In Rom 3:9, therefore, the
apostle appears to be drawing this unique Isaianic concept of captivity to sin
from Isa 50:1 and/or its wider typological context.316

315
The theme of captivity to sin and its associated ideas are further developed by Paul
throughout Romans, but of particular note with reference to the present discussion are Rom
5:12–21 and 7:1–25 (though note also 6:1–23). In these passages, as in 1:18–3:20, captivity
to sin and transgression of the law are seen to be universal and inevitable, both the result
and reflection of the sin of Adam, as humanity is portrayed as having received the corrupt
and indelible stamp of its progenitor, and as such rectified solely through recreation in
Christ (cf. Rom 6:1–23; 8:1–25). See, for instance, Dunn, Romans 1–8, 387ff; Käsemann,
Romans, 199ff; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 106ff.
316
In terms of its relative significance, this Isaianic allusion is part of a demonstrable
theological framework, and its role as a summary verse pointing to the overarching charac-
ter of the preceding argument gives this allusive reference great theological weight within
its quoted context.
Because Paul is not necessarily alluding to a specific text, Hays’ criteria of volume does
not directly apply. In several instances in which Paul develops Isaianic themes, the criteria
of recurrence blends somewhat with thematic coherence as Paul generally derives the
given theme from an explicit citation or allusion and develops it in line with that context.
In the present case, the context of both of Paul’s quotations of Isaiah deal predominantly
with the concept of captivity as it forms the backdrop for Israel’s desperate need of the
messianic redemption. Within Paul’s development of this theme of captivity there is a
possible allusion to Isaiah’s “all flesh” (cf. Isa 40:6; Rom 3:20) to which Hays’ criteria of
volume will applied.
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 257

2. Romans 3:15–17/Isaiah 59:7–8a within the Catena – The Typological

Solidarity of Israel with the World
Rom 3:15–17 LXX Isa 59:7–8a
15 ovxei/j
oi` po,dej auvtw/n 7 oi` de. po,dej auvtw/n
evpi. ponhri,an tre,cousin
tacinoi.
evkce,ai ai-ma( evkce,ai ai-ma . . .
(kai. oi` dialogismoi. auvtw/n
dialogismoi. avfro,nwn)
16 su,ntrimma kai. talaipwri,a evn tai/j su,ntrimma kai. talaipwri,a evn tai/j
o`doi/j auvtw/n( o`doi/j auvtw/n
17 kai. o`do.n eivrh,nhj ouvk e;gnwsanÅ 8 kai. o`do.n eivrh,nhj ouvk oi;dasin

Isaiah 59:7–8a MT: ~h,yteAbv.x.m; yqIn" ~D" %Pov.li Wrh]m;ywI WcrUy" [r:l' ~h,yleg>r:7
`~t'ALsim.Bi rb,v,w" dvo !w<a'ê tAbv.x.m;
W[d"êy" al{ ~Alv' %r<D, 8

Paul’s typological parallelism of Israel and humanity in terms of law, captiv-

ity, and condemnation is reflected again in his use of Isa 59:7–8 in Rom
3:15–17. Paul follows the LXX, which is a fairly close rendering of the He-
brew. He does, however, make several significant changes to the text of the
LXX, mostly in Isa 59:7, such as combining the first two parallel statements
into one, and omitting “kai. oi` dialogismoi. auvtw/n dialogismoi. avfro,nwn”.
These changes appear to be an attempt to condense the citation for greater
rhetorical effect within the catena, although, for instance, the advancing of
ovxei/j (a synonymous substitution for tacinoi.) could also be intended to em-
phasize the notion of culpability. 317
The context of this passage from Isaiah depicts Israel captive and helpless
in her sin and separated from God because of her iniquities (Isa 59:1–2). Yet

317
See Stanley, Paul, 95–98. On these changes to Isa 59:7 by Paul, he writes (97),
“Within the Pauline context . . . these simple adaptations yield a compact statement that
preserves the basic content of the original indictment without adding unnecessarily to the
overall length of the Pauline composition. The shift of ovxei/j to primary position also serves
to emphasize the ‘hastiness’ of the actions described, thus subtly reinforcing the notion of
the culpability of those who follow such a path.”
Both Stanley (Paul, 97–98) and Koch (Schrift, 119), moreover, note that Paul’s omis-
sion of the phrase kai. oi` dialogismoi. auvtw/n dialogismoi. avfro,nwn, which focuses on
“foolishness,” is similar to his treatment of Psalm 14 which opens the catena, and is likely
intended to remove a more particular emphasis in favor of a universal application.
The only change from the LXX of Isa 59:8 in the portion quoted by Paul is the substitu-
tion of e;gnwsan for oi;dasin. But as Stanley notes (98), while the textual evidence for
Paul’s reading is uniform, the LXX manuscript tradition shows significant support for both
readings. Paul, therefore, could simply have been following the LXX text available to him.
258 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

within the context of Paul’s scriptural catena, the chosen nation is placed in
the same category as the world at large (Rom 3:10–12/Ps 14:1–3//53:1–3),318
the enemies of David (Rom 3:13/Pss 5:9; 140:3), and the wicked (Rom
3:14/Ps 10:7; Rom 3:18/Ps 36:1) to depict the “under sin” condition (Rom
3:9) and the state of hopeless guilt before God’s judgment under which “all
the world stands” (Rom 3:19–20). This use of Isaiah, therefore, particularly
as it relates to and reinforces his quotation of Isa 52:5 (Rom 2:24), seems to
be designed to highlight the typological role of Israel in mediating the spiritu-
al condition of humanity.
The catena as a whole is intended by the apostle to bring his argument to a
definitive conclusion. Paul paints this dismal portrait to awaken people to the
reality of their spiritual state in light of the coming judgment (see esp. Rom
3:18; cf. vv. 19–20), and so to awaken them to their need for God’s saving
provision in Christ (Rom 3:21–26). This, in fact, reflects the dynamic of
most, if not all, of the passages Paul cites. The wider context of each of the
Psalms contains an explicit or implied reference to the eschatological judg-
ment,319 along with references to God’s people as righteous and in covenant
relation to him, themes that together serve as both warning and invitation.
This broader purpose in his use of the texts is evident in his use of Isaiah 59.
In Isaiah 59, Israel’s sin is a precursor to her repentance and redemption, an
event which Paul recounts using this same chapter of Isaiah in Romans 11.
So, while the words that Paul explicitly quotes in Rom 3:10–18 references
merely human sin, there is in the catena a subtext of invitation, a subtext that
has, in fact, been present since Rom 2:1–4.320
But before the catena is discussed in detail, an important question arises
regarding the appropriateness of Paul’s use of these texts. In other words, did

318
Stanley notes (Paul, 89, note 23) that Paul’s use of Ps 14:1–3 (LXX Psalm 13) in
Rom 3:10–12 rather than its close parallel, Ps 53:1–3 (LXX Psalm 52), is rendered certain
by “. . . his inclusion of the phrase ouvde. ei-j (= ouvk e;stin e[wj e`no,j) at the end of v. 10 and
his use of crhsto,thta rather than avgaqo,n at the end of v. 12b.”
319
Bell (No One Seeks for God, 218 and note 32) observes that each of the Psalms con-
tains the superscript eivj to. te,loj (translating x:Cen:m., the pi‘el participle of xcn, “to be pre-
eminent,” which in the pi‘el conveys the sense of “act as overseer” and hence contextually
translated as “choirmaster”; cf. BDB, 663–64), pointing to a possible eschatological under-
standing and use of these Psalms in the LXX.
320
Though in light of Rom 2:1–4ff, God’s handing over of humankind into the power of
sin (Rom 1:24, 26, 28) had a remedial intent. This is especially evident in the allusions to
Israel. So it could be said that this redemptive intent has been a subtext since 1:18, stem-
ming from the thematic verses themselves.
This appears to be further confirmed when one considers that in David’s confession
(Rom 3:4/Ps 51:4) regarding his dealings with Uriah (2 Sam 11:1–17) he was guilty of sins
very aptly described by several verses in the catena (Rom 3:13–14). This relationship,
moreover, reinforces the overarching sense of totality legitimately conveyed by the use of
several quotations within the catena. Cf. also Rom 4:6–8.
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 259

Paul quote these various Psalms, as well as Isaiah, in a contextual manner.321

That Paul employs these texts to scripturally demonstrate universal human
sinfulness is without question, as his opening and closing remarks make
abundantly clear. But how then does one explain the existence within these
Psalms of a group termed “the righteous”? Or how is it that Paul can employ
a portion of a Psalm depicting the enemies of the psalmist as an indictment
against humanity? To these very legitimate questions several remarks may be
made that point to a consistency in Paul’s interpretive approach.
First, Paul understands the universal plight of humanity as epitomized in
the ubiquitous experience of death, into which deep dark valley the gospel
radiates it glorious light, and rings as a clarion call (e.g., Rom 1:1–4; 4:25;
5:17, 21; 6:23). Second, this death stems from the idolatrous transgression
perpetrated at the fall and perpetuated universally by the race (e.g., Rom
1:20–25; 3:23; 5:12ff; etc.), a fact substantiated by death itself. Third, it is
against this plight that the covenant promise of blessing (as countering the
curse), righteousness, and life was given (e.g., Rom 4:3, 6–12), a covenant
promise coming to full expression in the [Isaianic] gospel (Rom 4:22–25; see
Appendix).
Therefore, for example, Paul well understands and legitimately applies the
universal indictment in the opening lines of Psalm 14, and necessarily per-
ceives “the righteous” within the psalm as arising out of this pervasive blan-
ket of human corruption, but only by virtue of the refuge they have taken in
God’s saving covenant. This is one primary function of both Psalm 14 and
Romans, to urge its readers toward this covenant refuge. Paul clearly evi-
dences this nuanced use and appreciation of the Psalms in this very section of
Romans through the interplay between Psalms 51 (Rom 3:4), 32 (Rom 4:7–8)
and the Psalms within the catena. He does so by virtue of the fact that several
of the sins of the enemies of the psalmist within the catena are those of which
David himself was guilty in his sin with Bathsheba, and regarding which he
seeks refuge in God’s covenant righteousness. David states (Rom 4:7–8/Ps
32:1–2), “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and
whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not
take into account.”322

321
See, e.g., Steve Moyise “The Catena of Rom. 3.10–18,” ExpT 106 (1995): 367–70.
322
Francis Watson discusses this quotation of the Psalm by Paul in Rom 4:7–8 and sug-
gests that Paul uses David “. . . as an example of a forgiven sinner” (Paul and the Herme-
neutics of Faith, 65). With particular relevance to the issue at hand he states, “It is not the
case that some attain righteousness by practicing the works of the law, whereas others
remain in their transgression and sin, a difference that approximates to the distinction
between Israel and the Gentiles. David himself was aware that sin is the universal human
condition, and that what characterizes the people of God is not the absence of sin but the
forgiveness of sin. If transgression and sin are no less evident among Israel than among the
260 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

The quotation of Psalm 14:1–3, therefore, serves as a fitting heading for

the catena as a whole in that it emphasizes the universality of human sinful-
ness and hence the universal need for justification in the gospel. That this
purpose is central to Paul’s lengthy string of quotations is evident in both his
introductory (“. . . all under sin, as it is written . . .”; vv. 9c-10a) and conclud-
ing comments (“. . . every mouth . . . all the world . . . no flesh . . .”; vv. 19–
20). This purpose is well served with Psalm 14, regarding which James Lu-
ther Mays writes, “In Hebrew, the ‘all’ of verse 3 is ‘the all,’ the whole, and
the verse drives the point home with ‘There is not even one’ who does
good.”323 Paul’s quotation of these verses, which describe the absolute void
of righteousness and goodness among the race of mankind, has the somber
tone of a death knell as it repeatedly tolls out the grim refrain: “there is none
. . .” (ouvk e;stin).324 It is, therefore, from Ps 14:1–3 that the scriptural source
for this dark veil of totality is drawn, and it casts its shadow upon the whole
of the catena, so that the enemies of David, and even Israel itself, are made to
represent the evil inherent in the race.
Paul’s emendation of Ps 14:1 (Ps 13:1 LXX) to read “there is none right-
eous, no not one” brings the judicial aspect of the Psalm to the fore.325 It also
brings into focus the final judgment alluded to in verse 5 of the Psalm, in
which the title “the righteous generation” quite possibly reflects the source of
the emendation. 326 This “righteous generation” in Ps 14:5 arises out of the

Gentiles, the voice of the law which brings the knowledge of sin may be heard even and
especially in passages which might have seemed to speak only of the guilt of the Gentiles.”
323
Psalms, 82. The Hebrew he cites reads dx'a,-~G: !yae bAj-hfe[o !yae . . . [rs'] lKoh;.
On the description in Psalm 14 as applying to the totality of humanity, see also
Delitzsch, Psalms, 203–5; Kidner, Psalms 1–72, 79; VanGemeren, “Psalms,” 145.
On the relation between the description of the fool which begins the Psalm (omitted by
Paul) and the following universal description of humanity, Kidner comments (79), “The
point of these two verses [vv. 2–3] is that the arrogant materialist of verse 1 is but an
example, even though an extreme one, of man in general. The chief terms of that verse now
reappear, directly or obliquely, with this wider reference . . . and the none is now rein-
forced by no, not one.” VanGemeren (145) states, “The negative picture of the fool (v. 1) is
reinforced by the totality of human evil: ‘all,’ ‘together,’ and ‘no one’ (two times).”
324
Paul repeats ouvk e;stin . . . five times in his quotation of Ps 14:1–3 (Ps 13:1–3 LXX),
and repeats it again in his quotation of Ps 36:1 in Rom 3:18. Bell comments (No One Seeks
for God, 216), “This repeated use of ouvk e;stin and the pa,ntej in v. 12 leaves the reader in
no doubt whatsoever that sin has a hold on everyone . . . It puts over the most serious view
of human kind under the power of sin. Sin affects all human life and it seems that no part
of the human person is exempt from the effects of the fall.”
325
Rom 3:10 has ouvk e;stin di,kaioj ouvde. ei-j, while the LXX of Ps 13:1 has ouvk e;stin
poiw/n crhsto,thta ouvk e;stin e[wj e`no,j.
326
Psalm 14 (Psalm 13 LXX) bears a thematic and linguistic relation to Isaiah 40–55
and 59 in particular. Psalm 14:7 reads, “Oh, that the salvation of Israel would come out of
Zion! When the LORD restores His captive people, Jacob will rejoice, Israel will be glad.”
This verse, possibly an addition at the time of the exile (so, e.g., VanGemeren, “Psalms,”
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 261

pervasive blanket of human corruption in which there are “none good,” so

that this “righteous generation” is further characterized in verse 6 as those
who take refuge in God. 327 The emphasis on universal sinfulness in the
Psalm, then, creates a stark contrast, though not a contradiction, with the
“righteous generation.” Though none are good, by taking refuge in God one
becomes part of the “righteous generation.” Though there is, indeed, univer-
sal condemnation, there is also universal availability to escape the coming
“terror” of the time and place (MT: ~v'; “there,” v. 5) when God will both
judge and vindicate.328
The next passage Paul quotes is Ps 5:9, which reads, “Their throat is an
open grave, with their tongues they keep deceiving.” While Psalm 14 stresses
universal wickedness, this psalm is likely used by Paul to allude to the source
of this universal state in the actions of the serpent in Eden, and so to convey
the deadly and miserable effects of “the lie” upon and among humanity (cf.
Rom 1:23, 25).329 Within the race of the fallen are those who very clearly
come to reflect the character, actions and intentions of their spiritual progeni-
tor, the devil. Yet this sin of the enemies of the Psalmist, in light of the thrust
of the catena, is in some sense the sin of all (cf. Rom 1:29; 2:1; 3:4).330 In
keeping with this possible allusion to the fall in Genesis, the Psalm itself
emphasizes the separation from God that this wickedness brings,331 and con-
trasts this separation with those who enter God’s house through his covenant
love (ds,x,). The judicial motif becomes prominent in the last three verses,332

147), strikes the major chord of Isaiah 40–55. But, interestingly, Paul’s quotation of Isa
59:20 in Rom 11:26 could be influenced by Ps 13:7. Paul has h[xei evk Siw.n o` r`uo,menoj (as
against the LXX: kai. h[xei e[neken Siwn o` r`uo,menoj), while Ps 13:7 reads ti,j dw,sei evk
Siwn to. swth,rion tou/ Israhl. Similarly, Paul’s use of the phrase ouvk e;stin di,kaioj ouvde.
ei-j, obviously in anticipation of 3:21–26, could, perhaps, reflect this prominent Isaianic
theme.
327
Mays (Psalms, 82–83) notes how the “all” of the wicked are then, in vv. 4–6, set
alongside “my people.” This, he observes, is a tension that both the Psalmist and Paul
allow to stand, and he asserts that the refuge of the psalmist becomes in Paul the promise
of justification in the gospel (82–83).
328
E.g., Mays, Psalms, 83.
329
So, e.g., Kidner, who states (Psalms 1–72, 60), “The methods are those of the ser-
pent in Eden, and of its minor brood the flatterer and the scandalmonger.”
330
Strengthening this sense of universality in Psalm 5 within the context of Romans is
the fact that deceit and murder are two of the sins of which David confessed in Psalm 51
(see Rom 3:4/Ps 51:4; cf. Rom 1:29). Ironically, the sins for which David seeks a verdict
of condemnation upon others in Ps 5:10 are, in fact, the sins for which he seeks acquittal in
Psalm 51 (esp. v. 14).
331
E.g., vv. 4–5a, “Thou art not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil
dwells with Thee. The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes . . .”
332
See Mays, Psalms, 57–58; VanGemeren, “Psalms,” 89–90.
262 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

within which the wicked are held guilty (v. 10), 333 while those who take ref-
uge in this covenant love (v. 11), termed “the righteous,” are surrounded “. . .
with favor as with a shield.”334 The judgment and vindication in vv. 10–12
are circumstantial, yet they intimate the eschatological.
Paul’s quotation of Ps 140:3 in Rom 3:13b (“the poison of asps is under
their lips”) is very similar in content and significance to his quotation of
Psalm 5 just discussed, as the devilish malevolence that wrought man’s death
in the garden ever seeks through its minions the same end toward the godly.
Both Psalm 140 and Psalm 10 (v. 7), which Paul quotes next (Rom 3:14:
“whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”), emphasize the certainty of
the judgment upon the wicked and the vindication of those who trust in the
Lord, and in both the judgment and vindication are eschatological in nature.
This is most evident, for instance, in Psalm 9, a recognized literary compan-
ion to Psalm 10,335 in which the consignment of the wicked to Sheol (v. 17)
both looks backward to the curse and forward to its ultimate referent in the
final judgment (cf. v. 18 for its complement; cf. also Ps 140:12–13).
Considering the relation of Psalm 9 to Psalm 10 illustrates somewhat of
the significance of the text quoted by Paul. Psalm 9 focuses on the eschato-
logical judgment upon the wicked, as well as the vindication for those who
trust in the Lord. Psalm 10, on the other hand, though these elements of
judgment and vindication are present (vv. 15–18), focuses rather on the delay
in God’s justice. The phrase quoted by Paul (Rom 3:14/Ps 10:7) is used of the
wicked who posture themselves as enemies of the godly and all who stand in
the way of their desires (vv. 2–3), and God’s “slowness” in judgment causes
them to actively pursue the innocent. The wicked here are characterized as
having deceived themselves into thinking that God “will not require it” (vv.
3–4, 6, 11–13). But God has “seen it” and will “seek out [their] wickedness
until He finds none” (vv. 14–15). It is this reality, in light of the gracious
delay of the coming judgment, that should confront those who in “cursing and
bitterness” have set themselves in an adversarial role against their Creator (cf.
Rom 2:1–4; 2 Pet 3:3–9).
As Paul laces together this compelling scriptural reaffirmation of the lead-
ing themes of the section, his next quotation is taken from Isa 59:7–8 (Rom
3:15–17). Here the typology of the exile in chapters 40–55 melds from meta-
phor into reality as Israel is presented as helplessly mired in its sin, with no

333
In the MT, “hold them guilty” is ~meyvia]h;, the hiphil imperative of ~va (with the suf-
fix). Kidner notes that this is the opposite of “to justify” (Psalms 1–72, 60).
334
Mays comments (Psalms, 58–59), “Remember that in the theology of the psalmist,
the righteous are those who love, trust, and depend on God and want to be led in God’s
way.”
335
Delitzsch, Psalms, 174–76; Kidner, Psalms 1–72, 68; Mays, Psalms, 70–71; though
see the caution in VanGemeren, “Psalms,” 114–15.
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 263

one to intercede.336 The dependence of this chapter upon Isaiah 40–55 is, in
fact, characteristic of the last major section of the prophecy as a whole. 337 In
chapters 56–66 the conceptual framework is likely that of Israel restored from
Babylonian captivity; 338 nevertheless, the oft-recalled, eschatological promis-
es of God’s redemptive righteousness from chapters 40–55 are as yet unful-
filled, still to be realized and appropriated by a people oppressed both from
without and (most fundamentally) from within.339
The relationship between these two major sections of the prophecy is evi-
dent in condensed form in the opening verse of chapter 56 in which the term
hq"d"c. appears twice, in two separate senses. In Isa 56:1 the term echoes Isaiah
40–55 and refers to the future fulfillment of God’s promised, saving right-
eousness. But in the very same verse the term is also employed to denote the
righteous conduct that should characterize those having entered into the sav-
ing promise, a use in keeping with a major emphasis of chapters 56–66.340
This relation becomes most starkly apparent in chapter 59, in which righteous

336
On the theme of captivity to sin in Isaiah 59, see, e.g., Oswalt, Isaiah, 513, note 28.
On the irony of divine deliverance from transgression presented in terms of deliverance
from “foes from without,” see Westermann, Isaiah, 350.
337
E.g., Childs, Isaiah, 442–43; Hanson, Isaiah, 187, 191; Westermann, Isaiah, 296;
Whybray, Isaiah, 196. Hanson states that chapters 56–66 “. . . betray a deep level of en-
gagement with Second Isaiah’s message. In fact, they give the appearance of an ongoing
dialogue . . .” (191).
338
So, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 447; Grogan, Isaiah, 314. Childs notes, “Regardless of the
evidence of vestiges shimmering in the text’s background that indicate that the historical
milieu of Third Isaiah is indeed postexilic, the theological framework of the narrator of
Third Isaiah is not consciously set in contrast to Second Isaiah, but as a continuation of it.”
Similarly, Oswalt (Isaiah, 452) notes that the primary setting of chapters 56–66 is theolog-
ical, centering on the necessity of “. . . living out God’s righteousness, and the inability or
failure of the people to do so.”
339
For this idea that the redemptive promises of chapters 40–55 are conceived as not yet
fulfilled in the redemption from Babylon, see Childs, Isaiah, 442–43, 447; Hanson, Isaiah,
209–10; Westermann, Isaiah, 348.
340
On this dual usage in Isa 56:1, see, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 455 ; Hanson, Isaiah, 193;
Whybray, Isaiah, 196. Hanson observes that chapter 56 forms a “fitting link” with second
Isaiah with its use of the terms “justice,” “righteousness,” and “salvation.” He states,
“There is thus a play on the Hebrew word ṣӗdāqāh, for it is both the mighty act of God and
the upright way of life that is the appropriate human response. The first verse of the third
major section of the Book of Isaiah thus seems to give a summary of the message of the
prophet of the exile. But there is a subtle shift in emphasis from an announcement of what
God is about to do to an admonition concentrating on what the community is to do.”
Childs observes (456) that Isaiah 56–66 reformulates the promise of Isaiah 40–55 in
terms of Israel’s responsibility, “which was always constitutive of her faith.” Regarding Isa
56:6 and the connection with Isaiah 53, he states (458), “Verse 6 continues the theme first
announced in 54:17 of the servants as the offspring of the suffering servant of 53:10.”
Childs (456), Grogan (Isaiah, 315), and Westermann (Isaiah, 309), among others, addi-
tionally note that Isa 56:1 is likely alluding to Isa 46:12–13.
264 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

behavior finds its sole source in the salvation of God. 341 This passage, virtual-
ly unrivaled in its vocabulary of sin and its depiction of the fundamental
nature of human depravity,342 portrays a depth of helplessness under the tyr-
anny of sin that is matched only by the lofty might and singular grandeur of
God’s saving power.
Chapter 59, in fact, through intertextual allusion, depicts Israel as desper-
ately needing the redemptive righteousness described in Isaiah 40–55.343 Isa
59:1–2 is a recognized allusion to Isa 50:1–2,344 with both passages present-
ing Israel as separated from God because of its iniquity, in spite of the fact
that the Lord stands able and willing to redeem his captive people. Isaiah 59
goes on to graphically portray the chosen nation as helplessly seized in the
grip of transgression (vv. 3–15a), groping in a blindness and darkness remi-
niscent of the captive humanity of chapters 40–55 (vv. 9–10; cf., e.g., 42:6–7;
49:6–7, 9). In response, the Lord, after a vain search for an intercessor (vv.
15b-16a), takes up the role himself and manifests his saving righteousness by
“his own arm” (v. 16b). This closely corresponds to the Lord’s call for an
intercessor in Isa 50:2, which is then answered by the Servant (Isa 50:4–9; cf.
52:13–53:12), who is himself subsequently described as “the arm of the
Lord” (Isa 53:1).345 Isa 59:21, moreover, likely describes the redeemer (v. 20)
through allusion to the Servant as one endowed with the Spirit and the word,

341
See esp. Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 519. He describes the use of “justice” (mišpāṭ) and
“righteousness” (ṣedāqâ) in 1–39 as referring almost exclusively to righteous behavior,
while in 40–55 “righteousness” is virtually always used of God’s righteous acts of salva-
tion. In 56–66, however, there is a synthesis which becomes clearest in chapter 59, in
which human action pleasing to God can only issue from an experience of God’s saving
action.
342
See Childs, Isaiah, 486, 488; Westermann, Isaiah, 349.
343
Westermann, e.g. (ibid., 348), notes especially verses 9 and 11 which both look back
to 59:1 as well as to what he terms Deutero-Isaiah. In them “. . . one is given a moving
testimony to a mood of bitter disenchantment and despondency as over against the lofty
and brilliant prophecies which had proclaimed that the exile was at its end.” Westermann
applies this to the fact that the glowing prophecies of Isaiah 40–55 were conceived to be as
yet unfulfilled.
344
So, e.g., Childs, Isaiah, 485, 487; Whybray, Isaiah, 220.
345
On the intertextual connection to Isaiah 53 by means of the concept of “intercessor”
and the phrase “the arm of the Lord,” see esp. Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 528. This understand-
ing seems also to be implied by Delitzsch, who references Isa 53:12 and states that the
Lord found “. . . no one to form a wall against the coming ruin, and cover the rent with his
body.”
For additional links between Isaiah 59 and the Servant of chapters 40–55, see Motyer,
Isaiah, 489–93. Motyer mentions, e.g., the endowment with the Spirit (42:1/59:21) and the
covenantal blessing extended to the redeemer’s “seed” (53:10/59:21). Several commenta-
tors also view the “divine warrior” motif as reminiscent of the Lord’s redemptive action in
40–55 (Isa 59:16–18/42:13; 49:24–25; 52:10; Westermann, 351; Whybray, 227).
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 265

who grants his covenant to the repentant (cf. 42:1; 50:4; 51:16).346 The Serv-
ant, therefore, by means of these intertextual connections, reappears in chap-
ter 59 as once again the mediator of redemption.
These various echoes of the redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55 in Isaiah
59 closely unite these sections of the prophecy and source Israel’s ultimate
redemption in the sacrifice of the Servant. This, at the least, is how Paul ap-
parently interprets the passages, with the above intertextual links likely lead-
ing him to make these interpretive connections. Paul here (Rom 3:15–17/Isa
59:7–8; cf. Rom 3:21–26), as in Rom 11:26–27 (quoting Isa 59:20–21; 27:9),
presents the plight of Israel in Isaiah 59 as answered in messianic redemption
through atonement as a fulfillment of the Isaianic “good news.”347

346
On this connection, see esp. Motyer, Isaiah, 492–93. For the Servant’s endowment
with the Spirit, see Isa 42:1; for His endowment with the word, see 50:4; 51:16; for the
Servant as the basis of God’s covenant, see 42:6; 49:8; 54:10; 55:3.
Of the “redeemer” in v. 20, Westermann states (Isaiah, 351), “Paul treats the passage
messianically, ‘the redeemer’ being in his view Christ.”
347
Note again that the Isaianic good news of Rom 1:16–17 comes to consummate ex-
pression in Rom 3:21–26 (which, will be argued, reflects the sacrificial redemption of
Isaiah 53) in answer to the plight of Israel in both Isa 52:5 (Rom 2:24) and 59:7–8 (Rom
3:15–17). This plight is readdressed with reference to Israel’s unbelief in Rom 10:15–16
through the quotations of Isa 52:7 and 53:1 and the “good news” of redemption through the
Servant. This message is then ultimately embraced by the nation as recounted in Rom
11:26–27, an event described through Paul’s quotation of Isa 59:20–21/27:9. Paul, there-
fore, employs Isaiah 52/53 and 59 in terms of both plight and solution, and bases the solu-
tion in the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. Paul’s conflated quotation of Isa 59:20–21
and 27:9 (Rom 11:26–27), moreover, reinforces this connection through its depiction of
redemption through atonement, and so links thematically within Romans both to 3:21–26
and 10:15–16.
On Paul’s use of Isaiah 59 together with Isaiah 27 in Rom 11, and the close thematic
coherence of the wider contexts of the citations that ostensibly led Paul to interpret them
together, see esp. Wagner, Heralds, 276–98. For a bibliography on the meaning of “all
Israel” in Rom 11:26, see p. 277, note 190. Against N. T. Wright’s view that the fulfill-
ment of the Gentile mission will fulfill the salvation of “all Israel,” and in support of a
reference in Rom 11:26 to the salvation of national or ethnic Israel, see p. 279, note 194. In
further support of this view, see especially the thorough discussion in Bell, Irrevocable
Call, 256–70.
Paul places the repentance and redemption of Israel in the future, and, following the
intertextual connections between Isaiah 59 and 40–55, ties the event to the redemption
through Christ/the Servant of the Lord. Yet Isaiah 59 ironically depicts God’s judgment on
Israel’s enemies as answering the need of Israel trapped in sin (though see Oswalt, Isaiah,
513, note 28; 527; 530). This irony, however, must be understood in light of both the
intertextual connections mentioned above and the fact that the passage is dealing with the
consummation of deliverance. All evil power structures must be overthrown, as well as
inner sin dealt with, for there to be true justice. Repentance effects inner cleansing and
renewal (v. 20, as is confirmed by the larger context, cf. 57:14–21), a repentance precipi-
tated by the parousia (e.g., Bell, Irrevocable Call, 268–70) yet with its cleansing and
266 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Within this basic interpretive framework, Paul’s quotation of Isa 59:7–8 in

Rom 3:15–17 reinforces the universal nature of human sinfulness through its
typology, a typology that is deeply embedded in the fall. But the quotation
further emphasizes the depravity characteristic of humanity’s separation from
God through its depiction of the murderous and destructive paths that in Isai-
ah stand in sharp contrast to God’s way, “the way of peace.” Paul’s use of
this contrast, particularly in light of the above connections, seems deliberately
intended to direct attention to this “way of peace” and recall the Isaianic
“redemptive way” heralded forth in the “good news” of Isaiah 40–55, the
basis of which is about to be set forth in Rom 3:21–26.348
This theme, which is prominent throughout Isaiah, surfaces preeminently
in the second major section of the prophecy.349 As mentioned above,350 and
as will be discussed further below, 351 the Egyptian and Babylonian deliver-
ances are employed in Isaiah 40–55 as types of the climactic redemption
effected by the Servant of the Lord as he creates a way for his people, a re-
demptive road back to the edenic bliss of their lost inheritance (e.g. Isa 51:1–
11) and the unveiled glory of the divine presence (e.g., Isa 35:2; 40:5; 43:6–7;
60:1–2). In the wider context of Isaiah 59, moreover (Isa 57:14–21), 352 this
redemptive way (Isa 57:14) is explicitly characterized by “peace” (~Alv; vv.
19, 21). In this wider context, Isa 57:14–21 connects intertextually to the
broad sweep of the redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55. The opening (Isa
57:14/Isa 40:3) and closing verses (Isa 57:21/Isa 48:22) of the unit, particu-

renewal derived in its entirety from the redemptive work of the Servant. The Lord’s judg-
ment upon the enemies of His people, on the other hand, effects outward restoration, and
prepares a renewed kingdom for the renewed people. The Isaianic gospel, therefore, mani-
fests the righteousness of God in both its realized and consummated forms.
348
Paul, in quoting the LXX, uses the term o`do,j, which renders both hL'sim. (“destruction
and misery are in their paths”) and %r<D< (“the path of peace”).
On this theme of the Lord’s redemptive way in Isa 59:8 as well as its prominence
throughout Isaiah, particularly as set in contrast with the destructive ways of men, see esp.
Oswalt, Isaiah, 516.
349
E.g., 40:3, 10–11; 42:16; 43:16, 19; 48:17; 49:11; 51:10–11.
350
See above, pp. 34–36, 102ff, 166–69.
351
See the sections in chapter four below, “Romans 3:24” and “The Sacrifice of the
Servant/Christ as the Fulfillment of Redemption (and the Passover Sacrifice).”
352
In terms of establishing this wider context, Childs (Isaiah, 490), e.g., asserts that the
boundaries of chapters 56–59 are shaped through the concept of the “covenant” (Isa 56:4;
59:21). Oswalt, on the other hand, seeks to demonstrate the interrelationship between the
various segments of chapters 56–59 through positing what seems a very plausible double
tripartite structure that may be simply set forth as follows (Isaiah 40–66, 453, 527):
the call to righteousness 56:1–8 58:1–14
Israel’s inability to do righteousness 56:9–57:13 59:1–15a
the delivering power of God (to the repentant) 57:14–21 59:15b-21
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 267

larly the latter with its echo of “no peace for the wicked” (48:22; 57:21),353
both recall and point to the fulfillment of this redemptive way in the climactic
salvation accomplished by the sacrifice of the Servant, whose chastening
brings us peace (Isa 53:5; cf. 52:7; 54:10; 55:12).354
Paul uses a verse from this very passage to great affect in Ephesians, in
which he similarly connects it to the “proclamation of peace,” the good news
of redemption in Isaiah 52. In Eph 2:17 he conflates Isa 52:7 with 57:19
(“And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to
those who were near”) to convey the peace secured for both Jew and Gentile
through the redemptive sacrifice of Christ (see vv. 13–18).355 It seems highly
likely, therefore, that as Paul quotes Isa 59:8 (Rom 3:17) and references “the
way of peace,” he is not simply condemning a sinful humanity through the
typology of Israel, but pointing to the Isaianic redemption through the Serv-
ant of the Lord. 356
The concluding link in the scriptural catena is Paul’s quotation of Ps 36:1
(Rom 3:18), “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Concerning this
353
On the various intertextual links between this pericope and Isaiah 40–55, including
Isa 40:3/57:14 (469), see Childs, Isaiah, 468–73.
The intertextual connection between 48:22 and 57:21 is considered by several scholars
(e.g., Delitzsch, Motyer) to be structurally significant, dividing the second half of the
prophecy into three divisions of nine chapters each (40–48, 49–57, 58–66).
354
In the wider context of Rom 3:17, Paul bases the attainment of peace (Rom 5:1) in
the justification achieved by the sacrifice of Christ expressed through allusion to the hand-
ing over of the Servant for our transgressions in Isaiah 53 (Rom 4:25; Ellis, Shum, Wag-
ner, Wilk; see Appendix).
355
Paul, therefore, the links Isaiah 59, 57 and 52 in terms of the concept of peace, and
bases that peace in the messianic, sacrificial redemption of Isaiah 53.
On this dual allusion in Ephesians, see, e.g., F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians,
to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 300–301;
Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 146–49; Frank S.
Thielman, “Ephesians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,
ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 817–18.
Thielman states (817), “Paul has skillfully combined the wording of these two texts to
make the double peace of 57:19 the object of the herald’s glad proclamation in 52:7.” He
goes on to give strong support for Paul’s use of “. . . the broad literary contexts in which
both of these quotations occur in Isaiah.”
356
In terms of the quotation’s relative significance, this quotation is part of a demon-
strable scriptural framework in several respects. First, it is connected to both the Isaianic
allusion in 3:9 and Paul’s other quotation of Isaiah (52:5) in Rom 2:24 in terms of the
theme of captivity to sin. It also directly prepares for the Isaianic redemption about to be
disclosed in Rom 3:21–26 both by virtue of its use in the catena but also by its “inner
allusion” to Isaiah’s “way of peace.” But lastly, and most significant, its relation to both
captivity and redemption within this larger Isaianic framework is confirmed by Paul’s use
of this very text to describe Israel’s ultimate redemption (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21;
27:9), which, by virtue of the themes of “redemption” and “atonement,” sustains a strong
intertextual connection with Rom 3:21–26.
268 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

quotation Kidner aptly comments, “. . . this man does not take even ‘the terror
of the Lord’ into account. This is the culminating symptom of sin in Romans
3:18, a passage which teaches us to see this portrait as that of Man (but for
the grace of God) rather than of an abnormally wicked type. All men as fallen
have these characteristics, latent or developed.”357 In this Psalm, the ungodly,
though denying God’s judgment, are nevertheless lavished with the universal
covenant love of the Creator (vv. 5–9),358 and so by implication and allusion
are invited back to the life of God ultimately expressed in the saving cove-
nant given to Israel. These aspects of the Psalm are reminiscent of Rom 2:1–
4, as is the emphasis in the opening (v. 1) and closing (v. 12) of the Psalm on
the certainty of the coming judgment in the face of delay, a certainty that
should shock the wicked out of their self-induced stupor of self-deception,
and drive them back to the God whose lovingkindness is a fountain of life
(vv. 7–9). The use of this Psalm after the quotation of Isaiah 59 again rein-
forces the typological role of Israel, as Israel’s guilt, along with its provision
of salvation in the covenant, is again brought back into solidarity with the
plight of and divine provision for humanity.
The major themes of Paul’s lengthy quotation, therefore, appear to move
from the universality of sin (Rom 3:10–12), through its source in the fall
(with its consequences in misery and death; Rom 3:13–14), to the contrast
between the “way of destruction” and the “way of peace” (Rom 3:15–17),
and then gravely concludes with the human denial of the coming judgment
(Rom 3:18), which both the catena (Rom 3:18, 19–20) and the section as a
whole (e.g., Rom 1:18/2:1–5, 21–27) are intended to confront. Within this
movement, the emphasis on organs of speech (Rom 3:13–14) draws attention
to the essential character of the human nature stemming from the fall as it
manifests itself in deceit and death-dealing poison, while the use of the meta-
phor of “feet” highlights the inevitable destiny of that nature in treading the
path to destruction (Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8). The typological role of Israel,
therefore, gathers these themes and by virtue of the movement implied in the
contrasting Isaianic “paths” within the eschatologically charged catena, pro-
jects these destinies to their respective ends in the judgment. Isaiah, then,
both in its typology and in its place within the extended citation, serves as a
climactic and clarion warning against a humanity that has blinded itself to the
reality of the impending judgment (3:18; cf. Rom 2:1–4). But finally, and not
least important, it also serves as a subtle call to the way of peace, the Isaianic
“redemptive way” about to be expounded in Rom 3:21–26 (cf. Rom 11:26–
27/Isa 59:20–21).

357
Psalms 1–72, 146.
358
Note esp. v. 7, “How precious is Thy lovingkindness (ds,x,), O God! And the children
of men take refuge in the shadow of Thy wings.”
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 269

3. Romans 3:19 – The Courtroom Motif of Isaiah: Broken Law and

Humanity’s Guilt before the Divine Tribunal
o[sa o` no,moj le,gei toi/j evn tw/| no,mw| lalei/ i[na pa/n sto,ma fragh/| kai.
u`po,dikoj ge,nhtai pa/j o` ko,smoj tw/| qew/| – Following the catena of verses
from the Psalms and Isaiah that the apostle uses to demonstrate the universal
reality of the “under sin condition” epitomized in the typology of Israel, Paul
summarizes much of his preceding argument by setting forth a central role of
the law. The law is divinely intended as an ongoing proclamation of humani-
ty’s inescapable guilt before the divine tribunal,359 a guilt which is authorita-
tively confirmed by the Lord’s act of “handing over” individual or nation into
that tragic state of captivity to sin. 360 This relation is strongly suggestive of
Isaiah, as the foregoing discussion demonstrated in part.
The term law (no,moj) in Rom 3:19, following the lengthy quotation from
the Psalms and Isaiah, must be a reference to OT canonical scripture as a
whole.361 Yet his previous assertion of Gentile knowledge of divine law (Rom
1:18–23, 25, 28, 32; 2:1–5, 14–16, 25–29), together with the express intent of
the catena to prove the captive state and guilt of humanity, Jew and Gentile
alike (Rom 3:9, 19–20), reveals that his use of law, though likely specific, is
at the least intended to be applicable in principle to the situation of the Gen-
tiles.362 What God’s law given at Sinai ultimately did to Israel – usher them
into the state of curse and condemnation – was but a reflection of the state of
humanity, captive and condemned as a result of rejecting God (Rom 1:18–25)
and the law he had indelibly impressed upon their consciousness (Rom 1:32;
2:2, 14–16; cf. Isa 24:1–6). This use of law corresponds significantly to his
Isaianic conception of Israel as a type of humanity captive in sin and con-
demned for transgression of God’s law. This relation is evident in the flow of

359
Note the emphasis on this ongoing proclamation in the present tense of both le,gw
and lale,w. This continual “speech” of the law, with its resultant knowledge of guilt before
God (cf. oi;damen with the following i[na clause, together with the explanatory clause of v.
20 – dia. ga.r no,mou evpi,gnwsij a`marti,aj) recalls several earlier passages of the section (cf.
Rom 1:18–23, 25, 28, 32; 2:1–3, 12–16, 17–24).
360
Cf. Rom 1:24, 26–27, 28–32; 2:17–24; 3:9–18. This dire consequence is applied to
both the individual as well as people groups, be they Jew or Gentile. In this “handing over”
Israel becomes uniquely representative.
361
So, for instance Barrett, Romans, 66; Bell, No One Seeks for God, 223; Cranfield,
Romans I-VIII, 195; Käsemann, Romans, 87; Michel, Römerbrief, 43; Moo, Romans, 205;
Murray, Romans, 105–6; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 54. Cf. 1 Cor 14:21. Käsemann, though,
rightly comments, “Nevertheless, the OT has its material center in the Torah as the declara-
tion of God’s will in the strict sense.” Stuhlmacher similarly comments, “According to the
Jewish conception the entire Scripture interprets the Law testified to in the five books of
Moses and therefore on occasion can simply be called as a whole, ‘the Law.’”
362
Barrett, Romans, 66–67; Cranfield, Romans I-VIII, 196–97; Godet, Romans, 142–43;
Murray, Romans, 106–7.
270 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

thought leading up to the quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, and continues to
the end of the section in Rom 3:20. 363
On the basis of this thematic and contextual correspondence, then, the
probability that the courtroom motif of Rom 3:19 is derived from Isaiah and
reflects Paul’s development of this Isaianic theme appears fairly strong. And
though the criteria of volume points to several of the Psalms as providing a
partial backdrop to the concept of God’s “shutting the mouth” of the ungodly,
Isaiah’s courtroom motif both incorporates and extends this conceptual back-
drop and so evidences a significantly higher degree of thematic coherence.
But most interestingly, there is semantic overlap in the Servant’s refusal to
“open His mouth” (Isa 53:7) that brings together the dual motifs of captiv-
ity/redemption and condemnation/justification.
In Rom 3:19 the purpose of the law is “that every mouth may be closed,
and all the world may become accountable to God” (v. 19). Though the spe-
cific term fra,ssw (“to close”) of Rom 3:19 is not used in the LXX with ref-
erence to closing the mouth, the expression is represented on several occa-
sions with the cognate verb form evmfra,ssw (Esth 4:17; Job 5:16; Pss
62:12/Eng. 63:11; 106:42/Eng. 107:42; Dan 6:23). In both Job and the Psalms
the redemptive acts of God toward the needy who cry to him have the effect
of “shutting the mouth” of the unrighteous in the given act of vindication, and
this “shutting of the mouth,” especially in the Psalms, portends the guilt of
the eschatological judgment. In Rom 3:19 the closing of the mouth explicitly
signifies this guilt before the judgment, a universal guilt that renders all the
world “accountable” (u`po,dikoj) to God. This term u`po,dikoj, though not used
in the LXX and only here in the NT, is fairly common in the literature of the
period and refers to one who is “under accusation with no possibility of de-
fense.”364
Paul’s use of the phrase fra,ssein to. sto,ma, consistent with his use of the
Psalms throughout this section of the epistle, indicates that Paul is drawing
the thought of man’s guilt before God’s judgment at least in part from the

363
Again, the typology evident in this framing of the sin of humanity in terms which al-
lude to the sin and captivity of Israel, and presenting Israel’s sin and captivity as a mirror-
ing of the history of the race (particularly through the use of Isa 52:5 [Rom 2:24]), is used
by the apostle to assert the equality of Jew and Gentile in both condemnation and justifica-
tion. See above, pp. 167–68.
364
Käsemann, Romans, 88. See also (esp.) Christian Maurer, TDNT, 8:557–58; Bauer,
Lexicon, 844.
Cranfield cites the range of interpretations of u`po,dikoj in this context from the sense of
“brought to trial before God” to “condemned by God,” and notes that in light of the phrase
“i[na pa/n sto,ma fragh/|,” the first likely says too little, while the second says too much. He
goes on to state, “The picture intended to be evoked by u`po,dikoj . . . tw/| qew/| in this context
is probably that of men standing at God’s bar, their guilt proven beyond all possibility of
doubt, awaiting God’s sentence of condemnation” (197).
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 271

Psalms. And indeed the slight volume of the echo is matched by a certain
degree of thematic coherence. In Psalm 63 (LXX 62) the shutting of the
mouth of liars (v. 11) speaks to the issue of messianic vindication in the face
of oppression from the ungodly, vindication for both the king and those
whose allegiance belongs to him (cf. Isa 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12), a theme
which fits the following section of Romans quite well (Rom 3:21–26). Psalm
107 (LXX 106) is a song of praise for the greatness of the Lord’s love (ds,x,)
as it is expressed in various acts of redemption for those who call to him in
their helplessness and need. 365 In light of these saving acts “all unrighteous-
ness shuts its mouth” (Ps 107:42), and by implication the unrighteous are
invited to “give heed to these things and consider the lovingkindnesses (ds,x,)
of the Lord” (Ps 107:43). This theme of guilt and helplessness before God
and the need to enter into a salvation which finds its source in God alone
aligns very closely with the truths Paul is presenting in 1:18–3:20 (and Isaiah
40–55, cf. Isa 45:25; etc.). This coherence extends to God’s redemption of
those who “dwelt in darkness and the shadow of death, prisoners in misery
and chains” (Ps 107:10), and of those held captive by death itself (Ps 107:18–
20; cf. Rom 1:32; 5:1–2, 17, 21; 6:23; 8:21),366 echoing several of Isaiah’s
leading themes. This Psalm, moreover, in a manner similar to Isaiah 40–55
and Rom 1:18–4:25, unites God’s redemptive care of Israel and the world.
Israel is not named in the Psalm, and each of the various examples of redemp-
tion (wanderers in the desert, vv. 4–9; prisoners, vv. 10–16; the deathly sick,
vv. 17–22; the storm-tossed, vv. 23–32) are repeatedly and emphatically
directed to “the sons of men” (vv. 8, 15, 21, 31), yet these redemptive exam-
ples appear also to serve as metaphors depicting the second exodus experi-
ence of Israel from Babylonian captivity. 367

365
See Mays, Psalms, 344, 346–47.
366
Derek Kidner recognizes a parallel in this Psalm between the metaphors of the cap-
tivity [of Israel] and the fallen state of man which resulted in death, and notes their combi-
nation in the Benedictus of Luke 1:79 (Psalms 73–150, 386–87).
On the rare term tyxiv. (Ps 107:20) “pit,” as a poetic rendering for “the grave,” see
VanGemeren, “Psalms,” 685.
367
VanGemeren (ibid., 681), though recognizing the universal nature of the redemptive
acts recounted in the Psalm, notes the likely connection between Psalm 106, which con-
cludes with a prayer for the Lord to redeem Israel from among the nations, and Psalm 107,
which “appears to be in the form of thanksgiving and praise for God’s answer to prayer.”
Kidner (Psalms 73–150, 384, 386) and Mays (Psalms, 346) likewise view the Psalm as
universal in reference, yet alluding to the redemption of Israel from exile.
The thematic overlap of Psalm 107 with Isaiah has been acknowledged by commenta-
tors (cf. Kidner, 386; Mays, 346. On wanderers in the desert (Ps. 107:4–9) cf. Isa 41:17–
18; etc.; on prisoners (Ps 107:10–16) cf. Isa 42:6–7; 49:8–9; etc.; the deathly-sick (Ps
107:17–22) cf. Isa 1:4–6; 38:1–39:8; the storm-tossed (Ps 107:23–32) cf. Isa 54:11. On the
climax of redemption depicted as a city in which the redeemed dwell (Ps 107:7; Kidner,
384), cf. Isa 26:1–3; 54:11–17; 60:1ff; 62:1ff; etc.
272 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Paul certainly appears to be drawing on these themes here in Romans, yet

the Isaianic context of the passages Paul quotes both incorporates and extends
the thematic coherence of both Psalms, and is conceptually much closer to
Paul’s argument in 1:18–3:20/4:25. The idea of messianic vindication that
stops the mouths of liars in Psalm 63 expands in Isaiah to include the Messiah
as courtroom intercessor (Isa 50:1ff; cf. Rom 8:33–34 [see Appendix]), who,
ironically, in behalf of those captive and silent in their guilt, does not open
his mouth (Isa 53:7). This silence, though, is because he bears their sin (Isa
53:10–12; cf. Rom 4:25), and in so doing achieves vindication both for him-
self (Isa 50:7–9; 52:13; 53:12) and for the many (Isa 53:11; cf. Rom 5:17–19)
who have come to put their faith in the good news of his redemption (Isa
40:6–11; 52:7; 53:1; cf. Rom 10:11–16).
In Psalm 107 God’s redeeming power exercised in behalf of the helpless
and guilty who cry out to him “shuts the mouth” of the unrighteous, and by
implication serves as an invitation for them to experience the greatness of the
Lord’s redeeming love (ds,x,). In Isaiah 40–55 God’s declaration and accom-
plishment of his acts of creation and redemption within the courtroom drama
serve as evidence of his sole claim to worship and trust on the part of the
idolatrous captives brought to court, and as the trial unfolds and the defend-
ants are called repeatedly to testify, there hangs over the scene a palpable
silence that betrays their guilt.368 This marshalling of evidence, however, is
not merely to establish guilt, but serves as a gracious call to faith in the cli-
mactic redemption the Lord is poised to accomplish through his Servant (e.g.
Isa 43:8–21; 45:20–25).
Similarly in Romans, creation (Rom 1:20), law, and the present declaration
and promise of redemption in the gospel of Christ to those captive in sin
(Rom 1:16–17; 3:21–26 – antitypically pointing to Israel’s past deliverances
[e.g., Rom 2:24; 3:24–25; 9:4, 15–17; 10:15]), serve both as evidence of guilt
and invitation. And, as in Isaiah, this invitation is wholly dependent upon
one’s acknowledgment of this state of guilt,369 which is why it is offered only
as a gift (Rom 3:23–24; cf. 1:18–2:4; 6:23; Isa 55:1–3). Therefore, in terms of
thematic coherence, both the messianic aspect of Psalm 63 and the redemp-
tive aspect of Psalm 107 in relation to guilt and vindication are integrated and
extended within the redemptive narrative of Isaiah.

Kidner (384, 386) and Mays (346) see the fulfillment of these redemptive motifs in the
ministry of Jesus Christ. Mays states, “In the Gospels, Jesus feeds the hungry in the wil-
derness, frees those possessed from the bonds of demons, heals and forgives the sick, and
quiets the storms (Mark 6:30–44; 3:20–27; 2:1–12; 6:45–52). His wonders correspond to
those of the Old Testament salvation history and so extend it and identify with it” (346).
368
E.g., Isa 41:1–4, 21–24; 43:8–9; 44:6–9; 45:20–25.
369
Note the i[na clause of Romans 3:19, which indicates purpose. See, e.g., Michel,
Römerbrief, 144.
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 273

One aspect of the trial motif of Isaiah 40–55 that is particularly relevant to
Rom 3:19 is the silence of the captives when called upon to testify. Through-
out the various sessions of this trial the Lord reveals himself as the One who
alone possesses the power of self-actualization, who alone can steer the
course of human history, declaring and bringing to pass his redemptive pur-
poses. In contrast, the idols are found to be non-realities (Isa 41:24), “wind
and emptiness” (Isa 41:29), and their works amounting to nothing. The one
who chooses an idol for security, therefore, is an abomination (Isa 41:24).370
Within the course of this trial the defendants’ dire need to depend upon some-
thing outside themselves for deliverance is obvious, emphatic and accute,
arising both from the cause and reality of their captive state as well as from
the evidence presented as to the nature of the Lord as Creator, Redeemer, and
Judge, whose words and corresponding acts in history, 371 particularly with
regard to Israel, point to a definitive, eschatological consummation in both
judgment and salvation. In this context of overwhelming evidence for the
Person and saving promises of the One true God, the defendants are repeated-
ly asked to testify in order to provide justification for their choice of anything
other than the Lord upon which to place their trust, a request which is de-
signed to, and does indeed, secure the absolute silence which serves as a
token of their guilt (Isa 41:21–29; 43:9, 26; 44:6–8; 45:21; 46:5; 48:14). This
guilty silence, however, is designed to drive them to faith in the Lord and his
saving promises (e.g., Isa 41:25–26; 43:9–11; 45:21–22; 48:6), which come
to center in the person of the Servant (Isa 50:10) and the good news of his
redemptive sacrifice (Isa 40:9; 52:7; 53:1ff).
This aspect of Isaiah’s trial motif paints a very similar portrait to the truths
sketched by Paul in Rom 3:19. Paul here cites a crucial purpose of the law: to
render all people silent in their guilt before God’s bar of justice (i[na pa/n
sto,ma fragh/| kai. u`po,dikoj ge,nhtai pa/j o` ko,smoj tw/| qew/|) that they might
receive a righteousness that issues from him alone, through faith in the good
news of redemption through Christ’s sacrifice for sin (Rom 3:21–26).372
370
This contrast between the Lord and the idols comes to somewhat of a climax in
chapter 46 as the Babylonian gods Marduk (Bel) and Nebo are carried away into captivity,
bourn by weary beasts who stumble under their loads. Far removed from these gods who
can bear and save neither their devotees nor themselves is the One who carries Israel from
the womb to old age. This image of procession into captivity is possibly an evocative
satire, intended to recall the annual New Year’s festival in which throngs of worshippers
crowded the streets to pay homage to these gods to whom they attributed their safety and
prosperity. This allusion would intensify the concept of the harsh and bitter reality of
misplaced trust conveyed by the passage. See Childs, Isaiah, 359–60; Hanson, Isaiah, 113–
14.
371
On the evidential nature of the corresponding words and acts of the Lord in the trial
speeches, and its design to engender faith, see Westermann, Isaiah, 195–96, 197–98.
372
This, then, demonstrates clear thematic development of a set of interrelated themes
unique to Isaiah, evidencing a strong thematic coherence with Paul’s passage. This allusion
274 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

This absolute guilt and total inability to secure vindication before the seat
of divine justice is emphasized further in the following verse.

4. Romans 3:20 – The Courtroom Motif of Isaiah: The Plight of All Flesh
and the Futility of Works
dio,ti evx e;rgwn no,mou ouv dikaiwqh,setai pa/sa sa.rx evnw,pion auvtou/( dia. ga.r
no,mou evpi,gnwsij a`marti,aj – The clause ouv dikaiwqh,setai pa/sa sa.rx
evnw,pion auvtou/ transparently reflects the text of LXX Ps 142:2: ouv
dikaiwqh,setai evnw,pio,n sou pa/j zw/n.373 Aside from the apparently incidental
reordering of the last two phrases and the shift in the personal pronoun,
Paul’s allusion stands very close to the LXX. It does, however, contain one
very intriguing alteration: the apostle substitutes pa/sa sa.rx for pa/j zw/n.
Though this change could simply be a semantically equivalent expression, in
light of Paul’s consistent drawing upon Isaiah, particularly Isaiah 40, 374 this
substitution could also be an allusion to Isa 40:[5–]6 and the “flesh motif” of
Isaiah’s redemptive narrative.375 Isa 40:6, with its parallel between Israel

to Isaiah’s trial motif is further confirmed by the criterion of recurrence both through
Paul’s explicit quotation of Isa 45:23 in Rom 14:11, as well as his allusions to this trial
motif in relation to his use of Isaiah’s typology of captivity (Rom 1:21–22, 25; 2:1–4, 16;
see discussions above). In terms of relative significance, the Psalms to which Paul alludes
certainly play an important role, yet their redemptive and messianic significance in relation
to the eschatological judgment seems to be incorporated into Paul’s larger redemptive-
narrative framework drawn from Isaiah. This relative significance of Isaiah is further
established by virtue of the important summary and transitional role played by Rom 3:19
within Paul’s argument, so that the allusion has considerable theological weight within its
quoted context.
373
So most scholars, who generally recognize the above portion of 3:20 as an allusion.
See, e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 197; Moo, Romans, 206; Käsemann, Romans, 88.
374
E.g., Rom 9:6/Isa 40:7–8; Rom 11:34/Isa 40:13; see Appendix. On the allusion to
Isaiah 40 in Rom 1:23, see above, pp. 150–54. As also discussed above (e.g., pp. 34–36,
88–90, 102ff, etc.), the concept of “gospel” is drawn, not simply from Isa 52:7, but from its
first reference in 40:9.
375
The phrase pa/sa sa.rx occurs 21 times in the LXX and 8 times in the NT. Of the 21
LXX occurrences, 5 are in Isaiah. In the LXX it is virtually always used to describe hu-
manity in its entirety, though in several passages in Genesis as well as Sirach it includes
animal life within its reference. In Gen 6:12 and Isa 40:6, however, pa/sa sa.rx has the
associated ideas of human falleness and corruption. In Isaiah alone is the phrase an integral
element of an entire set of associated ideas strongly reminiscent of this section of Romans
(e.g., typology of captive Israel, gospel, condemnation/justification, etc.). Whybray (Isai-
ah, 50–51) distinguishes between its use in 40:5 in reference to “all mankind” and its use
in 40:6 in reference “to human nature as such.” Hanson (Isaiah, 23–24) notes that “all
flesh” in 40:6 emphasizes the transient nature of humanity, though with negative moral
overtones with respect to the holiness of God. Motyer (Isaiah, 301) draws out this nega-
tive, moral aspect of human nature conveyed in the phrase, which therefore results in the
divine judgment of corruption and death.
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 275

captive in Babylon and “all flesh” (pa/sa sa.rx (/ rf"B'h;-lK') captive to corrup-
tion and death, forms an essential element of Isaiah’s typology and depicts
the universal plight to which the “proclamation of good news” is directed.
This good news, moreover, as in Rom 3:21ff, is fundamentally concerned
with the issue of justification, specifically the justification of a captive and
condemned humanity typified in Israel. In Isaiah 40–55 the dilemma of “all
flesh” is ultimately its bondage to sin and death, linked inseparably to its utter
inability to procure its own justification in the divine court; hence, the dire
need is for the manifestation of God’s saving righteousness which effects
vindication. 376 It is this saving righteousness that Paul begins to describe
against an Isaianic background in the very next verse (Rom 3:21–26).
This understanding of the phrase “all flesh” as derived from Isaiah is fur-
ther confirmed by Rom 7:14, especially in light of the relation it sustains to
Rom 3:9. As discussed above, 377 the linguistic and conceptual relation be-
tween Rom 3:9 and 7:14 reveals that Paul is very likely deriving the concept
of bondage to sin from Isa 50:1 and its wider context. As also mentioned
above, Rom 7:14 creates a parallel between the concepts of being “in the

Of the eight occurrences of pa/sa sa.rx in the NT, one, of course, is in Rom 3:20 and ex-
pressed in identical terms in Gal 2:16 (evx e;rgwn no,mou ouv dikaiwqh,setai pa/sa sa,rx); two
refer to the totality of human life (Matt 24:22; par. Mark 13:20); one reference has possible
overtones of human weakness and corruption (1 Cor 1:29; see vv. 18–29); one reference is
to the corporeal nature of humans and animals (1 Cor 15:39; though cf. v. 50). The remain-
ing two references (Luke 3:6; 1 Pet 1:24) are quotations from Isa 40:5 and 6, respectively,
with the latter verse using the phrase in reference to the perishable and corrupt nature of
humanity. 1 Pet 1:24, moreover, incorporates in its wider context many of the same
Isaianic themes that this thesis asserts to be integral to Paul’s “Isaianic gospel complex” in
this section of Romans (see Michaels, 1 Peter, 78–79).
Some commentators on Romans (e.g., Käsemann, 88; Moo, 206, note 54) view pa/sa
sa.rx as a reference to humanity, while others (e.g., Dunn, 159; Sanday and Headlam, 81)
see the phrase as a reference to human transiency, weakness and corruption (Sanday and
Headlam note the relation to 1 Pet 1:24). Barrett (Romans, 67) – though asserting that
Paul’s alteration makes no substantial change to the meaning of the text he quotes – both in
light of the foregoing catena and Paul’s extensive theological use of the flesh motif in
Romans 7 and 8 (cf., e.g., Rom 7:5, 14, 18, 25; 8:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13), considers the
alteration to be “significant for his doctrine of the flesh.”
Paul, then, seems to be using the phrase in a theological sense here, as Barrett’s obser-
vations strongly suggest. The evidence of its theological use in both the OT and NT, more-
over, suggests that pa/sa sa.rx in Rom 3:20 is an allusion to Isa 40:6. This possibility seems
all the more likely in light of Paul’s use of Isaiah 40.
376
In anticipation of Rom 3:21–26, and against the “new perspective,” Gathercole
(“Justified by Faith,” 148) states, “. . . when Paul speaks of the revelation of the righteous-
ness of God apart from the Law (Rom 3:21–22), he refers as much to the salvation of Israel
as to the salvation of Gentiles.”
377
See above, “Romans 3:9 and the Isaianic Derivation of ‘Under Sin.’”
276 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

flesh” and being “under sin.” 378 This parallel is clearly reminiscent of Isaiah
40 (esp. vv. 6–8), a key chapter that forms the conceptual backdrop for the
typology of Israel and the redemptive “good news” ultimately fulfilled
through the sacrifice of the Servant. This Isaianic backdrop to Rom 7:14,
which includes the flesh motif (cf. Rom 7:5, 18, 25), points to a similar back-
ground and significance for the concept in Rom 3:20, especially in light of
the Isaianic concept of captivity to sin which opens the unit (Rom 3:9). This
intertextual link between Rom 3:20 and 7:14 through its shared concept of the
flesh is strengthened generally by the fact that Rom 3:20 is understood by
scholars to be further developed in Rom 7:7–25, particularly the last phrase,
“for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.”379 Therefore, in addition to
the considerations of thematic coherence cited in the previous paragraph, it is
precisely these various intertextual relations – between Rom 7:14 and 3:9 (the
concept of captivity to sin),380 and 7:14 and 3:20 (the concept of “the flesh”),
together with the recognized link between Rom 3:20 and 7:7–25 – that
strongly suggest both Paul’s theological use of the phrase “all flesh” as well
as his allusion to Isa 40:6 in Rom 3:20.381

378
Most commentators view Rom 7:14 as referring to the unregenerate (Barrett,
Fitzmyer, Godet, Käsemann, Moo, Murray, Stuhlmacher), though some understand Paul to
be speaking of believers (Calvin, Cranfield, Nygren). Dunn holds a mediating position,
stating (Romans 1–8, 388), “In short, the phrase speaks of the individual in his belonging-
ness to the epoch of Adam, which is ruled by sin and death . . . the ‘I’ as flesh means the
individual in his belongingness to the old epoch. . . In this ‘I’ Paul includes himself as a
believer . . . not just in his pre-Christian days . . .” Dunn’s statement expresses, with most
commentators, an understanding of the related concepts of being “in the flesh” and “under
sin” as issuing from the fall, a perspective which is consistent with Paul’s use of an
Isaianic backdrop.
On this relation between Paul’s depiction of the inherent corruption of human nature
stemming from the fall, termed “the flesh,” with the concept of enslavement to sin,
Stuhlmacher writes (Romans, 110), “According to its origin and intention, the Law belongs
to the world of God; it is ‘spiritual.’ Even if and where it is misused by sin, it does not lose
its holy character as the word of God. But over against it stands the ‘I,’ which is fleshly,
that is, transitory and open to temptation, and sold into sin as into the power of a slave
owner (cf. Gal. 3:22f.).”
379
E.g., Bell, No One Seeks for God, 236; Seifrid, Justification, 140–42.
380
Again, see Seifrid, “Romans,” 615. Interestingly, Seifrid does not consider the possi-
bility of pa/sa sa.rx alluding to Isa 40:6, but does view the phrase as an allusion to the
corruption of “all flesh” in Gen 6:12. Regarding Rom 7:14–25, Käsemann asserts (Romans,
199), “The statements are parallel to those about the pre-Christian world in 1:18–3:20 and
5:12ff.”
381
Gathercole (“Justified,” 150) observers this “crucial anthropological dimension” in
Rom 3:20, in which “. . . the point is the inability of obedience to the Law to lead Israel to
justification because of the weakness of human flesh.”
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 277

But the apostle’s primary allusion in Rom 3:20 is to Ps 143:2 (142:2

LXX).382 In the context of the Psalm, the psalmist’s prayer for deliverance is
based in God’s righteousness (vv. 1, 11–12). David is here threatened by a
nondescript enemy who seeks to drive him into the realm of darkness and
death (vv. 3, 7), an end not inappropriate were God to allow his righteous
judgment to be executed (v. 2). But David stands within the covenant (v. 12),
and so longs for and rightfully expects a manifestation of divine righteous-
ness (vv. 1, 11), a personal deliverance which echoes God’s saving deeds
toward Israel throughout its sacred history in fulfillment of his covenant
promises (vv. 5–8). It is from this context and perspective that David prays in
v. 2, “And enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no
man living be justified” (the last half of which is quoted by Paul). All re-
volves around one’s position with respect to the saving promise: without is
judgment, condemnation, and the darkness and death so rightfully merited;
within is vindication and deliverance. Paul’s use of this text contemplates
universal guilt outside the covenant, “. . . the general predicament in which
all mortals stand.”383 Into this categorical statement of the Psalm Paul injects
the typology of Isaiah, which unmistakably points to humanity as lying in the
sphere of corruption and death which characterizes the reign of sin (Rom

382
Hays (Conversion, 50–60) understands Psalm 143 as the background for both the
concept of “the righteousness of God” as well as the logic of Paul’s argument in Romans 3.
Hays rightly points to the Psalm’s significance, yet its overarching role as an allusion
seems doubtful in light of Paul’s other overt quotations, both from the Psalms and Isaiah,
the significance of which are strengthened through this allusion to Psalm 143.
Also, Hays views Psalm 143 as stripped of its juridical overtones. He argues for “the
righteousness of God” as “God’s faithfulness,” and asserts, e.g., that in Paul’s use of Psalm
51 (where the theme of God’s righteousness reemerges [Rom 3:4]) that legal terminology
has “been absorbed into the language of confessional piety” (54, note 14). Yet it is the
guilt/grace tension in light of the divine righteousness that is specifically brought to the
fore by the Psalm (as it is with a slightly different emphasis in Psalm 143). It is this ten-
sion, moreover, that is supremely introductory to its resolution in the following section of
the epistle. Therefore, it seems more in keeping with the larger context of Romans to see a
comprehensive meaning of “the righteousness of God” that includes the juridical, and so
combines the faithfulness of God in his saving action with the absolute justice of that
action as a reflection of His holy character (cf. Rom 3:25–26). This more comprehensive
view of God’s righteousness surfaces explicitly in Rom 3:21–26 as an allusion to Isaiah 53
(and its context) and brings to climactic, eschatological resolution the tension between
human guilt and divine righteousness. Contrary to Hays, then, both the presence of this
judicial theme in Psalm 143 itself (e.g., Kidner, Psalms, 475; VanGemeren, Psalms, 851–
52), as well as Paul’s pervasive use of judicial themes and terminology throughout Romans
1:18–3:20, especially in Rom 3:19, renders its presence in Rom 3:20 highly likely.
See also Hays’ discussion of the catena in Rom 3:10–18 for an acknowledgment of the
theme of God’s just judgment upon the world for it sin, which adds confirmation to the
above (57).
383
Mays, Psalms, 143.
278 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

3:9) – humanity conceived as “in Adam,” and hence helpless with respect to
the final judgment. Paul, therefore, blends the mutually reinforcing theologi-
cal assertions of Isaiah and Psalm 143 in anticipation of the manifestation of
divine justification that comes only through the sacrifice of Christ, the
Isaianic Servant of the Lord.384
The significance of Paul’s allusions to both Isaiah 40 and Psalm 143
(which continues to reassert the basic thrust of the catena and the section as a
whole), together with his immediate use of the term “law” (v. 19) as applica-
ble in principle to both Jew and Gentile,385 leads to an understanding of the
phrase “the works of the law” as necessarily coming to a most negative result.
In its most fundamental sense the phrase signifies that which is done in obe-
dience to God’s law (cf. Rom 3:27–28; 4:1–8).386 Yet since the issue is justi-

384
In terms of establishing this allusion then, the criterion of volume is both slight (two
words) as well as clear (the exact phrase). It is reinforced through the criterion of recur-
rence in a variety of ways – generally through its connections with Isaiah’s typology of
captivity (which thereby evidences the additional criterion of thematic coherence), but
specifically with reference to Isaiah 40 in Rom 1:23 (Isaiah 40), Rom 9:6 (Isa 40:7–8) and
Rom 11:34 (Isa 40:13; see Appendix), as well as in the very use of the term “gospel.” Most
importantly, however, is the dual allusion to Isaiah in Rom 7:14, in which the Isaianic
concept of captivity to sin as derived from Isa 50:1 is set in parallel with the “flesh” motif,
a parallel that points Isaiah 40 as the conceptual backdrop to this concept of “the flesh.” In
terms of the allusion’s relative significance, it powerfully augments the allusion to Psalm
143, and together they tie into the Isaianic nature of 3:19 as well as the larger Isaianic
framework of “captivity” and “condemnation” in anticipation of God’s “redemptive right-
eousness.”
385
This point Paul takes pains to emphasize throughout vv. 9–20. Note, e.g., v. 9, “Jews
and Greeks are all under sin”; demonstrated in the catena (“as it is written,” v. 10) by the
combination of the universal indictment of humanity with the typology of Israel; followed
in v. 19 with “every mouth . . . all the world”; and in v. 20 with “no flesh.” Cf. also Rom
2:12–27.
386
See esp. Andrew Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant, 171–91. Das demonstrates
that Paul’s emphasis throughout Rom 1:18–2:29 is on God’s judgment based upon one’s
doing of the law. In a separate excursus (188–90), he discusses the nature of the phrase
“works of the law” in Rom 3:20. Das points out that the consistent use of the term e;rgon
and its cognates throughout Romans 2 to refer to the deeds of an individual against which
he will be judged (vv. 6, 7, 10, 15), Jew or Gentile, necessarily points to the more general
notion of doing what the law requires. This is particularly evident not only in the list of
specific moral commandments in 2:21–22, but also in Paul’s use of the phrase to. e;rgon
tou/ no,mou to apply to Gentiles (2:15). He states (189), “The Gentile remains a Gentile even
while doing (poie,w, 2:14) the work of the law. e;rgon thus signifies human activity and
doing of the law apart from any notion of Jewish ethnic distinction.” He concludes (190),
“If e;rga no,mou in 3:20 is intended to summarize what preceded in the discussion of the law
in Rom 2, the phrase must take into account that Paul is consistently using “works” in a
more general fashion: to signify human activity and doing, in opposition to mere Jewish
privilege . . . In light of Paul’s whole thrust in ch. 2, the summary expression in 3:20, e;rga
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 279

fication, the demand of the law, by implication, is a perfect obedience. This

implication arises from an understanding of the term “flesh” as referring to
the fallen human nature approaching the law outside and independent of the
saving covenant fulfilled in Christ, and therefore stripped of its nature as
situated within the context of promise, and thereby also, stripped of the mercy
and grace inherent in the covenant. Within this context the law can only hold
forth an unmitigating standard of perfect righteousness against which all fall
short; yet even as the law speaks these words of condemnation, it directs its
hearers to the saving promise (cf. Rom 2:1–4; 3:21).387
“Works of the law,” then, as done by the flesh, exhibit an inherent idolatry
that evokes the OT and Isaianic contrast between the autonomous and idola-
trous works of men and the redemptive work of God. 388 The phrase within

no,mou should be understood in the more natural sense of the works that the law requires
and without any special focus on the ethnic aspects of the law.”
So also, e.g., Moo, Romans, 209; Bell, No One Seeks for God, 230; Seifrid, “Unright-
eous,” 141.
Francis Watson (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith) believes the phrase evx e;rgwn
no,mou was possibly created as a deliberate counterpart to the phrase dia. pi,stewj VIhsou/
Cristou/, as itself an expansion of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17. Regarding the nature of their
relation he states, “In both cases, a preposition introduces a double genitival construction
in which the second substantive (‘law’, ‘Jesus Christ’) serves to define the scope of the
first (‘works’, ‘faith’). The ‘works’ or actions in question are defined by their relation to
‘the law’; the ‘faith’ or belief in question is defined by its relation to ‘Jesus Christ.’” Re-
garding the nature of these “works,” he goes on to state, “The phrase ‘by works of law’ is
likely to mean ‘the works or actions prescribed by the law’ . . . a set of divinely authorized
demands for specified actions or abstentions, such as the ones alluded to in Romans 2.21–
25” (p. 74). See also pp. 334–35, where he repeats this definition and sees it as an expres-
sion of Lev 18:5.
For Abraham in Romans 4 used over-against the principle of works-righteousness as
applied to both Jew and Gentle, see pp. 220–21.
Support for this position is also found in Paul’s definitive use of the more general con-
cept of works in Eph 2:8–9 (a point that should merit attention regardless of one’s view on
Pauline authorship, by virtue of the text’s necessary relation to Paul). See, e.g., Andrew T.
Lincoln, Ephesians, 112–13.
387
In this respect “the righteousness of God apart from the law [is] witnessed by the
law” (Rom 3:21), and is now eschatologically manifested in the gospel (Rom 3:21); this is
the fulfillment of the revelatory dynamic operative throughout salvation history (Rom 2:1–
4). The statement in Rom 3:20, then, presents a different scenario from that in 2:13. Rom
2:13, in its larger context of repentance (Rom 2:4) and circumcision of the heart (Rom
2:29), points to “doing the law” as the fruit of repentance and the sign of a renewed nature
derived from the covenant promise. “Doers of the law” represents a category that is co-
extensive with those who will be justified. (See discussion there.)
388
On e;rga as essentially equivalent in significance to e;rga no,mou (cf. Rom 4:2, 4, 6),
and hence the legitimacy of seeking the antecedents of the conception in the OT, see Bell,
No One Seeks for God, 234.
280 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

Paul’s statement, then, as well as within the larger context of his argument,
appears clearly to signify the total inability of fallen humanity to do that
which is truly good, the inability to do that which essentially reflects the
moral nature of God as uniquely expressed in the scriptures of Israel, particu-
larly the ten commandments. Paul’s concluding, explanatory statement (“for
through the Law comes the knowledge of sin”) confirms this understanding
and presents the law as the sphere which preeminently discloses the nature
and character of the works of fallen humanity, and, by corollary, the impossi-
bility through them of attaining justification.
Within this universal failure, of course, are various expressions of idola-
trous human autonomy and the vain efforts to establish life and self-security
independent of God. Yet each expression may be characterized as the effort
to bypass the admission of guilt (and plight) and so deny the divinely dis-
closed need for the Lord’s saving provision in light of this guilt – such as the
blatant idolatry of the pagan (1:23), the hypocritical judging of the moralist
(2:1–4), the Jew’s confidence in his possession and performance of the law
(2:17–24), or simply misplaced trust in the rite of circumcision (2:25–29).389

“Works” in LXX and Hebrew Isaiah (the concept most often rendered in Isaiah by
hf,[]m;) present a contrast between the ineffectual and idolatrous works of men and women
(which seek to bypass God’s plans and work [e.g., Isa 1:31; 2:8; 17:7–8; 37:19; 41:24, 29;
44:12–13; 59:6]) and the all-sufficient work of God, that includes his saving plan and his
creation of a people for himself (e.g., Isa 5:12; 19:25; 26:12; 29:23; 32:17; 45:11; 60:21;
64:8). This is characteristic of the OT, especially in reference to God’s redemptive works
and the “works of men’s hands” (idols).
Seifrid comments, “. . . ‘works of the Law’ were deeds of obedience to the Law’s de-
mands which were thought to secure or confirm divine favor. According to Paul, however,
obedience is present only where the divine oracles and the witness of the ‘Law and the
prophets’ are believed. All else is disobedience, since it fails to justify God in his words
and seeks to further the human ‘lie.’”
389
For the significance of Paul’s assertion here as against the prevailing Jewish mindset
characterized by Pharisaism, see the very important essay by Roland Deines, “The Phari-
sees,” 443–504. He states that Pharisaism may be understood as “. . . the fundamental and
most influential religious movement within Palestinian Judaism between 150 B.C. and A.D.
70” (italics his; 503).
Gathercole (“Justified by Faith,” 148) asserts with regard to Rom 3:20, that when Paul
“. . . talks of justification apart from works of the Law, he is opposing a Jewish position
whereby obedience to the Law in a comprehensive sense results in final vindication by
God on the day of judgment. Thus he is opposing a Jewish assumption that Israel will be
justified by her obedience to Torah.”
Against the hermeneutical approach of the “new perspective” in Rom 3:20, one of the
major battle grounds on the issue, see, esp., Bell, No One Seeks for God, 224–37; Davies,
Faith, 115–27; Moo, Romans, 206–17; Seifrid, “Unrighteous,” 140–41. In light of Paul’s
continual insistence on the equality of Jew and Gentile in transgression of the law, this
approach illegitimately restricts Paul’s understanding of “works of the law” to a very
narrow field of application – the false idea that adherence to particular Jewish “identity
 VI. Rom 3:9–20 and Isaiah’s Framework of Captivity and Condemnation 281

Paul’s discussion throughout, therefore, remains focused on the nature and

character of humanity’s sinful actions as falling short of the nature and char-
acter of God (Rom 3:23).390

5. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:9–20

Romans 3:9–20 is a powerful declaration, primarily scriptural, of man’s
plight before God as captive in sin and condemned before God’s judgment,
prominent dual motifs in the redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55. These
dual motifs of “captive” and “condemned” are explicitly and respectively
articulated in the verses that introduce and conclude the catena, Rom 3:9 and
Rom 3:19–20, passages which derive these themes from their allusions to
Isaiah. Rom 3:9 reasserts what Rom 1:18–3:8 was intended to demonstrate,
that all people are “under sin.” This phrase alludes to the concept of captivity
to sin in Isaiah 40–55, and points to the overarching significance of both the
theme itself (as derived from Isaiah) as well as Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in
Rom 2:24. But Rom 3:9 also introduces a catena of verses that further
demonstrate this reality, and in which the quotation of Isaiah 59 plays a cru-
cial role.
Paul’s use of Isaiah 59 within this string of verses ties in with his use of
Isaiah’s typology throughout the section and presents Israel’s captivity to sin
as representative of humanity. But Paul’s quotation of Isaiah 59 also alludes
to the Isaianic way of peace, the redemptive path of the new exodus. This is
significant, for it anticipates the redemption soon to be disclosed in Rom
3:21–26. This unique relevance of Paul’s quotation of Isaiah within the cate-
na in terms of pointing to plight as well as solution is evident in Paul’s con-
tinuing use of this very text to portray Israel’s ultimate redemption through
atonement in Romans 11, an atonement which, intertextually, finds its basis
in the Isaianic redemptive sacrifice of the Messiah in Rom 3:21–26.
The concluding verses, Rom 3:19–20, focus on the theme of helpless guilt
before God’s tribunal. In Rom 3:19 the allusions to Psalms 63 and 107 rein-
force the primarily Isaianic depiction of the “world trial,” with humanity’s
silent guilt before God’s law and inexcusable accountability in judgment.

markers” maintained one’s status in the covenant community. See also T. R. Schreiner,
“‘Works of Law’ in Paul,” NovT 33 (1991): 217–44.
390
See esp. Bell (against Dunn, Romans 1–8, 158–59), No One Seeks for God, 229–30.
This understanding of “works of the law” is partially confirmed by Paul’s description of
the spiritual nature of the law throughout the epistle as a whole (e.g., Rom 7:7, 12, 14;
Rom 13:8–10), a perspective which informs and reinforces the divine character and abso-
lute claim of the various expressions of God’s law in 1:18–3:20 (e.g., 1:21; 2:1–4, 21–23).
This, again, underscores the impossibility of fallen man doing that which is outside of his
nature, an inviolable truth well expressed by Job’s rhetorical question, “Who can bring a
clean thing out of an unclean?” (Job 14:4).
282 Chapter Three: Captive and Condemned

This concept of the “shutting of the mouth,” moreover, quite possibly evokes
the transition in Isaiah’s narrative from humanity’s silent guilt to the Serv-
ant’s role in taking this guilt, with the result that “He was oppressed and He
was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to
slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not
open His mouth” (Isa 53:7). Rom 3:20, then, contains a combined allusion to
Isa 40:6 and Ps 143:2, as the Isaianic “flesh” motif is injected into the Psalm
to emphasize the impossibility of fallen humanity doing that which essential-
ly reflects the nature and character of God.
Rom 1:18–3:20 as a whole, therefore, demonstrates a high degree of the-
matic development reflecting Isaiah’s larger redemptive-narrative context.
The typology of captive Israel is employed by Paul within a logical ordering
of themes in a manner that mirrors the redemptive narrative of Isaiah and its
theological framework. The deuteronomic curse of captivity is taken up into a
larger typological portrayal of humanity and set within a pre-eschatological
trial scenario, so that humanity is portrayed as captive to sin and death, and
condemned before God’s tribunal. It is this Isaianic backdrop of despair that
serves as a prelude to the Isaianic depiction of God’s redemptive righteous-
ness in the gospel.
 Chapter Four

The Antitypical Nexus – Paul’s use of Isaiah in

Romans 3:21–26

I. Introduction to the Isaianic Background of Romans 3:21–26

I. Introduction to the Isaianic Background of Rom 3:21–26
Romans 3:21–26 is considered by most commentators to be the heart, not
only of the first major division of Romans (1:18–4:25), but of the entire epis-
tle as well.1 Against the dark backdrop of the wrath of God expressed in the

1
So, for instance, Cranfield, Romans, 199; Kuss, Römerbrief, vol. 1, 110; Moo, Ro-
mans, 218; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 57. Kuss asserts (110), “Die theologische und
architektonische Mitte des Römerbriefes ist der Text 3,21–31, bzw. 3,21–26; von hier aus
kann und muß die ganze Theologie des Römerbriefes, ja der paulinischen Hauptbriefe
überhaupt verständlich gemacht werden.” On 3:24–26 as it answers the need of man con-
demned before God, receiving the gift of righteousness, Calvin writes (Romans, 75),
“There is, perhaps, no passage in the whole of Scripture which more strikingly illustrates
the efficacy of this righteousness, for it shows that the mercy of God is the efficient cause,
Christ with His blood the material cause, faith conceived by the Word the formal or in-
strumental cause, and the glory of both the divine justice and goodness the final cause.” On
vv. 25–26 Godet writes (Romans, 150), “It is not without reason that these two verses have
been called ‘the marrow of theology.’”
On the question of whether Rom 3:24–26 reflects a traditional formulation, commenta-
tors are divided, with most considering Paul to be employing an existing tradition in vari-
ous parts of these verses. Of the various conjectures as to the limits or “boundaries” of the
tradition in these verses, the most common view is that the traditional unit is found in vv.
25–26a; others perceive either vv. 24–26a, or vv. 25–26 as traditional (see Moo, 220, note
7). Those who hold to Paul’s use of tradition here include, e.g., Dunn, 163–64; Fitzmyer,
342; Käsemann, 92; Stuhlmacher, 58. The main argument in favor of a traditional formula
in verses 25–26a is the number of words appearing only here, or here and one other time in
Paul (see Dunn, 163–64). Other factors are the alleged “intrusive character” of the verses,
and redundancy of words and phrases (Fitzmyer, 342).
Against these considerations Moo notes, among other factors, the unique theological
concepts and the abrupt transitions which are characteristic of Pauline style (221, note 8).
Seifrid (“Romans,” 619) states, “But one . . . has to reckon with the possibility that the
apostle forms his own theological statement out of biblical or traditional language. There is
no tradition in the NT that quite matches the thought and imagery of this passage.”
Cranfield (against Bultmann and Käsemann) comments, “In the construction of a para-
graph as vital and central to his whole argument as this paragraph is . . . [i]t is very much
more probable that these verses are Paul’s own independent and careful composition re-
flecting his own preaching and thinking . . . and that the overladen style is the result . . . of
284 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

Isaianic conceptions of captivity and condemnation emerges the climactic,

eschatological manifestation of the righteousness of God as the only hope for
humanity.2 This divine righteousness described in Rom 3:21–26 recalls and
elucidates the identical theme in the thematic verses. Like Rom 1:16–17, the
passage (as this thesis will argue) evokes Isaiah’s redemptive narrative, but
here, particularly the decisive event of the Servant’s self-sacrifice in Isaiah
53. 3 This sacrifice is presented as the antitypical climax of the OT types of
the Passover and the Day of Atonement, and as such effects eschatological
justification and redemption.
The passage connects with the immediately preceding section by means of
the repetition of roughly similar phrases (Rom 3:20//Rom 3:21):4

v. 20 evx e;rgwn no,mou ouv dikaiwqh,setai pa/sa sa.rx / dia. ga.r no,mou evpi,gnwsij a`marti,aj

v. 21 cwri.j no,mou dikaiosu,nh qeou/ pefane,rwtai / marturoume,nh u`po. tou/ no,mou kai. tw/n

profhtw/n

The first parallel categorically denies to works of [the] law any role in escha-
tological justification as befitting a fallen humanity, typified in Israel, captive

the intrinsic difficulty of interpreting the Cross at all adequately and perhaps also, in part,
of the natural tendency to fall into a more or less liturgical style when speaking of so
solemn a matter” (Romans, 200–201, note 1). In addition to Cranfield and Moo, those who
hold to Pauline composition include D. A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in
Romans 3:21–26, JSNTSup 65 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 45–57; A.
Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Mission: The Outlook from His Letter to the Romans (Phila-
delphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 60–69; Kuss, Römerbrief, 159ff; J. Piper, “The Demonstra-
tion of the Righteousness of God in Romans 3:25, 26,” JSNT 7 (1980): 7–9; Ridderbos,
Paul, 166ff.
Interestingly, though Moo supports Paul’s composition, he entertains the possibility of
his dependence on a Jewish-Christian interpretation of Christ’s death as the fulfillment of
the Day of Atonement ritual, as would be reflected and paralleled in Hebrews 9–10 (see
pp. 220–21).
2
Michel (Rӧmerbrief, 146) states, “Die eschatologische Gerechtigkeit ist im Kreuz Jesu
Christi als dem entscheidenden Ereignis der Geschichte offenbar geworden.”
3
Regarding Paul’s transition from 1:18–3:20 to 3:21–26, Campbell asserts that Paul
claims scriptural authority for the atonement (Rom 3:21), and yet provides no actual scrip-
tural source for it (Quest, 244). He states, “. . . they [i.e., the scriptures] do not point obvi-
ously to the solution that he is about to announce: an atoning death by Christ. We need
some sort of extensive derivation of Christ’s atoning work from the OT Scriptures (pre-
sumably from Isa. 53 and/or similar texts . . . In short, nothing in this articulation of the
supposed problem seems to establish tightly the appropriateness of the Christian solution
that Paul will now offer.” The following argument, in light of the preceding discussion,
will attempt to establish the “tight” connection between Paul’s disclosure of plight and
solution as drawn from Isaiah’s narrative of redemption.
4
See Dunn, Romans, 161.
 I. Introduction to the Isaianic Background of Rom 3:21–26 285

and condemned in sin. The second parallel maintains the law’s divinely in-
tended role in bearing witness to the promise, both negatively and positively
considered, so that the law, together with the prophets, indeed possesses in
itself the nature of promise and bears witness to the righteousness of God (cf.
Rom 9:30–10:13).
But Rom 3:21 also, as mentioned above, creates clear linguistic and con-
ceptual links with Rom 1:16–17. 5 The verse overtly picks up the theme of the
revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel from the thematic verses of
the epistle, as derived from “the law and the prophets,” and so directs atten-
tion to the source of the allusive references to follow:6

Rom 1:17 dikaiosu,nh ga.r qeou/ evn auvtw/| avpokalu,ptetai / kaqw.j ge,graptai\ o` de. di,kaioj

evk pi,stewj zh,setai

Rom 3:21 cwri.j no,mou dikaiosu,nh qeou/ pefane,rwtai / marturoume,nh u`po. tou/ no,mou kai.

tw/n profhtw/n

. . . so that the law and the prophets likewise bear witness to the sole means of
appropriating this redemptive righteousness – faith – credited impartially to
both Jew and Greek:

Rom 1:16 panti. tw/| pisteu,onti VIoudai,w| te prw/ton kai. {Ellhni

Rom 3:22 eivj pa,ntaj tou.j pisteu,ontaj ouv ga,r evstin diastolh,

As demonstrated above,7 the thematic verses of the epistle likely reflect an

allusion to Isaiah 40–55. It is probable, therefore, that these common themes
drawn from the thematic verses and falling under the heading of “[the gospel
as] the revelation of God’s righteousness,” 8 reflect an Isaianic context as
well. This likelihood is strengthened throughout the paragraph by the addition

5
So, for instance, Godet, Romans, 99, 146; Fitzmyer, Romans, 341–42; Michel,
Römerbrief, 146; Moo, Romans, 219; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 57.
6
On the more or less synonymous nature of fanero,w and avpokalu,ptw, see Rudolf
Bultmann and Dieter Lührmann, “fai,nw, etc.,” TDNT 9:1–10 (see 4–5). So also Barrett,
Romans, 69; Cranfield, Romans, 202; Moo, Romans, 219.
On the contrast between the present tense of avpokalu,ptw in 1:17 and the perfect tense
of fanero,w in 3:21, Barrett comments (69), “The present tense emphasizes the continua-
tion of the process in the proclamation of the Gospel, the perfect the fact that the process
has a beginning. It will shortly appear that this beginning is to be found in the death of
Jesus.”
7
See in chapter two above, “Romans 1:16–17 – An Allusion to the Redemptive Narra-
tive of Isaiah.”
8
Michel (Römerbrief) has dikaiosu,nh qeou/ as the Stichwort for vv. 21–24, and
i`lasth,rion for vv. 25–26.
286 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

of several highly significant themes which, while originating in various sec-

tions of the Pentateuch, in combination similarly point to Isaiah as the scrip-
tural background. This combination of themes is the climactic event of the
revelation of God’s eschatological righteousness in the propitiatory/atoning
sacrifice of the Messiah as the basis of both justification and redemption,
with this salvation to be appropriated solely by faith. This unique combina-
tion of themes, set within a salvation-historical sweep that runs from the
primordial fall to eschatological glory, so that faith effects the transfer from
the eon of transient and perishing flesh to the eon of full and final redemp-
tion, has remarkable and powerful resonance with Isaiah’s narrative of re-
demption. Rom 3:21–26, it will be argued, expounds the good news of the
manifestation of God’s righteousness through scriptural allusion to Isaiah,
elucidating the basis and results of the gospel as the power of God unto salva-
tion. 9

II. Exegetical Overview of Romans 3:21–26 in Relation to Its

OT Background
II. Exegetical Overview of Rom 3:21–26 in Relation to Its OT Background

1. Romans 3:21
The phrase “the righteousness of God,” as already discussed,10 refers primari-
ly to the saving activity of God as it is eschatologically manifested in the
vindication of his people. But reflecting the wide usage of the phrase in the
OT, and particularly in Isaiah, it includes the idea that this saving action is a
necessary manifestation of his righteous character – both his gracious love
and faithfulness to his saving promises, as well as his holy justice with regard
to sinful humanity. This sense of “the righteousness of God” as an attribute in
relation to his role as eschatological judge[/vindicator] comes to the forefront
of the discussion in vv. 25–26. Yet the “righteousness of God” as appropriat-
ed through faith (v. 22 [see also vv. 25, 26]) and resulting in the individual
“being justified” (vv. 24 [see also v. 26]) as an action of the “just . . . justifi-
er” (v. 26) reveals just how intimately connected are the various aspects of

9
In terms of the criteria for establishing this allusion, therefore, the following discus-
sion will be primarily aimed at demonstrating a unique combination or clustering of
themes that clearly points to Isaiah 53 as the background. Throughout the discussion this
will be confirmed through the additional criteria of recurrence and thematic coherence, as
well as the criterion of historical plausibility (in the section discussing Paul’s use of apos-
tolic tradition, “Isaiah 53 as the Background to Paul’s Theology of Atonement”). These
issues will then be reviewed in the summary, along with the criteria for evaluating relative
significance.
10
See in chapter two above, “The Gospel as the Revelation of God’s Righteousness.”
 II. Exegetical Overview of Rom 3:21–26 in Relation to Its OT Background 287

this concept. The “righteousness of God” in this passage unites in the sacri-
fice of Christ the dual themes of God’s saving vindication of his people (Rom
1:16–17) and his just wrath against sin (Rom 1:18ff). The “righteousness of
God” here is his holy character (over-against sinful humanity [Rom 3:23]) as
manifested in his saving actions, specifically, the judicial verdict (or status)
of “not guilty” that he so graciously pronounces upon guilty (cf. u`po,dikoj,
Rom 3:19) sinners solely on the basis of faith in Christ.11
The adverbial connecting phrase nuni. de. has here primarily a temporal
significance.12 It refers to the salvation-historical shift from the era of antici-
pation and promise, during which the law played a central role,13 to the era of
fulfillment and salvation, in which God’s promises to decisively vindicate
and deliver his people were eschatologically realized. This temporal shift
signaled here refers also to the fact that the righteousness of God, which by
its very nature has always been “apart from the law,” 14 that is, apart from
human works,15 has now been definitively manifested as such by the long-
awaited, climactic, and once-for-all saving act of God in the sacrificial death

11
On the meaning of “the righteousness of God” in this paragraph, Barrett comments
(Romans, 69), “It has two aspects, represented by the two clauses of v. 26 . . . ‘that he
might be righteous himself’ and ‘that he might justify’. That is, it includes an interior
righteousness, the quality of being right, or righteous, and an exterior, or outwardgoing,
righteousness, the activity of doing right, of delivering, of setting things and persons right.
Both aspects of righteousness are revealed in the Gospel, and in the eschatological events
to which it bears witness; moreover, they result in the second sense of righteousness . . .
since their effect is to bestow on the believer the status of righteousness before God.”
12
E.g., Dunn, Romans, 176; Cranfield, Romans, 201; Käsemann, Romans, 92 (though
he sees also a logical element); Kuss, Römerbrief, 112; Moo, Romans, 221.
13
On role of the law in the old era as over against the “new perspective,” Moo asserts,
“‘Law’ (nomos), then, refers to the ‘Mosaic covenant,’ that (temporary) administration set
up between God and his people to regulate their lives and reveal their sin until the estab-
lishment of the promise in Christ. One aspect of this covenant, of course, is those Jewish
‘identity markers,’ such as circumcision, the Sabbath, and food laws; Paul is certainly
affirming, then that the righteousness of God is now being manifested ‘outside the national
and religious parameters set by the law.’ But Paul’s point cannot be confined to this” (223;
quoting Dunn, Romans, with no page reference).
14
Contra Godet (Romans, 146). That the prepositional phrase cwri.j no,mou modifies
dikaiosu,nh qeou/ rather than pefane,rwtai seems evident from the fact that if it did modify
pefane,rwtai it would contradict the final clause of the sentence, “being witnessed by the
law and the prophets.” But, as Murray notes, “Even if, syntactically, this construction were
favored, it would still follow by inference that it is a righteousness without law” (Romans,
110). On cwri.j no,mou as modifying dikaiosu,nh qeou, see, for instance, Moo, Romans, 222.
15
See esp. Gathercole, “Justified by Faith,” 150–52.
See also the discussion in chapter three above on the phrase evx e;rgwn no,mou ouv
dikaiwqh,setai pa/sa sa.rx (in the section on Rom 3:20), and the discussion of its parallel in
3:21 cwri.j no,mou dikaiosu,nh qeou/ pefane,rwtai (pp. 283–86 just above).
288 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

of Christ.16 This saving righteousness of God in the gospel, however, though

now fully manifested, nevertheless continues to receive testimony from the
“law and the prophets,” with which it stands in perfect continuity as its ful-
fillment.17

2. Romans 3:22
Continuing the above theme, “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus
Christ” points to the synonymous conception and the eschatological fulfill-
ment of “the righteousness of God apart from the law” in verse 21. VIhsou/
Cristou/, therefore, is most naturally understood, along with most commenta-
tors, as an objective genitive (though very possibly included in the genitive is
the added nuance of “origin,” conveying the dual concept that Jesus is both
the source and object of faith).18 The following phrase, “for all who believe”

16
On the significance of pefane,rwtai, Dunn comments, “The perfect tense of the verb
has a different significance from the present tense in 1:17 (“is being revealed”), indicating
that the new state of affairs was introduced by a decisive act in the past whose effect still
remains in force. God made his righteousness visible in this act, and he brought his out-
reach for man’s salvation to clear expression at that time, in such a way that it remains
clearly manifest and determinative for the ‘now’” (Romans, 176).
17
As Käsemann notes (Romans, 93), the phrase “the law and the prophets” refers to the
whole OT, with the term “law” pointing to the Pentateuch. On the phrase as a common
designation for the OT as a whole, cf., e.g., Mat 5:17; 7:12; 22:40; Luke 16:16; Acts 13:15;
24:14; 28:23.
On the gospel’s continuity with the OT, and particularly the law, Dunn insightfully
comments (Romans, 177), “Here he[/Paul] adds explicitly that this testimony is given by
the law and the prophets, implying once again that the gospel is the continuation or com-
pletion or fulfillment of the law properly understood within the scriptures as a whole.
Moreover, he no doubt deliberately puts the verb in the present rather than past tense: this
was not a testimony given once for all in the past, but is still being given; the law gives not
only knowledge of sin (3:19–20) but also continuing testimony to the gospel (as chap. 4
will demonstrate). Any interpretation of ‘apart from the law’ which does not give adequate
weight to ‘the law also bearing witness’ will inevitably result in a misconception of ‘the
righteousness of God.” So also, e.g., Barrett (Romans, 70), Käsemann (Romans, 93–94),
Murray (Romans, 110).
Cranfield recognizes the prevalence of this thought in Romans (cf., e.g., 1:2; 4:1–25;
9:25–33; 10:6–13, 16–21; 11:1–10, 26–29; 15:8–12), and states (Romans, 202–3), “That
this attestation of the gospel by the OT is of fundamental importance for Paul is indicated
by the solemn way in which he insists on it here in what is one of the great hinge-sentences
on which the argument of the epistle turns.”
Interestingly, Moo (Romans, 223, note 21) asks the question, “What OT passages was
Paul referring to? The most likely are those texts in Isaiah where ‘God’s righteousness’ is
bound up with the eschatological deliverance of his people (46:13; 51:5, 6, 8).”
18
There are now, though, an increasing number of scholars who are advocating a sub-
jective genitive. See the excursus on “the faith of Jesus Christ” immediately following this
section.
 II. Exegetical Overview of Rom 3:21–26 in Relation to Its OT Background 289

(eivj pa,ntaj tou.j pisteu,ontaj), rather than creating a redundancy with dia.
pi,stewj VIhsou/ Cristou/ (as claim the advocates of a subjective genitive for
VIhsou/ Cristou/), instead highlights the universal availability of this saving
righteousness appropriated through faith.19 As mentioned above, the appro-
priation of God’s saving righteousness by faith bears strong resemblance to
the redemptive narrative of Isaiah, particularly as Paul uses texts from Isaiah
not only to illustrate the exclusive role of faith in appropriating salvation
(Rom 9:33; 10:11/Isa 28:16), but also to show the saving promise as coming
to full scriptural expression in Isaiah’s good news of redemption (Rom
10:15–16 [cf. 9:6–10:16]/Isa 52:7; 53:1).20 The subsequent assertion, “for
there is no distinction,” far from denying the salvation-historical priority of
the Jew (cf. Rom 1:16; 2:9–10), carries the thought of universal availability
forward to its application of equal access to the divine righteousness for both
Jew and Gentile (cf. Rom 3:29–30; 10:12), a theme similarly prominent in
Isaiah 40–55.21

3. Romans 3:23
This universal availability of God’s saving righteousness is set forth as the
answer to the universal need of sinful humanity, a need recounted in 1:18–
3:20, and here recalled and distilled into its essence.22 Paul in Rom 3:23,
according to most scholars, alludes to Adam’s tragic fall into sin which ef-
faced both the image of God in which he was created and the glory with
which he was crowned (Gen 1:26–27; Ps 8:5; cf. Rom 1:23; 5:12–21),23 with
the result that he was no longer fit to stand in the presence of the glory of

19
Moo, Romans, 225–26.
20
See above, pp. 90–92.
21
See above, pp. 92–93.
22
E.g., Fitzmyer, Romans, 342.
23
So Barrett, Romans, 71; Calvin, Romans, 74; Cranfield, Romans, 204; Dunn, Romans,
168, 178; Godet, Romans, 148–49; Käsemann, Romans, 94–95; Michel, Römerbrief, 149;
Moo, Romans, 226; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 85; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 58.
Several of the above scholars note the connection between Paul’s thought and the Rab-
binic and apocalyptic conceptions current at the time regarding Adam’s possession of the
glory of God and its subsequent forfeiture through sin (cf. Gen. Rab. 12.6; Apoc. Mos.
21.6; 3 Bar. 4.16). But though the apostle undoubtedly made good use of this widespread
familiarity, the source of his thought, as he repeatedly asserts, is scripture (Rom 1:2, 17;
3:21; etc.). Dunn writes, “Almost certainly Paul is thinking once again of Adam in Genesis
1–3, or of humankind in Adamic terms – Adam who sinned and who in consequence both
forfeited the glory he originally had (the immediate presence of God and a share in the
Creator’s dominion over the rest of creation) and also failed to reach the eschatological
glory intended for him (an ever fuller share in the immortal life of God – Gen 3:22–24).
Both ideas . . . are probably contained within the one verb (here translated ‘lack’), and
were probably already current in Jewish theology of that period. So Paul could have some
confidence that his readership would recognize the allusion” (Romans, 178).
290 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

God. 24 This allusion, recalling Paul’s previous reference to the fall in Rom
1:23 (and its context),25 sets humanity in the light of its two typological rep-
resentatives, Adam and Israel, as the latter powerfully echoes and reenacts the
sin of the former, with its curse and banishment. 26 These ideas, it has been
argued, reflect the redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55 in which the typolo-
gy of Israel is employed to anticipate and depict the supreme manifestation of
God’s redemptive righteousness in the sacrifice of the Servant, a redemption
which restores both Israel and the world to God’s glorious presence.27

24
E.g., Gen 3:23–24; Exod 19:10–12/24:16–17; 33:18–20; Isa 6:1–5; Ezek 10:4, 18;
11:23; cf. Rom 1:23–24.
Moo states that this “. . . absence of glory involves a declension from the ‘image of
God’ in which human beings were first made” (Romans, 226). Expanding this thought in
relation to the two clauses of Rom 3:23, Dodd insightfully remarks (Romans, 50–51), “The
latter clause may be taken as a definition of sin. Man was created to bear the likeness of
God; ideally he is ‘the image and glory of God’ (I Cor. xi. 7) . . . The glory of God is the
divine likeness which man is intended to bear. In so far as man departs from the likeness of
God he is sinful. To come short of the glory of God is to sin” (emphasis his).
Paul, in Rom 8:29–30, explicitly connects the Christian’s restoration to the image of
Christ/God to his glorification by God. Cf. Phil 3:21; cf. also 2 Cor 3:18.
25
So, e.g., Käsemann, Romans, 94–95; Seifrid, “Romans,” 618. On Rom 1:23 and its
background in Isaiah, see in chapter three, “The Typological Nexus of Romans 1:23.”
26
On this aspect of Rom 3:23, Barrett (Romans, 71) comments, “We see then, men, re-
vealed through the unique and ambiguous privilege of Israel as sinners, guilty before God,
deprived of glory both as possession and as hope.”
27
To concisely recap much of the previously covered terrain with respect to the theme
of the glory of God, in the opening chapters of Isaiah, humanity cannot stand before the
manifest presence of God in judgment. In chapter 4, however, God’s people are finally
made holy through messianic mediation (see, e.g., Oswalt [Isaiah 1–39, 145–47] on Isa
4:2) and the washing and purging of judgment (cf. 1:27 “Zion will be redeemed with jus-
tice and her repentant ones with righteousness”), and so become sharers in the glory of
God in words that recall the divine glory resting upon the tabernacle. This scenario is
reiterated in the life of Isaiah in chapter 6 as the prophet, representative of his people Israel
(v. 5), stands undone before the glory and holiness of God, intimating within the larger
setting of the prophecy both the fall and its typological portrait in Israel’s exile. Yet chap-
ter 6 contains the added element of the coal from the altar, suggesting that the redemption
through judgment and righteousness (Isa 1:27; 4:4) is accomplished through sacrifice and
atonement. These themes are picked up and expanded in chapters 40–55 as God’s redemp-
tive righteousness is accomplished through the atoning sacrifice (cf. Isa 27:9) of the Serv-
ant of the Lord, through which He justifies the many, bearing their sin and so restoring
them to the glory of God lost in the fall and reechoed in the exile (cf., e.g., Isa 40:5; [42:8
cf. Rom 1:23;] 43:7 [alluding to creation to depict the recreation of the redeemed to share
in the glory of God]; 45:24–25 [the LXX has doxa,zw, while the MT has llh]; 52:1 LXX;
55:5 [LXX – doxa,zw, MT – rap]. Note especially that Israel’s redemption from sin in
Isaiah 59 (Rom 11:26–27), which alludes both to Isaiah 40–55 as a whole and Isaiah 53 in
particular as its basis, is followed by the restoration of Israel to the glory of God in chapter
60, a restoration in which the nations share (60:1–3, 13, 19, 21; cf., e.g., Isa 2:2–4; 11:10;
chps. 24–27; etc.).
 II. Exegetical Overview of Rom 3:21–26 in Relation to Its OT Background 291

In this highly allusive context of Rom 3:23 in which humanity’s sin is set
over against “the glory of God,” do,xa, as it predominantly translates the He-
brew dAbK', must refer to the absolute perfection of God’s character and na-
ture,28 particularly as it is expressed in his law and manifested in his immedi-
ate presence (e.g., esp. Exod 33:18–34:8).29 Within the context of the mani-
festation of God’s redemptive righteousness in Rom 3:21–26, Rom 3:23 sig-
nifies that this saving act of God restores believing sinners to eschatological
glory. 30 In Romans, though this “return to glory” for the present remains in
prospect as the hope of the justified (Rom 5:1–2; 8:16–25), it is in some
measure realized even now through the believer’s union with the risen and
glorified Christ (Rom 6:4; cf. 2 Cor 3:18).
The significance of these scriptural echoes, as mentioned above, is not
simply to highlight the universal need of sinful humanity in Adam, reinforced
by the typology of Israel, but to point to the provision for this need in the
mediatorial primacy of Israel through which God’s saving righteousness
would be revealed (Rom 1:2, 16–17; 3:1–4, 22; etc.). Therefore, in the larger
context of this section of Romans, the restoration to the glory of God lost to
humanity in the fall (Rom 1:23; 3:23), sought and secured through repent-
ance/faith (Rom 2:4–7, 10; Rom 3:22, 25–26), comes to be based in the
promised justification and redemption achieved through the sacrifice of
Christ (cf., e.g., Rom 4:23–5:2; 8:1–3, 21, 23; see Appendix). It will be ar-
gued that this complex of ideas, drawn from a variety of OT scriptural

28
See Murray, Romans, 112–13; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 84. See also Thayer (in
loc.).
This understanding of do,xa is supported by its contextual relation to dikaiosu,nh tou/
qeou/. Regarding this relation, Käsemann comments, “The correspondence of do,xa and
dikaiosu,nh tou/ qeou/ derives from the antithesis in the context . . . From it one may also
infer that with righteousness the lost image will be restored to a person in his participation
in Christ’s lordship and the fallen world will be eschatologically changed into the new
creation of 2 Cor 5:17. To put it more precisely, the do,xa tou/ qeou/ is dikaiosu,nh within the
horizon of the restoration of paradisaical perfection, while conversely dikaiosu,nh is the
divine do,xa within the horizon of controversy with the world, thus of temptation
(Anfechtung)” (Romans, 95).
29
Moo (Romans, 226), for instance, notes this close connection between “glory” and
the presence of God, asserting that the eternal state is characterized by God’s glorious
presence.
30
Barrett comments, “. . . man now lacks what he might now have had, that is, the glory
with which Adam was created and which he (and all mankind with him) lost through sin
. . . the future glory may be regarded as the restoration of the lost, original glory” (Romans,
71). Cranfield similarly writes, “. . . reference is to that share in the divine glory, which,
according to Jewish thought, man possessed before he fell away from his true relationship
to God and which will be restored in the eschatological future” (Romans, 204). This theme
of “restoration to glory” is common in the prophets, particularly Isaiah (Isa 4:5; 6:3, 7;
11:10; 24:23; 35:1–10 (v. 2); 40:3–11 (v. 5); 43:1–7 (v. 7); 44:23; 49:1–6 (v. 3); 59:16–21
(v. 19); 60:1ff; Ezek 43:4–5; 44:4).
292 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

sources, is uniquely brought together in the prophecies of Isaiah. In anticipa-

tion of this conclusion, Paul’s theme of restoration to glory appears to be an
extension of this Isaianic complex of ideas, and perhaps even reflects a key
and programmatic passage of the prophecy – Isaiah 6, in which the prophet,
in solidarity with Israel and the world, stands undone before the glory of
God. 31 It is this glory that is ultimately regained through justification based in
the redemptive sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord (Isa 4:2–6; 40:5; 43:7;
45:25; 53:11; 54:17; 59:20–60:1ff). Paul repeatedly expresses this very com-
bination of ideas in contexts with recognized allusions to the justification
mediated through the sacrifice of the Servant (Rom [3:23–25;] 4:25–5:2; 8:3,
21, 30–34; [11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21 as it anticipates 60:1–2]; see Appendix).

4. Romans 3:24
The connection of the participle dikaiou,menoi (“being justified”) with the all-
inclusive assertion of verse 23 stresses again the universal availability of this
saving justification (cf. v. 22).32 The term, in keeping with the context of
Romans, is thoroughly forensic in its significance. It portrays God in the role
of Judge and so denotes the divine pronouncement of “righteous” with re-
spect to his law.33 Also in keeping with the context – the definitive revelation
of God’s righteousness in terms of both unmitigated wrath upon sin in the
Messiah’s death, as well as full and final vindication in the Messiah’s resur-
rection – this verdict of acquittal as sourced entirely in the messianic redemp-
tive event is wholly eschatological in nature, referring to the declaration of
the final judgment which is ushered into the present as one responds in faith
to the manifestation of God’s righteousness in the gospel (vv. 22, 25–26; cf.

31
Childs, e.g., notes the strong, intertextual connection between the theophany of Isaiah
6 and the revelation of the glory of God in redeeming power in Isaiah 40 (Isaiah, 299).
On the relationship between the theme of restoration to God’s glory and the concepts of
grace and justification, see footnote 35 below.
32
On the various possible connections of dikaiou,menoi with what precedes, see, e.g.,
Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 85–86. Most of the suggested solutions seek to preserve the
logical connection that v. 24 bears with vv. 21–22a, while maintaining the grammatical
connection with v. 23. Perhaps the best explanation is given by Cranfield (Romans, 205)
who suggests that the participle is dependent upon pa,ntej of v. 23, and so picks up the
thought of vv. 21–22a via the phrase in 22b, ouv ga,r evstin diastolh,. It expounds the posi-
tive side of “no distinction” in the reception of God’s righteousness by faith, while coun-
ter-balancing its negative side in v. 23.
But as Moo notes (Romans, 227), it indicates not universality (in the sense that
dikaiou,menoi is not coextensive with pa,ntej ga.r h[marton of v. 23), but “lack of particulari-
ty.”
33
Barrett, Romans, 71–72; Calvin, Romans, 75; Cranfield, Romans, 92–95; Dunn, Ro-
mans, 175–80; Fitzmyer (apparently), Romans, 347; Moo, Romans, 227–28.
 II. Exegetical Overview of Rom 3:21–26 in Relation to Its OT Background 293

Rom 1:16–17).34 Justification, moreover, is given “as a gift by His grace,”

pointing both to its OT background,35 as well as to the nature of this con-
ferred status as entirely apart from works.36
God’s verdict of “righteous,” granted to the sinner as a gift of his grace
comes, “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (dia. th/j
avpolutrw,sewj th/j evn Cristw/| VIhsou/). The term avpolu,trwsij (“redemp-
tion”), set within the context of sacrifice (v. 25, “propitiation in his blood”),
includes within its meaning of “deliverance [from slavery/bondage]” the
concept of a price paid to secure that deliverance.37 The term principally
34
E.g., Barrett, Romans, 71–72; Dunn, Romans, 179; Michel, Römerbrief, 149–50. On
the realized nature of this eschatological verdict, Barrett (72) comments, “Justification
(like the ‘handing over’ of i. 24, 26, 28) is a verdict anticipated from the last day. It is the
verdict which faith, and only faith, can hear. Outside faith, as outside grace, men can hear
(out of the law) only the verdict of guilty, and the sentence of condemnation.”
35
See Barrett, Romans, 72. ca,rij in the LXX generally translates the Hebrew !xe (e.g.,
Gen 6:8; 39:21; Exod 3:21; 11:3; 12:36; 33:12, 13, 16, 17; 34:9; Ruth 2:2; 1 Sam 1:18;
Zech 12:10; etc.). Some of the most theologically significant uses of these terms are in
Exodus 33 and 34 (cited above). The context is Israel’s breaking of God’s law in the gold-
en calf incident, following which the intercession of Moses secures God’s grace expressed
in pardon and the continuation of His glorious presence with His chosen people. God’s
gracious, covenant purpose to restore His people to His presence and glory is then epito-
mized in the Lord’s self-disclosure of His glory to Moses. Yet this “privilege of proximity”
is only partial [and anticipatory] for Israel and Moses, as is made clear by such things as
the cordoning off of Mt. Sinai, the curtains of the tabernacle, and God’s assertion to Moses
that “no man can see me and live” (Exod 33:20; cf. Heb 9:7–8).
One section of OT scripture in which these various themes are taken up is in the para-
digmatic chapter of Isaiah 6, in which this deadly dilemma of sinful man before the glory
and holiness of God is only enigmatically resolved, anticipating the fuller disclosure of this
resolution in Isaiah 40ff.
In respect to the theme of grace as it touches upon this subject, though neither ca,rij nor
!xe occur in Isaiah, the more frequently used cognate of !xe, the verbal form !nx (denot-
ing/depicting “the heartfelt response by someone who has something to give to one who
has a need” [Edwin Yamauchi, “!n:x' (ḥānan),” TWOT, 1:302–4 (302)]), appears several
times (Isa 26:10; 27:11; 30:18, 19[2x]; 33:2), generally translated in the LXX by evlee,w
(though in 30:18 with oivkti,rw). In MT Isaiah it is used of the Lord’s grace toward those
who trust in Him for deliverance (Isa 30:18, 19; 33:2; obversely in 27:11; though interest-
ingly, 26:10). And though the terms are not present, the gracious nature of this deliverance
comes to a climax in the prophecy in the invitation to enter freely into the covenant estab-
lished by the sacrificial death of the Servant of the Lord (Isa 55:1ff; note especially the use
of ds,x, in 55:3).
36
Cf., e.g., Rom 3:20, 27–28; 4:1–8; 5:17; 11:6; Phil 3:3–9; Eph 2:8–9.
37
As against, e.g., O. Procksch and F. Büchsel, TDNT, 4:328–56 (see 354–55); Hill,
Greek Words, 49ff/58–80; see Calvin, Romans, 75; Dunn, Romans, 180; Fitzmyer, Ro-
mans, 122–23; Godet, Romans, 149; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 86; Barrett, Romans,
73; Michel, Römerbrief, 150; Moo, Romans, 229; Murray, Romans, 115–16. See the thor-
ough discussion in Morris, Apostolic Preaching, 9–26. For this idea of a redemptive price
paid in both Paul and the NT, though at times using terms outside the lu,tron family, see
294 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

recalls the two great deliverances in the OT which its cognates are used to
describe, the deliverance from both the bondage of Egypt and the exile in
Babylon.38 From the primary reference to the redemption from Egypt are
derived various uses of this redemptive terminology in the national life of the
redeemed people, both legal and cultic, uses which include strong connec-
tions with the Day of Atonement. 39 These uses, together with the event that
they recall, [come to] signify redemption in the ultimate sense.40

Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; Gal 3:13; Eph 1:7; 1 Tim 2:6; Titus
2:14; Heb 9:12, 15; 1 Pet 1:18ff; 2 Pet 2:1; Rev 5:9; 14:3, 4.
38
So, e.g., Dunn, Romans, 180. Moo (Romans, 229) notes that while some have viewed
the compound form of avpolu,t rwsij (from lu,trwsij) to indicate an intensification in the
concept, “implying the definitive nature of Christian redemption,” it more likely reflects
the preference for compound forms in Hellenistic Greek. The compound form appears in
the LXX only in Dan 4:34 (without antecedent in the MT) as against its 10 occurrences in
the NT. The uncompounded form (lu,t rwsij), on the other hand, appears 15 times in the
LXX, as against 3 occurrences in the NT. In the LXX it translates both lag and its cognate
nouns (hL'auG., yl;WaG.) as well as hdp with its cognates (tWdP., !Ayd>Pi ). The uncompounded
verbal form lutro,w, however, is used much more frequently in the LXX (109 times, as
against 3 uses in the NT) and translates the same two Hebrew cognate families.
On the use of these terms to refer to the redemption from Egypt, see, e.g., Exod 6:6;
15:13; Deut 7:8; 9:26; 2 Sam 7:23; 1 Chr 17:21; Neh 1:10; Pss 74:2; 77:15; 78:35, 42;
106:10. On deliverance from Babylonian captivity, see, e.g., Isa 35:9; 41:14; 43:1, 14;
44:22, 23, 24; 51:11; 52:3; 62:12; 63:9; Jer 31:11; 50:34; Mic 4:10. In Isaiah, lag is used
much more frequently than lutro,w, and is often translated by r`u,omai, as in Isa 59:20
(quoted in Rom 11:26).
39
Both lag and hdp are used in reference to the redemption from Egypt. lag then comes
to be used of the right of a close relative to redeem an enslaved relation or his lost proper-
ty, while hdp is used of the redemption of the firstborn, or of a ransom paid to recover a
life that has been forfeit (see Helmer Ringgren, “la;G' gā’al,” TDOT, 2:350–55; H. Cazelles,
“hd'p' pāḏâ,” TDOT, 11:483–90; see also Cranfield, Romans, 206, note 3). Redemption of
enslaved persons or alienated property in Leviticus 25 (hL'auG., lag) is always calculated in
reference the Day of Atonement in the Jubilee year, so that the sacrifice on that holy day is
the basis of that redemption, securing the release (rArD>) and return (bwv) of the people to
their inheritance.
40
The subsequent uses of the terms in the Psalms, for example, describe deliverance not
simply from various earthly troubles (e.g., Pss 25:22; 44:26; 55:18; 69:18; 71:23; 107:2ff;
119:134, 154) but from sin (e.g., Ps 19:12–14; 130:7–8) and death itself (e.g., Ps 34:22;
49:7–10, 15; 103:4, 10–16). This is likely consonant with the first use of the term lag in
Gen 48:15–20 (v. 16) in which the Lord’s act of redeeming Jacob is related to the covenant
blessing of Abraham (extended to Ephraim and Manasseh; see Gordon J. Wenham, Gene-
sis 16–50, WBC [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1994], 466), and anticipates the
redemption of the Exodus. Walter Brueggemann comments, “The term ‘redeem,’ of course
serves as an anticipation of the Exodus narrative . . . It may be that this line of the blessing
is best interpreted by Ps.103 . . . ‘he redeems my life from the pit’” (quoting v. 4; Genesis,
Interpretation, ed. James L. Mays [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1982], 362).
On the connection of the covenant blessing throughout Genesis and its relation to the
fall, Wenham states, “Blessing not only connects the patriarchal narratives with each other
 II. Exegetical Overview of Rom 3:21–26 in Relation to Its OT Background 295

This scriptural use of redemption in its ultimate sense of deliverance from

sin and death, including its legal and cultic associations, are taken up in the
book of Isaiah, which recasts the redemptive type of the Exodus onto the
deliverance from Babylonian exile.41 As mentioned above, in the context of
Isaiah 40–55 these events together prefigure the definitive redemption ac-
complished by the Servant of the Lord.42 In keeping with Paul’s typological
use of Isaiah’s theme of captivity, 43 particularly Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, the
very presence of the term “redemption” recalls that context and echoes the
divine deliverance granted in answer to the plight of both Israel and the
world.44 The term’s link here with justification points again to the nature of
the redemption as deliverance from slavery to sin (cf. Rom 3:9),45 and there-
fore also to its nature as antitypical, reflecting Paul’s consistent and coherent
use of a likely Isaianic background. The joining of the themes of redemption
and righteousness, moreover, is a common theme of Isaiah,46 righteousness
not only in terms of God’s character (e.g., Isa 51:5–11), but in the forensic
sense of justification (e.g., Isa 45:20–25; 50:4–9; 53:11). When the gift of this
redemptive righteousness (Isa 55:1ff), informed by legal and cultic associa-
tions, has its basis in the substitutionary sacrifice of the Messiah, antitypical
of both the Passover and Babylonian redemptions, as well as the Day of
Atonement/Jubilee, this background is rendered virtually certain, as the forth-
coming discussion will seek to demonstrate.

5. Romans 3:25–26
Rom 3:25–26 consists of a single relative clause which modifies “Christ Je-
sus” of verse 24. This clause, “whom God displayed publicly as a propitia-

. . . it also links them with the primeval history . . . The promises of blessing to the patri-
archs are thus a reassertion of God’s original intentions for man.” He goes on to note that,
“$rb ‘bless’ is the antonym of rra ‘curse’” (Genesis 1–15, 275, 277). So then this first use
of the term lag (Gen 48:16) may be understood to have an ultimate saving significance in
keeping with its relation to the concept of blessing expressed in the abrahamic covenant.
This would also add further support to a typological understanding of the Egyptian re-
demption within the theology of the Pentateuch, a typology taken up and extended within
the prophecy of Isaiah.”
41
See, e.g., Goppelt, Typos, 39 (note 99); Ringgren, “la;G' gā’al,” TDOT, 2:354–55.
42
See above, pp. 88–90, 102ff, 159–69 (esp. pp. 166–69); see also below, pp. 321–24.
43
E.g., Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5; Rom 3:9/Isa 50:1 [and context]; Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8.
44
E.g., Isa 48:20; 49:7, 26; 51:10; 52:3, 9; 54:5, 8; 59:20. Cf., e.g., Rom 8:23; 11:26
quoting Isa 59:20.
45
So e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 208; Michel, Römerbrief, 150, who both correctly con-
nect the redemption to the servitude of Rom 3:9. Seifrid (“Romans,” 619) sees the back-
ground of this redemption as the Isaianic new exodus.
46
The introduction of these dual themes in the opening chapter of the prophecy (1:27)
becomes one of the leading motifs of chapters 40–55. On this relation of Isa 1:27 to the
rest of the prophecy, see Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 109–10; Seitz, Isaiah, 37–38.
296 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

tion,” is modified by a succession of prepositional phrases which clarify the

nature of Christ as i`lasth,rion.47 The relative clause as a whole, then, ex-
pounds the manner in which Jesus Christ is the One in whom God’s redemp-
tive righteousness is realized. Though the term translated “displayed public-
ly” (proe,qeto / proti,qhmi) in the NASB can also be translated “purposed” (cf.
Rom 1:13),48 the strong emphasis on visual display in the context (fanero,w,
v. 21; e;ndeixij, vv. 25, 26) likely confirms the former sense of the term in this
verse. 49 It is certainly true, however, that in this densely allusive context in
which Christ is “set forth” as the climactic fulfillment of all that the scriptures
both promised and prefigured, the conception of God’s eternal purpose in
presenting Christ as i`lasth,rion is both inherent and prominent (cf. Rom
8:28; 9:11).
The exact significance of i`lasth,rion has been the subject of long and con-
tinuing debate.50 The central question concerns whether the term refers to the
actual lid of the ark of the covenant, often translated “mercy seat,”51 or, on
the other hand, if it refers more generally to a “propitiatory/expiatory sacri-
fice.”52 The strongest argument in favor of understanding i`lasth,rion as

47
Cranfield, Romans, 208.
48
Bauer ( Lexicon, 722) gives these two senses for the middle of proti,q mi.
49
See Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 87. This sense is understood by most translations,
e.g., ESV, RSV “put forward;” NIV, NLT “presented;” KJV “set forth;” Luther Bibel
“vorgestellt;” Revidierte Lutherbibel “hingestellt.” As Sanday and Headlam note, both
ideas are present in Romans and Paul’s other epistles. For the sense of “purpose,” see the
cognate pro,qesij in 8:28 and 9:11; cf. also Eph 1:11; 3:11; 2 Tim 1:9 (see also 1 Pet 1:20).
For the idea of “display publicly,” see especially Gal 3:1.
But in this particular case, as Barrett insightfully remarks (Romans, 72), “‘Publicly set
forth’ does not exclude but rather implies the sense of purpose, which the verb (proe,qeto)
has at i. 13; Eph. i. 9, the only other occurrences of it in the New Testament. This sense is
rightly emphasized by Cranfield . . . but what God publicly showed in the public, histori-
cal, event of the crucifixion of Jesus was a manifestation of his eternal purpose.”
For support for the alternative rendering, see, e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 208–10.
50
For an overview, see Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel, 47–72.
51
Moo notes, “The English ‘mercy seat’ comes from Tyndale’s translation, which was
in turn influenced by Luther’s Germ. ‘Gnadenstuhl’” (Romans, 232, note 62).
52
Paul’s obvious, thorough, and explicitly stated (Rom 1:1–2) dependence on the OT in
Romans, and particularly in this allusively dense passage, makes it highly unlikely that
Maccabean martyr theology is the source of Paul’s understanding of i`lasth,rion, though
his use of the term does bear some similarities to its use in Maccabees (4 Macc 17:21–22;
cf. 4 Macc 6:27–29; 2 Macc 7:30–38). See Blenkinsopp, Sealed Book, 288; James D. G.
Dunn, “Paul’s Understanding of the Death of Jesus,” in Reconciliation and Hope: New
Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on his 60th
Birthday, ed. Robert Banks (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 131–32; Moo, Romans, 234–
35, note 74; P. Stuhlmacher, “Recent Exegesis on Romans 3:24–26,” in his Reconciliation,
Law and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology, trans. Everett R. Kalin (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1986), 100–102.
 II. Exegetical Overview of Rom 3:21–26 in Relation to Its OT Background 297

“mercy seat” is the fact that it has this meaning in 21 of its 28 LXX occur-
rences as well as in its only other use in the NT (Heb 9:5).53 The mercy seat
was situated in the “holy of holies” in the tabernacle/temple, and upon it the
high priest would sprinkle the blood of the sacrificial animal on the Day of
Atonement. On this interpretation, then, Christ, both in his Person and
through his sacrifice (evn tw/| auvtou/ ai[mati) would be understood as the ful-
fillment of this OT type, the locus of the redemptive event, bringing to reali-
zation the once-for-all act of atonement prefigured in the yearly ritual. 54
This interpretation has been defended both in ancient and modern times,55
and justifiably so, for it seems consummately appropriate that Christ be ex-
plicitly identified with one of the most sacred and theologically evocative of
OT rituals. Yet a connection with the Day of Atonement here is not depend-
ent upon the identification of i`lasth,rion with the mercy seat. It will be ar-
gued that the term’s evocative power, though including this ritual, is broader,
and that its breadth of reference is given a theological framework by the con-
textual allusion to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 and the antitypical na-
ture of his redemptive sacrifice. As Paul understands the redemptive narrative
of Isaiah, the Day of Atonement in the Jubilee year is one of several redemp-

53
Of these 21 occurrences, 12 refer to the construction of the mercy seat in Exodus
(25:17, 18, 19, 20 [2x], 21; 31:7; 35:12; 38:5, 7 [2x], 8), and 7 are in reference to the
procedure of the high priest making atonement for Israel on the Day of Atonement in
Leviticus 16 (vv. 2 [2x], 13, 14 [2x], 15 [2x]). The two other occurrences in which
i`lasth,rion signifies the mercy seat (Exod 25:22; Num 7:89) are in reference to Moses
meeting with the Lord in the tabernacle, as the Lord would appear (cf. Lev 16:2) and speak
to Moses from above the mercy seat between the cherubim. In the above references
i`lasth,rion renders the Hebrew tr<PoK;, though in its first reference (Exod 25:17) it is not
i`lasth,rion alone, but i`lasth,rion together with evpi,qema (“propitiatory lid/covering”).
54
In the LXX evxila,skomai / rpk (the verbal cognates of i`lasth,rion / tr<PoK;) are used in
Leviticus 16 (e.g., vv. 17, 30, 33, 34) to denote the act of “making atonement.”
55
So Origen ; Theodoret; Luther (Moo, 232); Calvin, Romans, 75. More modern inter-
preters include D. P. Bailey, Jesus as the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of
Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25 (Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge University, 1999);
Richard H. Bell, “Sacrifice and Christology in Paul,” JTS 53 (2002): 17–21; Bruce, Ro-
mans, 106ff; Fitzmyer, Romans, 349–50; Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel, 47–72; B. Janowski,
Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift und zur Wurzel
KPR im alten Orient und im Alten Testament, WMANT 55 (Neukirchen/Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1982), 350–54; T. W. Manson, “ILASTHRION,” JTS 46 (1945): 1–10;
Moo, Romans, 232–36; M. Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of
Paul, SNTSMS 53 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985), 75–77; Nygren, Romans,
156–58; L. Sabourin and S. Lyonnet, Sin, Redemption and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patris-
tic Study, AnBib 48 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), 157–66; Stuhlmacher, “Recent
Exegesis,” 94ff; Romans, 60.
298 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

tive types that come to fulfillment in the sacrifice of the Servant of the
Lord/Jesus Christ (Rom 11:27/Isa 27:9).56
One argument against i`lasth,rion referring explicitly to the mercy seat in
Rom 3:25 is the fact that it appears without the article.57 In its first occurrence
in the LXX (Exod 25:17), God commands Moses, “. . . you shall make a
propitiatory covering/lid of pure gold” (poih,seij i`lasth,rion evpi,qema crusi,ou
kaqarou/). The term is used there without the article in a purely adjectival
sense, so that, strictly speaking, it does not itself denote the “lid” of the ark,
which is represented by the term evpi,qema, but rather characterizes the lid as
“propitiatory/expiatory” in nature. In the subsequent LXX references to this
“lid,” or “mercy seat,” however, the term evpi,qema drops out and i`lasth,rion is
used substantively with the definite article to specify through the context this
particular item of the tabernacle furnishings. Its use in Romans without the
definite article, therefore, cannot have the specific reference to the mercy seat
in view, especially without unambiguous contextual warrant.58 i`lasth,rion,
then, is an indefinite substantive having a more general reference to “propitia-
tion/expiation,”59 a reference clarified in the context by the prepositional
phrase evn tw/| auvtou/ ai[mati which further designates this “propitiation” as a
sacrifice.60

56
Cranfield (Romans, 218) comments, “The possibility that Isa 53:10 (’im tāśîm ’āšām
napšô) may have contributed to Paul’s thought of Christ as i`lasth,rion also deserves to be
seriously considered.”
57
See esp. L. Morris, “The Meaning of i`lasth,rion in Romans 3.25,” NTS 2.1 (1955):
33–43.
58
So, e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 214–15.
59
On the use of the adjective i`lasth,rioj as a substantive here, see Morris, “Meaning,”
34.
60
On i`lasth,rion modified by the prepositional phrase as referring to sacrifice here, and
on the nature of sacrifice in Paul, see, esp. Dunn, Romans, 171–72. In addition to Dunn,
those who hold to i`lasth,rion in Rom 3:25 as referring to a propitiatory/expiatory sacrifice
include, e.g., Blenkinsopp, Sealed Book, 288; Cranfield, Romans, 214–17; Dodd, Romans,
54–55; G. Eichholz, Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss (Neukirchen: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1972), 192–94; Godet, Romans, 151–53; Käsemann (?), Romans, 97; George E.
Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993 [revised]), 472;
Morris, “Meaning,” 33–43; D. Zeller, “Sühne und Langmut: Zur Traditionsgeschichte von
Röm 3:24–26,” TP 43 (1968): 58ff.
On sacrifice in Paul, see also Hartmut Gese, “The Atonement,” in his Essays on Bibli-
cal Theology, trans. Keith Crim (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981), 93–116; Otfried Hofius,
“Sühne und Versöhnung: Zum paulinischen Verständnis des Kreuzestodes Jesu,” in his
Paulusstudien, WUNT 51 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 33–49. On the nature of sacri-
fice in Paul as including the important dimension of substitution (as well as representa-
tion), see Simon J. Gathercole, Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul,
ed. Craig A. Evans and Lee Martin McDonald, ASBT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2015).
 II. Exegetical Overview of Rom 3:21–26 in Relation to Its OT Background 299

Some scholars, however, have objected to this argument, asserting that

i`lasth,rion in Rom 3:25 is “definite” even without the article by virtue of its
being in the predicate position.61 But this assertion, even if correct, does not
decide the issue in favor of a reference to the mercy seat, for even when the
term is used with the article it is the context that determines which specific
“propitiatory” object is in view. This is clearly evident from its articular uses
in the LXX’s rendering of Ezekiel to refer to the altar of burnt offering (LXX
Ezek 43:14 [3x], 17, 20).62 Therefore, even if i`lasth,rion in Rom 3:25 is
“definite,” its specific reference would have to be determined by the context.
As the following discussion hopes to demonstrate, both the immediate and
wider context contains allusions to a variety of OT sacrifices, including the
Passover and Day of Atonement, 63 as well as the sacrifice of the Suffering

61
See esp. Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, 125.
62
Regarding i`lasth,rion with the article as referring to the altar of burnt offering, as
well as its likely similar reference in Amos 9:1, see the discussion in Keil, Minor Prophets,
320–21. The only other use of the term in the LXX that has not been mentioned is 4 Macc
17:22 in which it is placed in a simple adjectival construction used to describe the death of
the martyrs as “their expiatory/propitiatory death” (tou/ i`lasthri,ou tou/ qana,tou auvtw/n).
63
The conjunction of the terms i`lasth,rion and ai[ma in the context of sacrifice alludes
to a variety of OT sacrifices, though it certainly includes within its allusive sphere the
various sacrifices of the Day of Atonement.
This understanding of a “propitiatory sacrifice” employing i`lasth,rion together with
ai[ma seems undoubtedly to recall Leviticus 16, in which a verbal cognate of i`lasth,rion
(evxila,skesqai) appears together repeatedly with ai[ma in the Lord’s instructions through
Moses for making atonement through sacrifice on the Day of Atonement (e.g., Lev 16:27).
But the use of these terms together to convey a propitiatory/expiatory sacrifice is used
much more widely than this. Lev 17:11, for example, articulates a principle which is cer-
tainly not limited to the Day of Atonement ritual in Leviticus 16, or to the mercy seat
exclusively. Lev 17:11 states, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it
to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the
life that makes atonement.” The LXX here is a fairly close rendering of the Hebrew in
which evxila,skesqai translates rpk:
LXX: h` ga.r yuch. pa,shj sarko.j ai-ma auvtou/ evstin kai. evgw. de,dwka auvto. u`mi/n evpi. tou/
qusiasthri,ou evxila,skesqai peri. tw/n yucw/n u`mw/n to. ga.r ai-ma auvtou/ avnti. th/j yuch/j
evxila,setai.
MT: x:Bez>Mih;-l[; ~k,l' wyTit;n> ynIa]w: awhi ~D"B; rf'B'h; vp,n< yKi
rPek;y> vp,N<B; aWh ~D"h;-yKi ~k,ytevop.n:-l[; rPek;l.
This principle (with the terms evxila,skesqai and ai[ma used to convey “a propitiatory of-
fering”), therefore, also finds expression in such passages as Leviticus 4 and 5, in which
the instructions for the sin and guilt offerings are given (respectively) and in which the
altar of burnt offering and the incense altar are primarily involved.
On the relationship between Rom 3:24–26 and Hebrews 9–10 and the possibility of a
common Jewish-Christian tradition pointing to a Leviticus 16/Day of Atonement back-
ground, see Moo, Romans, 233–34, note 70. But as Moo (who interprets i`lasth,rion as
“mercy seat”) himself states, “Our main reason for hesitating to find allusion to the mercy
seat is the lack of evidence for an early Christian or Jewish Greek tradition in which
300 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

Servant in Isaiah 53. The latter, moreover, subsumes and fulfills the previous-
ly-mentioned within its contextual and theological sphere. Further, the imme-
diate context of Rom 3:25 designates this “propitiatory sacrifice” (i`lasth,rion
. . . evn tw/| auvtou/ ai[mati64) as that which accomplishes eschatological justifi-
cation and redemption, a redemption which is the fulfillment of both the
Egyptian and Babylonian deliverances (Rom 2:24) and the manifestation of
God’s righteousness.
Therefore, even if i`lasth,rion is acknowledged to be “definite,” the fact
that this single “propitiatory sacrifice” provides the basis for and recalls these
various OT themes within the context of eschatological justification and
redemption, and is set forth as the manifestation of God’s righteousness, it
would seem of necessity to have a broader antitypical reference, a reference
that definitively and resoundingly answers the echoes of its several redemp-
tive types. 65 The antitypical significance of the propitiatory sacrifice of Rom
3:25, then, cannot be confined to a narrow referent. Rather, it points to Paul’s
understanding and use of Isaiah 53 and the sacrifice of the Servant of the
Lord as the prophetic disclosure of the definitive sacrifice, and hence the
primary backdrop to his thought (cf. Rom 4:25). It is a backdrop, however, in
which the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement plays a crucial role.
A second question, though, is whether the sacrifice indicated here by the
term i`lasth,rion has the sense of “expiation” (i.e., that it simply removes sin),
or the sense of “propitiation” (i.e., that it satisfies the wrath of God against
human sin, and thus removes sin). Regarding this cognate family of terms, C.

hilastērion was given the symbolic importance this interpretation suggests” (236), and he
goes on to comment (note 79), “While, e.g., both Philo and Hebrews use the word, they
attach no special theological use to it.” In Hebrews, then, though it uses the term
i`lasth,rion for the mercy seat (9:5), Christ Himself is presented, not as the mercy seat, but
as both priest and sacrifice who enters not into the earthly tabernacle but into heaven itself:
“For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but
into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (9:24). On mercy seat as
the place of God’s presence, cf. Exod 25:22; Num 7:89.
64
On the dual prepositional phrases dia. Îth/jÐ pi,stewj and evn tw/| auvtou/ ai[mati both
modifying i`lasth,rion, see esp. Godet, Romans, 153.
65
As Sanday and Headlam recognize regarding Paul’s use of i`lasth,rion (Romans, 88),
“It agrees with the context that the term chosen should be rather one which generalizes the
character of propitiatory sacrifice than one which exactly reproduces a particular feature of
such sacrifice.”
Therefore, the fact that the term itself does not appear in Isaiah 53 in no way negates
the possibility that Paul used the term in this more general sense to allude to that passage.
Isaiah 53 is replete with sacrificial terminology, and with respect to its wider context it
fulfills the Passover sacrifice, the Day of Atonement sacrifice, and the guilt offering.
Paul’s use of i`lasth,rion in a general sense intends a broad application.
 II. Exegetical Overview of Rom 3:21–26 in Relation to Its OT Background 301

H. Dodd, in a well-known and frequently cited article,66 asserts that the idea
of propitiation is virtually absent in LXX usage, and that the term has refer-
ence to the covering, removal, or forgiveness of sin. Leon Morris, on the
other hand, taking close account of the context in which the terms occur, has
demonstrated in the eyes of many scholars that the averting of God’s wrath is
consistently integral to forgiveness of sin in this word group.67 As i`lasth,rion
is used within the wider context of Rom 3:25, and as asserted by Dunn, “As-
suredly, the logic of Paul’s exposition is that the wrath of God (expounded in
1:18–3:20) is somehow averted by Jesus’ death . . .”68 In this context of wrath
and substitutionary sacrifice, however, a sacrifice which issues in the gra-
cious gift of justification, it is important not to separate propitiation from
expiation as the latter is necessarily purposed and implied in the former;69
Christ’s sacrifice covers/forgives/removes sin precisely because God’s right-

66
“Ila,skesqai, Its Cognates, Derivatives and Synonyms in the Septuagint,” JTS 32
(1931): 352–60.
67
See “The Use of i`la,skesqai etc. in Biblical Greek,” ET 62 (1951): 227–33; Apostolic
Preaching, 136–56. See also Hill, Greek Words, 23ff. For an excellent overview of Dodd’s
position and the strengths and weaknesses of its critique by Morris and others, see Norman
H. Young, “C. H. Dodd, ‘Hilaskesthai’ and His Critics,” EvQ 48 (1976): 67–78.
On the relation of this LXX cognate family to the rpk family of Hebrew terms which it
primarily translates, Moo (Romans, 235) states, “The OT frequently connects the ‘cover-
ing,’ or forgiving, of sins with the removal of God’s wrath. It is precisely the basic conno-
tation of ‘propitiate’ that led the translators of the LXX to use the hilask- words for the
Hebrew words denoting the covering of sins.”
On i`lasth,rion as “propitiation,” see also Cranfield, Romans, 215–16; Dunn, Romans
1–8, 171; Sam K. Williams, Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of
a Concept, HDR 2 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 38–40.
68
Romans, 171. See, e.g., esp. Rom 1:18ff; 2:5, 8; 3:5. Though the conception of avert-
ing divine wrath is also essential to the use of i`lasth,rion in extra-biblical Greek, Cranfield
(Romans, 216) observes two distinctives of its use in the OT over against its pagan coun-
terpart: “. . . first that God’s wrath, unlike all human wrath, is perfectly righteous, and
therefore free from every trace of irrationality, caprice and vindictiveness, and secondly
that in the process of averting this righteous wrath from man it is God Himself who takes
the initiative.”
69
Contra Barrett (Romans, 74), who, though rightly recognizing the essential connec-
tion between expiation and propitiation, sees expiation as the principle concept and propi-
tiation as a secondary result. He writes, “. . . it would however be wrong to neglect the fact
that expiation has, as it were, the effect of propitiation: the sin that might justly have excit-
ed God’s wrath is expiated . . . and therefore no longer does so.”
Barrett’s perspective, however, does give rise to a judicious caution, for the concepts
are undoubtedly intimately connected. This is expressed, e.g., by Hill, Greek Words, 36;
Young, “C. H. Dodd,” 78.
With regard to the relation between propitiation and expiation, however, an important
question surfaces, namely: Without the concept of propitiation, what is the essential con-
nection between sacrifice and expiation?
302 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

eous wrath and just judgment have been poured out upon it. 70 It should be
remembered that wrath for transgression of God’s law, resulting in both cap-
tivity as well as condemnation before God’s tribunal, is a main theme of
Isaiah 40–55, and is reflected in this section of Romans. Central in addressing
this concern in Isaiah, as will be discussed below, is the Servant giving him-
self up as a sacrifice (Isa 53:10–12), a sacrifice interestingly particularized in
the forensic context of Isaiah as a “guilt offering.”
The modifying phrase dia. Îth/jÐ pi,stewj indicates the sole means by which
the benefits of God’s provision of Christ as i`lasth,rion may be appropriated,
so that sin (Rom 3:23) and guilt (Rom 3:19) may be removed and God’s gra-
cious gift of justification received. This faith as directed to the sacrificial,
propitiatory work of the Messiah and to the good news of which his sacrifice
is the content (cf. 1:16–17; 10:15–16) strongly suggests the background in
Isaiah 53 and its context. As discussed above, the parallel phrases in verses
25 and 26, eivj e;ndeixin th/j dikaiosu,nhj auvtou/ . . . pro.j th.n e;ndeixin th/j
dikaiosu,nhj auvtou/, present God’s righteousness as an attribute,71 but further,
they disclose the ultimate or final cause for which Christ is set forth as a
propitiatory sacrifice, “. . . the glory of both the divine justice and good-
ness . . .”72 These parallel prepositional phrases modifying i`lasth,rion refer
to the single demonstration, or proof (e;ndeixij),73 of God’s righteousness in
the sacrifice of Christ as he takes upon himself the full wrath and just judg-
ment of God upon human sin[fulness]. Having satisfied the demands of holy
justice through infinite love (cf. Rom 5:8), he then receives from God the full
and final vindication in behalf of humanity into which all are invited to enter
(cf. Rom 4:25; 8:3, 31–34; see Appendix).
This sacrifice takes place “in the present time” (evn tw/| nu/n kairw/|), refer-
ring to the inauguration of the eschatological era marked by the decisive
manifestation of divine righteousness in this sacrifice for sin (cf., e.g., Rom
4:25; 5:6–10; 6:10; 8:3), that is, in the historical event of the death, burial and
resurrection of Christ (cf. Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:1–4). As this objective, histor-
70
The necessity of propitiation emphasizes the reality of the holiness of God, and sets
in proper balance both His absolute justice and unfathomable love; it underscores further
the gravity of the moral choices of those whom He has created to bear His image and
reflect His glory. Barrett comments (Romans, 74), “This amounts to the paradoxical claim
that God propitiates God. Paradoxical as it is, this assertion comes close to the heart of
what Paul has to say, and the paradox is rooted in the nature of God. It is the nature of God
to be irreconcilably opposed to sin; it is the nature of God to love sinners and to seek
reconciliation with them. No one but God could resolve the problem; and God himself
could be faithful to both aspects of his being only at the cost of the Cross.”
71
See the discussions on Rom 1:17 and 3:21 above.
72
Calvin, Romans, 75.
73
As Cranfield notes (Romans, 211), “. . . the reference to God’s being righteous in the
last part of v. 26 would seem to tell strongly in favour of understanding dikaiosu,nh in these
two verses as referring to God’s own righteousness, and e;ndeixij as meaning ‘proving’.”
 II. Exegetical Overview of Rom 3:21–26 in Relation to Its OT Background 303

ical manifestation of eschatological righteousness is appropriated only by

faith, however, “the present time,” is really an overlap of eras, a period of
anticipation in which the present possession of the final verdict of vindication
awaits the consummation of God’s righteousness in eschatological renewal
(Rom 5:1–2). Within the flow of Paul’s thought, then, the condemnation of
the final judgment proleptically prefigured in the present “divine tribunal of
the soul” (e.g., Rom 1:32; 2:1–6) is, by a miracle of grace, invaded with the
vindication of that judgment as one responds in faith to the continuing revela-
tion of this righteousness in the preaching of the gospel.
This demonstration or proof of God’s righteousness in the sacrifice of
Christ was: eivj to. ei=nai auvto.n di,kaion kai. dikaiou/nta to.n evk pi,stewj
VIhsou/ (“[in order] that that He might be just and the justifier of the one who
has faith in Jesus”). God presenting Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice demon-
strates his righteousness “in the present time” specifically in this: in his act of
justifying sinners who have faith in Jesus he is actually righteous (di,kaioj) –
righteous in his judgment upon sin in the person of Christ; righteous in his
vindication of those who have fulfilled his law (in Christ); righteous in rela-
tion to his covenant promises to save and deliver his people, even in spite of
their sin and unbelief (cf. Rom 3:3–5). This climactic, eschatological demon-
stration of righteousness, moreover, casts its brilliance back upon God’s ac-
tions with regard to sinners in the OT era, so that it was not simply a matter
of God “passing over” (pa,resij) previously committed sins in his “forbear-
ance” (avnoch,),74 but a deliberate and calculated delay (cf. Rom 2:2–4) of
immeasurable grace (Rom 5:15, 17, 20–21) that in the wisdom and power of

74
Though some scholars (e.g., Rudolf Bultmann, “avfi,hmi, etc.,” TDNT, 1:509–12 (see
511); W. G. Kümmel, “Pa,resij und e;ndeixij,” ZTK 49 (1952): 154–67; Käsemann, Ro-
mans, 98) have understood the term pa,resij as “forgiveness” because of the presumed
semantic overlap of the related terms pari,hmi and avfi,hmi (cf. Luke 11:42 and Matt 23:23),
as Moo remarks, “This overlap does not occur when avfi,hmi means ‘forgive,’ but only
when it means ‘neglect’ or ‘let go’” (Romans, 239, note 95).
Though the term pa,resij is used only here in the NT, its meaning in the context as
“passing over; leaving unpunished” seems confirmed by several considerations: 1) its use
in secular Greek (Josephus, Ant. 15.48; Xenophon, Eq. Mag. 7.10 [cited by Moo, 238, note
95]; John Martin Creed, “Pa,resij in Dionysuis of Halicarnassus and St. Paul,” JTS 41
[1940]: 28–30); 2) the meaning of the term a`noch, (“forbearance; toleration”) used both in
conjunction with pa,resij in v. 26 and also in the wider context (Rom 2:4); 3) the meaning
of its cognate verb pari,hmi (used twice in the NT [Luke 11:42; Heb 12:12] and 20 times in
the LXX) which at times means “neglect, leave undone,” though at other times “to slacken,
weaken” (Bauer, 627). Thayer (in loc.) also gives as a meaning for pari,hmi “let go unpun-
ished,” citing as an example Sir 23:2, “O that whips were set over my thoughts, and the
discipline of wisdom over my mind! That they may not spare me in my errors, and that it
may not pass by my sins” (RSV). See esp. Moo, 238–39; Trench, Synonyms, 114–19. So
also, e.g., Barrett, Romans, 75; Cranfield, Romans, 211; Dunn, Romans, 181–82; Godet,
Romans, 155–56; Michel, Römerbrief, 153; Williams, Jesus’ Death, 23–25.
304 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

his eternal purpose (Rom 8:28–30) held back the meting out of absolute jus-
tice (cf. Rom 2:2–6, 8–9, 11–13; 3:4–6) until, in the unfathomable love of
God, he could take our place (e.g. Rom 5:6–8), and it could be fully and deci-
sively meted out against himself in the Person of his Son, and his righteous-
ness and holiness thereby absolutely established and fully displayed.75
The unique combination of OT themes in Rom 3:21–26 appears on the sur-
face to uniquely reflect Isaiah’s redemptive narrative centering in the sacri-
fice of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53, and likely stands as an allusion to
that passage. The apostle here presents the gospel as the eschatological mani-
festation of God’s righteousness in the antitypical redemption accomplished
by the substitutionary, propitiatory sacrifice of the Messiah[/Servant], who
bore God’s just wrath in behalf of humanity, and thereby made atonement for
sin. In this climactic, eschatological forensic encounter, God as eschatologi-
cal judge justifies those whose faith is placed in Christ Jesus, the antitypical
sacrifice, the mediator of justification, the embodiment and content of the
“proclamation of good news.” This redemption through righteousness, then,
answers the dire need of a humanity captive in sin and condemned before
God’s judgment (Rom 1:18–3:20). The strength of this correspondence will
soon be examined more closely. First, however, a short excursus is in order to
clarify the significance of the disputed phrase “the faith of Jesus Christ,”
particularly as it relates to the proposed Isaianic background.76

6. Excursus: “The Faith of Jesus Christ”

The meaning of the phrase “the faith of Jesus Christ” in Rom 3:22 is the sub-
ject of growing interest among many biblical scholars. There are an increas-
ing number who are advocating a subjective genitive, most notably Richard
Hays and N. T. Wright.77 It is, of course, true that both interpretations repre-
sent ideas that play a role in Paul’s thought; 78 it must be the case, then, that
for one view or the other it is a matter of “the right doctrine from the wrong
text.”79 Dunn rightly remarks,

75
For the significance of this “passing over” of sins, see esp. Trench, Synonyms, 117–
119. For a defense of this traditional position, see esp. J. Denney, The Death of Christ, ed.
R. V. G. Tasker (London: Tyndale, 1951), 96–107.
76
Following the excusus, therefore, the discussion will seek to demonstrate this allusion
based upon a clustering of terms/themes unique to Isaiah.
77
See Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, xxx-xxxi, 282–84, 294; Wright, Paul and the
Faithfulness of God, 841–46, 949. See also, e.g., Douglas Campbell, Quest, 90–93, but
note particularly his defense of the objective genitive position in terms of both grammar
and church history against some common arguments to refute it (221–22, note 19).
78
For Christ’s active obedience, see in the near context, e.g., Rom 5:18–19.
79
Though Paul’s phraseology here is perhaps intentionally opaque, so as to invite a
broader conception than is often envisaged. The interpretation of Watson discussed below,
 II. Exegetical Overview of Rom 3:21–26 in Relation to Its OT Background 305

That some repetition is involved on either rendering is clear. But repetition is a means of
emphasis, and the emphasis in the section as a whole (vv 21–31, or indeed 3:21–4:25) is
clearly on faith, the faith of those who believe. The central issue is how God’s righteous-
ness operates, the means by which or ‘terms’ on which he acts on man’s behalf (Hays, [The
Faith of Jesus Christ,] 172, misses this).80

Regarding the contextual contrast between faith and works as pointing to an

objective genitive in both Romans [3] and Galatians, Dunn goes on to state,
Faith is the human condition or attitude which is set in contrast to ‘works of the law’ (vv
20–22, 27–28 . . .). This sense was clearly central to the thematic statement of 1:17, and it
is clearly this statement which Paul picks up here. In the same way and at the equivalent
fulcrum point in Galatians (2:16), Paul had sharpened the contrast between ‘works of the
law’ and ‘faith’ into outright antithesis. Since the line of thought and the terminology at the
two points is so similar, it is hard to set aside the explicit evidence of Gal 2:16 where dia.
pi,stewj VIhsou/ Cristou/ is rendered equivalently by eivj Cristo.n VIhsou/n evpisteu,samen
(pi,stij [Cristou/] is clearly the same antithesis to e;rga no,mou in Gal 2:16 as in 3:2, 5) . . .81

Dunn’s point is well taken.82 In both Romans and Galatians, moreover, this
contrast comes to positive and paradigmatic expression in the faith of Abra-
ham (Rom 4:2–3 [cf. 4:16]; Gal 3:5–6). Note in this regard the parallel of
Rom 3:22 (dikaiosu,nh de. qeou/ dia. pi,stewj VIhsou/ Cristou/) with Rom 3:26
(dikaiou/nta to.n evk pi,stewj VIhsou/ [cf. evk pi,stewj of Hab 2:4/Rom 1:17])
and particularly the echo of evk pi,stewj (Rom 1:17) both in 3:26 and in refer-
ence to Abraham’s (and believers’) act of believing the promise in Rom 4:16.
Compare further what appears to be an expansion of the similar thought in
Phil 3:9, in which dia. pi,stewj cristou/ is clearly an objective genitive (kai.
eu`reqw/ evn auvtw/|( mh. e;cwn evmh.n dikaiosu,nhn th.n evk no,mou( avlla. th.n dia.
pi,stewj cristou/( th.n evk qeou/ dikaiosu,nhn evpi. th/| pi,stei).83

e.g., combines the objective genitive with the genitive of origin, and may be thought to
incorporate aspects of the subjective genitive view.
80
Romans, 166.
81
Ibid., 166–67.
82
Those who hold to an objective genitive in Rom 3:22 include, e.g., Cranfield, Ro-
mans, 203; Dunn, Romans, 166–67, 177–78; Käsemann, Romans, 94; Michel, Römerbrief,
148; etc. See especially Cranfield, On Romans, 81–97; Murray, Romans, vol. 1, 363–74;
and (as against Richard B. Hays) J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, PISTIS CRISTOU,” in
Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, 730–44 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,
1991).
83
On the objective genitive in Phil 3:9, see esp. Richard H. Bell, “Faith in Christ: Some
Exegetical and Theological Reflections on Philippians 3:9 and Ephesians 3:12,” in The
Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Michael F. Bird
and Preston M. Sprinkle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 111–25.
In addition to Rom 3:26 and Phil 3:9, Cranfield (Romans, 203) and Michel (Römerbrief,
148, note 8) cite further similar instances of the genitive used as the object of faith. Cf.,
e.g., Mark 11:22; Acts 3:16; Gal 2:16 (twice), 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Col 2:12.
306 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

In determining the nature of the genitive, context obviously plays a key

role. For those who understand pi,stewj VIhsou/ Cristou/ as a subjective geni-
tive, pi,stij is generally taken as referring to Christ’s “faithfulness.” But as
Moo observes, “. . . little in this section of Romans would lead us to expect a
mention of Christ’s ‘active obedience’ as basic to our justification. Moreover,
pistis in Paul almost always means ‘faith’; very strong contextual features
must be present if any other meaning is to be adopted. But these are absent.”84
Over against this absence, he further observes, “. . . the consistent use of
pistis throughout 3:21–4:25 to designate the faith exercised by people in God,
or Christ, as the sole means of justification.” 85
Francis Watson has a unique understanding of this construction which af-
firms and expands the objective genitive position by combining it with a
genitive of origin. His understanding is based upon the contextual relevance
of the manifestation of God’s righteousness in the gospel. Hence, the revela-
tory dynamic both creates and invites faith. He states,
It is striking that this passage interprets Jesus’ death not as the outcome of his own faith-
fulness but as God’s saving action . . . this action . . . forms the basis of the ongoing divine
action in which God justifies the one who responds to it in faith. Faith, and consequently
righteousness, is what is intended in God’s action in the death of Jesus: God set forth
Christ as an atoning sacrifice by his blood, but with a view to the “faith” through which its
benefits – righteousness, the remission of former sins – would be received . . . If, however,
God’s action in Christ intends the faith that leads to justification, this faith is itself the
recognition and acknowledgment of the divine saving action. In a two-way movement from
Christ’s death and back to it again, God’s saving act in Christ seeks to elicit the answering
faith that acknowledges it as what it truly is. Faith, then, is “faith of Jesus Christ” in the
dual sense that Jesus Christ, the embodiment of God’s saving action, is as such both the
origin and the object of faith. In this way, the ambiguous genitive foumulations – “through
faith of Jesus Christ”, ‘the one who is of the faith of Jesus” (vv. 22, 26) – may be clarified,
not by grammar but by context.86

There is also an emerging perspective on the phrase discussed by Preston

Sprinkle that has been dubbed “the third view.” 87 As mentioned in the discus-
sion of Rom 1:17, this “third view” suggests that the phrase refers to either
the “content of the gospel (the Christ-event),” “the message of the gospel (the
message about the Christ-event),” or “the sphere of salvation created by the
gospel.”88 As also stated above, Watson’s view appears to immediately make
more sense, incorporating elements of “the third view” while deftly integrat-
ing the manifestation of righteousness in the gospel with its intended corre-
late, the reception of the gospel message by faith. This understanding, more-

84
Romans, 225.
85
Ibid.
86
Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 75–76.
87
“Pi,stij Cristou/,” pp. 165–84.
88
Ibid., 175.
 III. Perceived OT Backgrounds to Rom 3:21–26 307

over, is extremely consistent with the proposed Isaianic background, as the

sacrifice of the Servant is presented as the very revelation of the righteous-
ness of God and the saving arm of the Lord, and so the intended object of
faith (Isa 51:5–6, 9–11; 52:7–10; 53:1). This interpretation of the phrase,
therefore, particularly in light of the likely Isaianic background (which will
be argued further below), overcomes one stumbling block to the acceptance
of the objective genitive in Rom 3:22 by giving a much more adequate expla-
nation as to how the eschatological manifestation of God’s righteousness is
“through the faith of Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:21–22). Sprinkle concludes his
essay by stating,
. . . more work needs to be done on the relation between the noun, pi,stij, and the verb,
pisteu,ein. Here, both the subjective genitive and the ‘third view” face a common problem:
Paul argues from Abraham’s believing experience with the evk pi,stewj construction (Gal.
3:6–7; cf. Rom. 4:9–16). Are we to understand that Abraham’s believing in God (Gal. 3:6)
is not correlated with the Gentiles who are who are justified by faith (Gal. 3:8)? At least
here it seems that the objective genitive interpretation wins out.89

III. Perceived OT Backgrounds to Romans 3:21–26

III. Perceived OT Backgrounds to Rom 3:21–26
In light of the concepts of both “redemption” and “propitiatory offering” in
Rom 3:21–26, scholars generally see the OT background as being predomi-
nantly either the exodus of Israel from Egypt or the ritual of the Day of
Atonement. The Day of Atonement as the background to Rom 3:21–26 has
already been introduced, 90 and it has been argued that i`lasth,rion suggests a
broader reference than the propitiatory lid of the ark and the yearly ritual it
metonymically represents (though the term certainly includes a reference to
the Day of Atonement). The argument in favor of the exodus narrative as the
principle background of Rom 3:21–26 has been set forth, for instance, by R.
T. France, who uses the broader context of Romans to support the allusions to
the exodus in that passage.91
France asserts that avpolu,trwsij in 3:24 refers to the exodus redemption,
and that Paul’s use of the term “righteousness” in 3:21–26 refer to God’s
faithfulness to his covenant promises to Abraham. This understanding, he
contends, is supported in Romans 4 by Paul’s use of Genesis 15, the context

89
Ibid., 183–84. For a full discussion of the various issues surrounding the interpreta-
tion of the phrase “the faith of Jesus Christ,” see the entire work, Michael F. Bird and
Preston M. Sprinkle, eds., The Faith of Jesus Christ.
90
See on Rom 3:25–26 above.
91
R. T. France, “New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Structure of Romans 3–
8,” 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 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999), 26–35. See also Holland, Contours, 159–72.
308 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

of which includes God’s promise to deliver Abraham’s “seed” from slavery

in Egypt (vv. 13–14), which is therefore conceived as an integral aspect of
God’s covenant promises to Abraham (cf. Gal 3:15–18). 92 This central role of
the exodus motif is further supported, then, in chapters 5–8 with references to
such concepts as slavery and baptism (prefigured in the crossing of the Red
Sea, which secured deliverance from Egyptian bondage [Rom 6:1ff; cf. 1 Cor
10:1–13]), as well as sonship and leading by the Spirit (e.g., Rom 8:12–17,
which portrays Israel as God’s son [e.g., Exod 4:22] being led by the cloud of
God’s glory throughout its journeys).93
Though this exodus background is readily acknowledged, this thesis as-
serts that the redemptive allusion in Rom 3:24 is a bit more nuanced. This
seems especially to be the case in light of Paul’s quotations of Isa 52:5 and
59:7–8 in Rom 2:24 and 3:15–17 (respectively), which help set the stage for
the redemption about to be recounted in Rom 3:21–26, as well as by his use
of these same passages later in the epistle to set forth both the basis (Rom
10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1) and event (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9) of
Israel’s redemption. Isaiah’s narrative of Israel’s redemption from Babyloni-
an captivity, moreover, consistently subsumes the Egyptian deliverance, with
both used to typologically portray the redemption accomplished by the Serv-
ant.
It will be argued, then, that these two themes of “redemption” and “the
Day of Atonement” are both taken up in Paul’s reading of Isaiah’s second
exodus narrative and brought to fulfillment in the sacrifice of the Servant of
the Lord/Jesus Christ as recounted in Isaiah 53 and its wider context. This
sacrifice forms the basis of justification, which points to its antitypical nature
in relation to these very themes. That Paul in Romans both explicitly draws
these two themes (redemption and atonement) from Isaiah in a single conflat-
ed citation (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9) that clearly relates
intertextually to Rom 3:21–26, as well as bases justification on recognized
allusions to Isaiah 50 and 53 seems on the surface to confirm this background
(see Appendix). It is this likely background that will now be investigated.

92
Regarding the promise of deliverance in Genesis 15, France writes, “Within the nar-
rative structure of the Pentateuch, this complex prediction and promise looks ahead to the
events described in the remainder of the Five Books, indicating that these events are to be
understood as the fulfillment of God’s covenanted promises to Abraham. Paul is very
much aware of this aspect of the chapter, as Galatians 3:15–18 reminds us. And he be-
lieves, and in Romans 4 he emphasizes, that in Christ God has fulfilled his covenant prom-
ises to Abraham” (Ibid., 30–31). Cf. Acts 7:2–7ff.
93
Ibid., 28ff. On Romans 8, see also Keesmaat, “Exodus,” 29–56.
 IV. Isaiah 53 as the Background of Paul’s Theology of Atonement 309

IV. Isaiah 53 as the Background of Paul’s Theology of

Atonement
IV. Isaiah 53 as the Background of Paul’s Theology of Atonement
As discussed above, it is highly likely that Isaiah played a fundamental role in
the formation of Paul’s gospel through a combination of influences: his con-
version experience, his reflections upon scripture based upon that experience,
and the apostolic tradition he received through contact with both the apostles
and the apostolic church. 94 This apostolic tradition in its earliest form is found
in 1 Cor 15:1–4 in which the gospel is described fundamentally in terms of
Christ’s atonement. 95 The heart of this confession, verses three and four, read,
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our
sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the
third day according to the Scriptures . . .

Though not stated, the scriptural source of this concept of atonement, specifi-
cally the phrase “Christ died for our sins” (Cristo.j avpe,qanen u`pe.r tw/n
a`martiw/n h`mw/n), is believed by many scholars to be Isaiah 53[:5].96 The
primary textual data that demonstrates the relation is set forth as follows:

1 Cor 15:3 “. . . u`pe.r tw/n a`martiw/n h`mw/n . . .”

LXX Isa 53:5 “. . . dia. ta.j avnomi,aj h`mw/n . . . dia. ta.j a`marti,aj h`mw/n . . .”
MT Isa 53:5 “. . . WnytenOwO[]me . . . Wn[ev'P.mi . . .”97

94
See in chapter one above, “Historical Plausibility – Paul’s Renewed Hermeneutic:
The Convergence Upon Isaiah as the Source of Paul’s Gospel in Romans.”
95
See esp. Herman N. Ridderbos, “The Earliest Confession of the Atonement in Paul,”
in Reconciliation and Hope, ed. Robert Banks (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 76–78.
96
E.g., Hans Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, MeyerK 5 (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 300–301; Evans, “Isaiah 53,” 162; Gordon D. Fee, The
First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 724–25 (though
he also sees a wider reference to scripture as a whole, that includes the Passover and Day
of Atonement); Gathercole, Defending Substitution, 55–79 (who demonstrates Paul’s
understanding of the substitutionary nature of the death of Christ as derived from Isaiah
53); Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 99; Ridderbos, “Atonement,” 77; Thiselton, Corinthians,
1190 (though he views this background as a possibility); A. T. Robertson and A. Plummer,
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians,
ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19142), 333.
Ridderbos comments, “The expression ‘for our sins’ relates the death of Christ to our
existence burdened with sin and guilt, and expresses no less than that by his death our sins
have been done away with, eradicated and atoned for.”
97
Cf. also Isa 53:11 LXX: “. . . ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/n auvto.j avnoi,sei”; MT:
“lBos.yI aWh ~t'nOwO[]w: . . .”; Isa 53:12 LXX: “. . . kai. auvto.j a`marti,aj pollw/n avnh,negken kai.
dia. ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/n paredo,qh”; MT: “[:yGIp.y: ~y[iv.Pol;w> af'n" ~yBir:-aj.xe aWhw> . . .”
310 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

This allusion to Isaianic atonement in Paul’s traditional expression of the

gospel is strengthened by the clear reference in Isaiah 53 to the Servant’s
burial subsequent to his sacrificial death (v. 9), as well as by the implication
of his resurrection which both opens and closes the unit (Isa 52:13; 53:12).98
The relevance of the resurrection in Paul’s traditional statement (vv. 3–4) is
brought out in verse 17, which states, “. . . if Christ has not been raised . . .
you are still in your sins,” which conceptually relates Christ’s resurrection
with the justification of believers (cf. Rom 4:25). The central role of Isaiah in
this gospel tradition specifically with regard to the resurrection is confirmed
in v. 54, in which Paul quotes the Hebrew of Isa 25:8 as his primary scriptur-
al basis of his teaching on the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:55/Hos 13:14).
This traditional formulation in which the atonement is based upon the
death and resurrection of Christ and is sourced in Isaiah finds a parallel in
Rom 4:25, another passage considered by many scholars to be both a tradi-
tional unit and closely related to 1 Cor 15:3–4. 99 Rom 4:25, it is to be remem-
bered, is a recognized allusion to Isa 53:12 (Ellis, Shum, Wagner, Wilk).100
As a preliminary consideration, the fact that Paul’s theology of atonement in
these closely related [traditional] units is derived from Isaiah (cf. also Rom
11:27/Isa 27:9), and particularly in light of the contextual and thematic prox-
imity of Rom 4:25 to Rom 3:21–26, strongly suggests a similar source for the
concept of atonement in 3:21–26.101

98
Of particular note is the reference to the glorification of the Servant in Isa 52:13. This
“glory” is in Paul frequently connected with the resurrection body. Cf., e.g., Rom 8:13–23,
29–30; 1 Cor 15:42–43.
99
E.g., Ridderbos, “Atonement,” 78. He states, “. . . the words ‘for our trespasses’1
[1dia. ta. paraptw,mata h`mw/n] in Rom. 4:25 are in any case merely a variant to ‘for our
sins’ in 1 Cor. 15:3, and thus an alternative rendering of Isa. 53:5, where also for that
matter in the parallelismus membrorum two different expressions are used. The preposi-
tion: ‘because of’ (dia, + acc.) in Rom. 4:25 and ‘for the sake of’ (u`pe,r + gen.) in 1 Cor.
15:3 will have to be understood as two different renderings of the Hebrew min or the
Aramaic be.”
100
Ellis sees Rom 4:25 as alluding also to Isa 53:4–5, while Shum and Wagner see an
additional allusion to Isa 53:11; see Appendix. So also, e.g., Hengel and Schwemer, Paul,
381, note 520; Otfried Hofius, “The Fourth Servant Song in the New Testament Letters,”
in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. Bernd Janowski
and Peter Stühlmacher, trans. Daniel P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 180–82.
Cranfield states (Romans I-VIII, 251), “That it [i.e., Rom 4:25] was formulated under the
influence of Isa 52:13–53:12 is hardly to be doubted.”
101
This kerygmatic witness to Paul’s theology of atonement as derived from Isaiah 53
is greatly expanded by Ridderbos (“Atonement,” 79–81) through recognizing the various
formulations of the kerygma in relation to the concepts of atoning sacrifice and forensic
justification as each of these are combined with the additional concept of substitution.
 V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26 311

V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26

V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26
In Rom 3:21–26, as in Rom 4:25, the theme of sacrificial atonement is united
with the theme of forensic justification, both being bound by the role of
Christ as our substitute, who becomes our sacrifice for sin and thereby medi-
ates our justification before the bar of heaven. This same arrangement of
themes is central to the fourth Servant Song and its wider narrative of re-
demption. In fact, it is just this combination of themes, atoning sacrifice and
justification, that have caused several scholars to conclude that the OT back-
ground of Rom 3:21–26 is firmly rooted in Isaiah 53.102 i`lasth,rion, as signi-
fying more generally a propitiatory offering, is broad enough to include the

102
E.g., Blenkinsopp, Sealed Book, 286–89; Ridderbos, “Atonement,” 77–81, esp. 79–
80; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 845–46, 998–99; “Romans,” in The New
Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10, 393–770, ed. L. E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 472–77.
Blenkinsopp (Sealed Book, 285–86) writes, “The principal reason for taking seriously
the Isaianic Servant model with respect to Jesus . . . was the death by crucifixion which
ensured that the suffering and dying Servant of Isaiah 53 would be a constitutive and
irreplaceable element in the structure of early Christian faith, since only by reference to
this text could the death of Jesus be made theologically intelligible.” He goes on to state
(288–89), “The remarkable and original achievement of the unknown author of Isaiah 53
was to take over a metaphor from the sacrificial cult to express the meaning of a life and
death which, for him, had transcendent significance, and it is this insight which is at the
heart of Paul’s understanding of the death of Jesus.”
In response to the well-known position of Morna D. Hooker (Jesus and the Servant:
The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah in the New Testament [London:
SPCK, 1959]), who argues against the unique significance of Isaiah 53 in the NT on the
grounds that the suffering of the righteous is a common theme in the OT, Blenkinsopp
comments (286, note 79), “The statement is true but beside the point since it ignores the
unique understanding of the impact on others of the sufferings and death of the Servant of
the Lord in Isa 52:13–53:12. Professor Hooker also underestimates the significance of the
Isaianic text by limiting herself to the eight explicit citations which she finds in the New
Testament.” (This critique also weighs heavily against finding the background in the Mac-
cabean martyr theology. See, also, e.g., Holland, Contours, 160.)
Similarly responding to Hooker with respect to the significance of Isaiah 53 in the NT,
Oswalt states (Isaiah 40–66, 381, note 85), “. . . one can show that this segment’s under-
standing of the nature of messiahship is implicit throughout the NT.” As an example he
cites Paul’s use of Isaiah 52:15 in Rom 15:21 and comments further, “So here, what is it
that the Gentiles have not yet heard but will hear, which Paul is eager to declare to them,
but the message which follows on after Isa 52:15 that the Messiah has suffered and died for
the sins of the whole world?”
Wright states (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 999), “. . . when Paul describes the
death of Jesus in sacrificial language, emphasizing in every line that this is how the divine
righteousness has been revealed, he is deliberately setting up a complex chain of allusion
and echo in which Isaiah 40–55 in general, the figure of the servant in particular and the
fourth servant song climactically, are central and loadbearing.”
312 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

several sacrifices alluded to in the larger context of that great chapter,103 and
is likely the reason Paul chose the term rather than one with a more narrow
referent (even though the term itself does not appear in Isaiah 53).104 With the
concept of justification, therefore, Paul, following Isaiah, points to that aton-
ing sacrifice (i`lasth,rion) as the antitypical sacrifice, though in the context of
both Isaiah and Romans with principal reference to the sacrifices of the Pass-
over, Day of Atonement, and sin/guilt offering. Within Isaiah 53 itself, how-
ever, the significance of the allusions to the sacrifices of the Passover and
Day of Atonement are brought together through the depiction of the Servant
as a “guilt offering,” which not only expresses the dual concepts of atonement
and restoration, but through its relation to the forensic sphere is perfectly
suited to convey the definitive justification achieved by the antitypical sacri-
fice of the Servant.
Isaiah 53 is the only place in the OT in which a messianic figure, the Serv-
ant of the Lord, is presented through sacrificial and cultic terminology as
offering his life as a substitute to accomplish atonement, justification and (in

103
Though the almost universally accepted literary unit of the fourth Servant Song runs
from 52:13–53:12, the sacrificial and cultic terminology as applied to the Servant’s substi-
tutionary, atoning work is [predominantly] in chapter 53, and so for that reason chapter 53
becomes the main scholarly focus in this regard. For an example of those who hold to a
division between 52:13–15 and 53:1–12, see Whybray, Isaiah, 169.
Isa 52:15 does contain what some consider to be a sacrificial allusion in the term hzn
(“sprinkle”), which is used in 20 of its 24 OT occurrences in Leviticus and Numbers to
describe mostly either the sprinkling of sacrificial blood on the altar (including the Day of
Atonement ritual) or the sprinkling of blood/water upon a person for ritual cleansing from
the uncleanness resulting from either leprosy or contact with a corpse. There are, however,
textual, grammatical, and literary reasons for questioning the terms presence in this text.
Most commentators, therefore, while seeking to avoid textual emendation, prefer to under-
stand hzn here as a different verb based on Arabic meaning “to startle” (see Oswalt, Isaiah
40–66, 374, note 56). For a defense of hzn as “sprinkle,” see E. J. Young, “The Interpreta-
tion of yzh in Isaiah 52:15,” WTJ 3.2 (May 1941): 125–32.
104
Paul does, however, in Rom 8:3, use a specific sacrificial reference that appears in
Isa 53, peri. a`marti,aj (translating ~v'a' in Isa 53:10). This use in Rom 8:3 clearly relates
intertextually to the present passage and presents this sacrifice as the basis of salvation
through an allusion to the exodus redemption (Rom 8:9, 11, 14–15, 16–18 [with the themes
of God’s dwelling with his people, sonship, release from slavery, God’s leading, and God’s
glory restored]). This exodus allusion, however, is framed by clear allusive references to
the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 50 and 53 in Rom 8:3 and 31–34 (see
Appendix; see also vv. 29–30), signifying that this allusion to the exodus is more properly
understood as an allusion to the new exodus theme of Isaiah’s redemptive narrative. Rom
3:21–26 and Rom 8:3ff, therefore, are mutually informing. In Rom 3:21–26 i`lasth,rion
seems to be used in a more general sense with the specific intention of drawing together
the various sacrificial motifs in Isaiah 53’s wider context (Passover, Day of Atonement,
sin/guilt offering), motifs which are all reflected in the wider context of Rom 3:21–26 as
well (see further below).
 V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26 313

the larger context) redemption for his people.105 The conjunction of the
themes of messianic atoning sacrifice and justification, which in the minds of
several scholars anchors Rom 3:21–26 in Isaiah 53, comes out most clearly in
the Hebrew of Isa 53:11b: 106 lBos.yI aWh ~t'nOwO[]w: ~yBir:l' yDIb.[; qyDIc; qyDIc.y: (“the
Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniq-
uities”). This cultic-juridical terminology, however, is spread throughout the
chapter. The cultic terminology includes terms for the Servant’s “bearing” of
sins, 107 used together with terms depicting the sins borne,108 so that the Serv-
ant is clearly portrayed as a sacrificial substitute.109 It uses terms for the most
105
Though this statement can be questioned on some of its particulars from the stand-
point of other interpretive approaches to Isaiah, it seems certainly to be the way Paul un-
derstands the chapter in light of his use of cultic and forensic concepts as drawn from
Isaiah in both Romans and his other epistles. The following very cursory sketch, therefore,
extends its interpretive lines from Rom 3:21–26 as set within the wider context of the
epistle back into Isaiah and other OT sources. The correctness of Isaiah as the principle OT
background will be confirmed, it is hoped, by the thematic coherence demonstrated, a
coherence that is checked by the spectrum of possible interpretations allowed within a
legitimate grammatical, historical approach to the prophecy. This Isaianic backdrop, it is
believed, demonstrates a mutually interpreting, scriptural dynamic between the testaments
in which the texts cast their light in both directions.
On Paul’s understanding of the substitutionary nature of Christ’s sacrificial death as de-
rived from Isaiah 53, see, e.g., Gathercole, Defending Substitution, 55–79.
106
Paul apparently follows the Hebrew here because of the differences in the LXX. The
LXX reads: “. . . dikaiw/sai di,kaion eu= douleu,onta polloi/j kai. ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/n
auvto.j avnoi,sei” (see Blenkinsopp, Sealed Book, 287). Of Rom 3:21–26 Blenkinsopp states,
“The argument is based transparently on Isaiah 53 and especially on one verse, 53:11b . . .”
107
afn (Isa 53:4, 12) is used in the OT of the “bearing” of sin by the sacrificial animal
so as to accomplish atonement and forgiveness of sins for the people, particularly on the
Day of Atonement (cf. Lev 16:22; cf. also Lev 10:17; Num 18:1, 22–23). The cultic termi-
nology throughout the chapter suggests that it is used in the same sense here as a metaphor
to convey the nature and significance of the Servant’s work. lbs (Isa 53:4, 11) is used in
Isaiah 53 synonymously with and as a poetic variation of afn. The verbal idea is “to bear a
burden,” and generally refers to slave labor (e.g., Gen 49:15; 1 Kgs 5:29; 11:28; 2 Chr 2:1,
17; 34:13). It is used in 7 of its 19 occurrences in Isaiah, and in three of these uses it refers
through metaphor to the burden and servitude of captivity (9:3; 10:27; 14:25). Though it is
not used in cultic contexts or in a cultic sense outside of Isaiah 53, its two uses in this
chapter seem likely to be drawing on this metaphor as related to the wider theme of captiv-
ity [to sin and death], portraying the Servant as taking upon Himself in His sacrifice the
full plight and consequences of the sin of His people.
108
[v;p, (“transgression, rebellion”: 53:5, 8, 12 (2x); cf. Lev 16:16, 21), together with
!A[' (“iniquity, guilt”: 53:5, 6, 11; cf. Lev 16:21, 22), and a cognate of aj.xe (“sin”: 53:12; cf.
taJ'x; in Lev 16:16, 21) occur together with reference to atonement in Lev 16:21 (cf. also
Job 13:23; Ps 32:23; Isa 59:12; Jer 33:8 (aj.xe); Ezek 21:29; Dan 9:24).
109
See David L. Allen, “Substitutionary Atonement and Cultic Terminology in Isaiah
53,” in The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish
and Christian Theology, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids: Kregel,
2012), 175; Childs, Isaiah, 415–16, 417–18; Otfried Hofius, “The Fourth Servant Song,”
314 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

common types of sacrificial animals to describe both the sinful people as well
as the Servant upon whom the sins of the people fall (vv. 6–7),110 further
depicting the identification and intimate connection between people and sac-
rifice in the sacrificial ritual.111 The chapter, moreover, specifically describes

163–88 (though he greatly downplays the cultic element, and highlights what he considers
the contrast between the “exclusive place-taking” of Isaiah 53 and its reception in the NT
as “inclusive place-taking”); Oswalt, Isaiah, 384–89; Westermann, Isaiah, 263, 268.
Childs (Isaiah, 418), while strongly supporting the substitutionary role of the Servant in
bearing the sin of his people, sees the significance of the ~v'a' as against the more general
background of the concept of compensation for misdeeds (cf. Gen 26:10; 1 Sam 6:3–4, 8,
17), rather than against the background of the levitical guilt offering. But surely the divine
act of the Lord through the Servant in presenting this “guilt offering” would find a closer
correspondence in the divinely prescribed sacrifice than in the offerings of pagan kings.
See Westermann’s comment in note 113 below.
For the nature of this sacrifice in Isaiah 53 as including the concepts of both substitu-
tion and representation, see Daniel P. Bailey, “Concepts of Stellvertretung in the Interpre-
tation of Isaiah 53,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins,
ed. William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998),
88–103. See also Gathercole, Defending Substitution.
On the question of the intelligibility of this concept within the OT scripture, Mark
Gignilliat writes, “. . . the nature of this atonement as textually mediated within Isaiah 53’s
own canonical shape or plain sense will lead the reader to an understanding of an innocent
sufferer bearing the sins of others in their place. Arguments based on the novum aspect of
such a move within the ‘Hebrew Scripture’ as support for its unintelligibility seem to miss
the ‘new’ and radical nature of God’s redemptive, eschatological programme within Isai-
ah” (Paul and Isaiah’s Servants, 83). Cf. Isa 42:9–10; 43:19; 48:6–7.
110
!aco (53:6; cf. 60:7) is a singular, collective noun used to denote small cattle such as
sheep and goats, but is primarily used for sheep (e.g., John E. Hartley, “!ac (ṣ’n),” TWOT,
2:749). In Isa 53:6 it is used metaphorically to describe the sinful waywardness of the
people. In the Pentateuch it is a term used of the Passover lamb and the animals acceptable
for sacrifice in the levitical system (cf., e.g., Exod 12:21; Lev 1:2; 5:6, 15–16, 18, 25–26).
hf, (53:7), is used to refer to a sheep (fb,K,) or a goat (z[e; cf. Exod 12:5), usually a young
lamb or kid, that was used both in the Passover sacrifice (cf. Exod 12:3, 4, 5) as well as sin
and guilt offerings (e.g., Lev 5:(6-)7; 12:(6-)8), though a goat was used for the Day of
Atonement (Lev 16:5ff). hf, is used in Isa 53:7 to describe the Servant “as a lamb that is
led to slaughter.” lxer' (Isa 53:7), “ewe,” is used very rarely in the OT (cf. Gen 31:38;
32:15; Cant 6:6) and seems to be a poetic variation used to describe the resignation of the
Servant to His appointed task.
As Oswalt wryly remarks, “It is difficult to escape the conclusion that it is not acci-
dental that the only extended metaphor in this poem involves sheep, the primary animals of
sacrifice. The Servant is to be struck down on account of the rebellions of his people (v. 8),
and he will go as a lamb to the slaughter. If the author did not intend his readers to think in
terms of sacrifice, he certainly made a major blunder in his choice of metaphors.”
111
On the nature of Christ’s death as an atoning sacrifice in Paul, see, e.g., Otfried
Hofius, “Sühne und Versöhnung,” in his Paulusstudien, 33–49; Stuhlmacher, “Recent
Exegesis,” 96–105. See also H. Gese, “The Atonement,” in his Essays on Biblical Theolo-
 V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26 315

the Servant as a “guilt offering” (~v'a', v. 10), one of the most fundamental
atoning sacrifices of the levitical system, 112 and as one who “poured out Him-

gy, 93–116. On that sacrifice as including the crucial dimension of substitution, see
Gathercole, Defending Substitution.
In addition to these studies, and with an insightful discussion on the crucial connection
between Paul’s view of atonement and Christology, particularly the incarnation, see Bell,
“Sacrifice,” 1–27.
In Bell’s article, the necessary connection between the incarnation and the efficacy of
the atonement is related by several passages of scripture (Rom 8:3; 2 Cor 5:14–21; Rom
3:23–26). In Rom 3:25 it is understood by reference to Christ as the “mercy seat,” which,
as the intersection of the divine and human, becomes the basis of atonement. This connec-
tion between the incarnation and the atonement, however, is likewise present if the OT
background is found in Isaiah 53. Isaiah 53 is an example of the “christology of divine
identity,” in which the Servant comes in the promised redemptive role of Israel’s God (Isa
40:9–11) and is thus identified as the very “arm of the Lord” (Isa 53:1; cf. Isa 40:10; see
again Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God,
654, 681–82). Further, Isaiah 53 not only alludes to the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement,
but by virtue of the use of the term avn at the opening of the song likely points to the
divine nature of the Servant who Himself provides the atonement in His self-sacrifice. In
Isa 52:13 avn occurs in a phrase ([daom. Hb;g"w>] aF'nIw> ~Wry") that is used only three other times
in the OT, only in Isaiah (Isa 6:1; 33:10; 57:15), and only of God (Allen, “Isaiah 53,” 185).
The use of avn in Isa 53:4 and 12 for the bearing of sin likely reveals the irony and necessi-
ty of the divine Servant/Messiah (cf., e.g., Isa 9:6; 55:3; 61:1) accomplishing the atone-
ment; it likely also highlights the contrast between the sacrificial degradation and subse-
quent glory of the Servant, a glory reflected in large part by the sacrifice itself, so that in
this sacrifice the divine glory is most clearly displayed. This high Christology in relation to
the humiliation and death of the Servant of the Lord in Paul is seen by many scholars in
Phil 2:6–11 (e.g., Bockmuehl, Philippians, 135–36; Martin, Philippians, 108–10). This
irony and contrast conveyed by the use of the term avn is quite possibly mirrored in John
12 with the use of the term u`yo,w. See, e.g., Evans, “Obduracy,” 231–36.
This sacrifice of the Servant, moreover, clearly ties into the messianic-davidic theology
of the prophecy as it forms the basis of the invitation to enter into the “everlasting cove-
nant . . . according to the faithful mercies shown to David” (Isa 55:3). That Paul joins
together Servant and Messiah in his understanding of Jesus as derived from Isaiah is evi-
dent from his quotations (e.g., davidic sonship – Rom 15:12/Isa 11:10; cf. Isa 9:6; redeem-
er who accomplishes atonement – Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9). This joining of
messianic and servant concepts is apparent from the opening of the epistle, as the [Isaianic]
gospel is described as that which is “. . . concerning His Son, who was born of the seed of
David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrec-
tion from the dead . . .” (Rom 1:3–4; cf. 4:25 and the Isaianic allusion to the Servant’s
being delivered over because of our transgressions and raised because of our justification).
See in chapter two above, “Romans 1:1–15 – The Gospel of the Messianic Servant and the
Conquest of Death.” Paul’s Isaianic Servant theology, therefore, is a Messianic Servant
theology, and one that reflects a high christology (Rom 9:5).
On the strong interlacing of Isaiah’s messianic and servant themes, see the discussion of
the gospel accounts described above, pp. 34–39 (and cf., e.g., Acts 13:32–39).
112
On the significance of mv'a' (53:10; cf. esp. Lev 5:6, 15–16, 18, 25–26), see further
below, “The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the Fulfillment of the Guilt Offering.” This
316 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

self to death” (v. 12), another phrase believed by many, particularly in light
of the use of ~v'a' in v. 10, to allude to the pouring out of the blood of the
sacrificial animal.113 This substitutionary sacrifice of the Servant for the sins
of the people was an act of forensic justice,114 which accomplished justifica-
tion for the many, 115 so that the Servant becomes both sacrificial and forensic
mediator (cf. the use of [gp in Isa 53:6 and 12).116

term, as it will be seen, appears to have been chosen specifically to draw together the
atoning, forensic, and redemptive significance of the Servant’s sacrificial death, specifical-
ly as it is placed within the allusive context of the Passover redemption and the Day of
Atonement in the Jubilee year.
113
E.g., Allen, “Isaiah 53,” 180; Westermann, Isaiah, 268. Westermann writes, “The
first part could also be translated, ‘because he poured out his blood (nepeš) to death’. This
suggests a sacrifice of expiation, corresponding to the sacrificial term ’āšām (guilt offer-
ing) in v. 10. These two clear pointers to an expiatory sacrifice as the explanation of the
meaning of the Servant’s suffering and death deserve to have particular attention given
them.”
114
For the forensic nature of jP'v.mi (53:8), specifically in relation to God’s justice, see
Robert D. Culver, “jp;v' (shāpaṭ),” TWOT, 2:947–49; Peter Enns, “jP'v.mi,” NIDOTTE,
2:1142–44. For its significance in the context in terms of God’s justice upon sin in behalf
of sinners, see, e.g., Hanson, Isaiah, 56–58; Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 392–94; Westermann,
Isaiah, 265–66. Its use in both a sacrificial and forensic context recalls, e.g., Exod 28:15,
29–30, in which Aaron as high priest was to wear the breast piece of “judgment,” and so
“. . . carry the judgment of the sons of Israel over his heart before the Lord continually” (v.
30). “What Aaron was concerned with before God was Israel’s justification, i.e. judicial
sentence . . . of guiltiness” (Culver, TWOT, 949).
115
The hiphil imperfect of qdc (qyDIc.y:) in Isa 53:11 is used to convey the idea of legal
acquittal or vindication. See, e.g., Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., “Forgiveness and Salvation in
Isaiah 53,” in The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in
Jewish and Christian Theology, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids:
Kregel, 2012), 191–210. He states (201), “The hiphil of qdc occurs eleven other times in
the Old Testament. Six times it has a causative-declarative meaning, ‘make righteous,’ but
in a judicial sense, ‘acquit, declare innocent’ (Exod. 23:7; Deut. 25:1; 1 Kings 8:32 = 2
Chron. 6:23; Prov. 17:15; Isa. 5:23). Three times it has the nuance, ‘vindicate, render
justice on behalf of those who are in the right’ (as a royal function; 2 Sam. 15:4; Ps. 82:3;
Isa 50:4). In Job 27:5, it means ‘declare to be in the right’ (in a forensic sense in the con-
text of Job’s debate with his friends). Finally, in Daniel 12:3 it is used of the wise who
‘lead many to righteousness/make many righteous . . . Based on the statistical evidence
surveyed above, one is tempted to interpret the form in a judicial sense, ‘acquit, declare
innocent.’ In this case the Servant, having incurred the guilt/endured punishment for the
many (note the next clause in v. 11), is able to acquit them before the bar of divine jus-
tice.” The prominence of the trial motif and of Israel and the world’s guilt before God’s
judgment in Isaiah 40–55 would seem to render the causative-declarative sense certain in
Isa 53:11. Chisholm goes on to note (201–2), “The context of Isaiah 53 seems to rule out
the nuances ‘vindicate’ and ‘declare to be in the right,’ for ‘the many’ are viewed as guilty
sinners in need of mercy, not as victims who deserve vindication or represent a right
cause.” See also Young, Isaiah, vol. 3, 357–58.
 V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26 317

1. The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the Fulfillment of the Day of

Atonement
To this significant resemblance between Rom 3:21–26 and Isaiah 53 may be
added the fact that both epistle and prophecy present this climactic sacrifice
as a fulfillment of the offering of the Day of Atonement.117 The phrases
“. . . our griefs He Himself bore (afn), And our sorrows He carried (lbs) . . .”
in Isa 53:4 is explained in the next verse by the Servant being “. . . pierced
through for our transgressions ([v;p,) . . . crushed for our iniquities (!A[') . . .”,
as well as in verse 6 by the Lord causing “. . . the iniquity (!A[') of us all to fall
on Him.”118 In verse 4 lbs is used synonymously with and as a poetic varia-
tion of afn, but intriguingly draws on the wider theme of captivity – particu-
larly its ultimate significance in terms of captivity to sin and death – portray-
ing the Servant as “bearing” the transgression and iniquity of his people in all
its devastating consequences.119 These two synonymous phrases of Isa 53:4,
moreover, are set in parallel with the similar phrases in 53:11–12, “. . . He
will bear (lbs) their iniquities (!A[ ') . . . He Himself bore (afn) the sin (aj.xe)
of many . . .”,120 with the last mentioned phrase preceded and followed by the
Servant being numbered with and interceding for transgressors (~y[iv.Po; cog-

On this judicial act in Isaiah 53 as it relates to NT fulfillment, Harold G. Stigers (“qdec'

(ṣādēq),” TWOT, 2:752–55 [754]) comments, “Corollary to the forensic aspect of God’s
righteousness is the concept of salvation as vindication (cf. Isa 1:27; Isa 46:13), in which
t®shû±â “salvation” occurs in parallelism with ƒ®d¹qâ . . . Israel in exile was far from right-
eousness (Isa 46:12) but God would bring her back according to his own righteousness (Isa
46:13). Rather than finding here a meaning of deliverance, salvation or triumph for ƒ®d¹qâ
as some do, it is better to find God’s solution of the problem of justification for the sinner
in the teaching of Isaiah 53 where the suffering servant justifies sinners by bearing their
sin. This same forensic meaning of justification of the ungodly is a real precursor of Rom
3:26.”
116
On the use of [gp in 53:12 (here, “to make intercession”) and the nature of the Serv-
ant’s intercession, Westermann (Isaiah, 269) states, “This does not mean, as some editors
imagine, that he made prayers of intercession for them, but that with his life, his suffering
and his death, he took their place and underwent their punishment in their stead.”
117
See esp. Stuhlmacher, “Recent Exegesis,” 96–103.
118
See Westermann, Isaiah, 263. He comments, “. . . two things are involved in what
the Servant bears, what he has loaded upon him – the sins of the others and the punishment
which result upon them. Thus, the healing gained for the others (v. 5) by his stripes in-
cludes as well the forgiveness of their sins and the removal of their punishment, that is to
say, the suffering.”
119
See above, p. 313, note 107.
120
Chisholm, “Isaiah 53,” 199–200; Motyer, Isaiah, 437. Both Allen (“Isaiah 53,” 180)
and Motyer, moreover, note that the connection between these two sections of the song
(53:4–6; 53:10–12) in respect to the Servant’s bearing of sin is reinforced by the use of the
term [gp in vv. 6 and 12 in which it is used to describe both the Servant’s being ladened
(NAS “to fall on”) with our iniquity (!A[') and as interceding for transgressors (~y[iv.Po;
cognate verb of [v;p,), respectively.
318 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

nate verb of [v;p,). This parallel use of the terms afn and lbs in both Isa
53:4–5 and Isa 53:11–12 confirms their synonymous use, and therefore also
the significance of each term as depicting the bearing of sin, variously de-
scribed as [v;p,, !A[' and aj.xe (cf. taJ'x; in Lev 16:21). The only other place in
the OT in which the terms avn, [v;p, and !A[',, as well as a cognate of aj.xe,
combine to describe the sacrificial bearing of sin is in Lev 16:21–22, in which
the sacrificial animal bore the transgression, iniquity and sin (taJ'x; in Lev
16:21; cf. aj.xe in Isa 53:12) of the people on the Day of Atonement.
This allusion to the Day of Atonement within Isaiah 53 is acknowledged
by scholars,121 but the Day of Atonement theme as drawn from Isaiah is also
a significant feature of Paul’s atonement theology in Romans, a feature that
undoubtedly bears upon his sacrificial allusions in Rom 3:21–26. As has been
mentioned, Paul in Rom 11:27 conflates a citation from Isa 59:21 and Isa
27:9. He begins quoting Isa 59:20 in v. 26, and then, as he moves into his
quotation of Isa 59:21 in v. 27, the quotation elides into a citation of Isa 27:9.
The text beginning at Rom 11:26b reads, “. . . The Deliverer (LXX translating
laeAG [“redeemer”], a participle form of lag) will come from Zion, He will
remove ungodliness from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them, / when I
take away their sins.”122 Paul, relying upon Isaiah, understands this new,
redemptive covenant to be based in atonement (“when I take away their sins,”
Rom 11:27/Isa 27:9; cf. 1 Cor 11:25), an atonement provided by the Redeem-
er who himself “removes ungodliness from Jacob” (Rom 11:26/Isa 59:20).123
This conflated quotation with its theme(s) of [messianic] redemption through
atonement – an atoning sacrifice, via Isa 27:9 – clearly echoes and recalls
Rom 3:24–25. Indeed, Rom 3:21–26 is presented as the redemptive sacrifice
that releases Israel from its captivity to sin as described in Isaiah 59 (and 52;
Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8; Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5), so that Paul clearly identifies
the Messiah/Jesus Christ (Rom 3:22, 24) – the Isaianic Servant of the Lord
(Rom 3:21–26; 4:25) – with the Redeemer of Isaiah 59. But also, and very

121
See, e.g., Allen, “Isaiah 53,” 175–76, 180; Chisholm, “Isaiah 53,” 199–200 (though
he sees the connection as possible); Motyer, Isaiah, 438, note 1; Oswalt, Isaiah, 386, who
references the sacrificial imagery of the cult more generally, but especially from Leviticus,
and includes Lev 16:22 within his references.
Within the context of the Servant’s sacrifice in Isaiah [and Romans], as it draws togeth-
er within its antitypical significance the previous sacrificial types, the two goats of the Day
of Atonement would depict the single significance of the sacrifice. See esp. Dunn, Romans,
172; see also, e.g., Allen, “Isaiah 53,” 182.
122
The diagonal slash symbol (“/”) marks the shift from Isaiah 59 to Isaiah 27.
123
Regarding the scriptural backdrop to Isaiah 53, Allen (“Isaiah 53,” 179) notes,
“. . . the twin concepts of atonement for sin and forgiveness of sin are constantly juxta-
posed.” E.g., Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7. Allen sees this principle of
atonement as summarized in Lev 17:11, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have
given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason
of the life that makes atonement.”
 V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26 319

significantly, Paul’s use of Isa 27:9 in the conflated citation characterizes this
atoning sacrifice of the Messiah as that which is presented on the Day of
Atonement in the Jubilee year, with the result that, in the context of Isaiah,
“. . . a great trumpet will be blown, and those who were perishing in the land
of Assyria and who were scattered in the land of Egypt will come and wor-
ship the LORD in the holy mountain at Jerusalem” (Isa 27:13).
This connection made by Paul is likely due to the fact that the Jubilee “re-
lease” or proclamation of “liberty” on the Day of Atonement is closely relat-
ed within Isaiah to the “proclamation of good news” in chapters 40–55. In Isa
27:9 this atoning sacrifice effects the release and restoration of “those perish-
ing” (v. 13; ~ydIb.aoh'; from dba) in exile and captivity, a captivity that Paul,
following this very section of Isaiah, would understand as including death
itself (cf. 1 Cor 15:54/Isa 25:8).124 This ultimate significance of the Jubilee
release in this section of Isaiah is supremely and sublimely conveyed when
Isa 25:8, quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 15:54, is situated within its larger context.
The passage is breathtaking and euphoric (Isa 25:6–9):
6
And the LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A
banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, And refined, aged wine. 7And on this
mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, Even the veil which
is stretched over all nations. 8He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord God will
wipe tears away from all faces, And He will remove the reproach of His people from all
the earth; For the LORD has spoken. 9And it will be said in that day, “Behold, this is our
God for whom we have waited that He might save us. This is the LORD for whom we have
waited; Let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation.”

These “perishing ones,” moreover, would be restored from exile and captivity
to “worship the Lord” in a renewed Zion (cf. Isa 26:1–2), recalling the escha-
tological transformation of God’s holy mountain in Isa 2:1–4 (etc.).
This use of Day of Atonement/Jubilee imagery to depict the eschatological
restoration of God’s people clearly anticipates Isaiah 40–55. In this second
major section of the prophecy the typology of Israel’s captivity and redemp-
tion is employed to convey the theme of world-wide redemption from the
tyranny of sin and death through the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. But
further, and more specifically, this imagery in Isaiah 27 interlaces with the
redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55 both by means of the aforementioned
allusions to the Day of Atonement in Isaiah 53, as well as by the retrospective
characterization of the “proclamation of good news” as a proclamation of
“liberty” in Isa 61:1 – intertextual relations which powerfully reinforce the
Servant’s sacrifice as the fulfillment of the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement.
Isa 61:1 alludes to the Lord’s commands to Moses regarding the Jubilee in
Lev 25:9–10. Every fifty years on the Day of Atonement a ram’s horn would

124
Cf. also Isa 26:19–21 which clearly anticipates the eschatological renewal of Isa
27:1ff.
320 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

echo throughout the land, signaling the proclamation of “liberty” (NASB) to

all the inhabitants. The term “liberty” renders the Hebrew rArD. (LXX,
a;fesij), which is a “. . . technical expression referring to the release of He-
brew slaves and of property . . . in the year of Jubilee.”125 This term, there-
fore, being a key element of the “good news” of Isa 61:1, reflects back upon
and so characterizes the earlier “good news” of redemption through the sacri-
fice of the Servant in Isaiah 40–55 (Isa 40:9; 52:7) as a “release” which
brings to fulfillment the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement in the Jubilee year
(cf. Isa 49:8–9; 61:1–2).126 But further, the dual characterization of the good
news as including both “the proclamation of liberty . . . and the day of venge-
ance of our God” (Isa 61:1–2), reestablishes and confirms the intertextual and
thematic link between Isaiah 53 and 59, so that the good news of redemption
through the sacrifice of the Servant is reasserted as the definitive basis of the
consummation of redemption.
Paul, then, in drawing on these interrelated themes, understands the death
of Christ in Rom 3:21–26 against this rich background. Christ’s propitiatory,
atoning sacrifice, in fulfilling the role of the Servant, also fulfills this central
prophetic type of the Day of Atonement; in so doing, that antitypical sacrifice
provides the sole basis of justification, a justification never achieved by any
sacrifice of the levitical system. With that justification, then, comes the anti-
typical “release” from captivity to sin and death, and a return to the eschato-

125
See Herbert Wolf, “rrd (drr),” TWOT, 1:197–98 (198). The only other occurrences
of the word in this sense are Jer 34:8, 15, 17 (2x); Ezek 46:17. In both Isa 61:1 and Lev
25:10 rArD. is rendered in the LXX by a;fesij. In Lev 25:10 both the NAS and Brenton’s
translation of the LXX render the respective terms as “release,” whereas in Isaiah 61:1
both translations render the terms as “liberty.”
In the LXX the term a;fesij (“release”) is used predominantly for release from captiv-
ity, particularly from slavery in the Jubilee. In the NT this sense is present, but it is used
most often for “forgiveness” (e.g., Mat 26:28). On the combination of the redemptive
concept used together with the term a;fesij signifying forgiveness of sins, which could
point to a possible secondary, allusive reference to the day of atonement, see Acts 13:38;
26:18; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14. The term, interestingly, is used of the “release” of the scapegoat
on the day of atonement (Lev 16:26).
126
For the function of Isaiah 61 as “interpreting” Isaiah 40–55, see W. A. M. Beuken,
“Servant and Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61 as an Interpretation of Isaiah 40–55,” in
The book of Isaiah – Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures; Unité et complexité
de l’ouvrage, ed. J. Vermeylen, BETL 81 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 411–
12; Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 288.
On a similar use of Isaiah 61:1–2 in the programmatic verses of Luke’s gospel (4:16–
21; quotation vv. 18–19), see esp. Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 275–78, 287–90. They assert
that the quotation is used to convey the nature of the Isaianic “good news” as a fulfillment
of the “release” of the Jubilee year, but understood within the interpretive framework of
the Isaianic new exodus theme (cf. Luke 3:4–6/Isa 40:3–5). See also Walter L. Liefeld,
“Luke,” in EBC, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 867.
 V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26 321

logical life and inheritance of God lost in the fall.127 Christ’s antitypical sacri-
fice, therefore, prophetically prefigured in the sacrifice of the Servant, be-
comes the basis of justification, sanctification, and glorification.
But the Day of Atonement, crucial though it is, is but one of many redemp-
tive types fulfilled in the sacrifice of the Servant.

2. The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the Fulfillment of Redemption (and

the Passover Sacrifice)
Further strengthening the link between Rom 3:21–26 and Isaiah 53 is the fact
that Rom 3:24, with its use of the term avpolu,trwsij, linguistically and con-
textually recalls both the Babylonian (Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5; cf. 10:15–16/Isa
52:7; 53:1) and Egyptian deliverances (e.g., Rom 6:1–10; 8:1–3, 12–30). This
fact is significant, because these two deliverances play a central role in Isaiah
40–55. Though much has already been said regarding the typical nature of the
Egyptian and Babylonian deliverances in Isaiah 40–55 as fulfilled in the
Servant, there remains to be discussed their mutual relation in pointing to the
antitypical sacrifice, as well as Paul’s understanding of the sacrificial basis of
the Egyptian deliverance.
In this second major section of the prophecy the redemption of Israel from
captivity in Babylon is consistently portrayed through allusion to the exodus
event,128 so that both acts of deliverance together are employed to depict the
definitive redemption accomplished by the Servant.129 These chapters, re-
calling several theological and typological themes within the Pentateuch,130
portray the bondage of Israel in both Egypt and Babylon as a type of captivity
to sin and death. The apostle, following Isaiah, reads these two redemptive
events together as mutually conveying the significance of the one climactic
127
On the necessary connection between justification and the eschatological life granted
by God on that basis, note esp. Rom 5:18 (dikai,wsin zwh/j ) and 5:21 (dikaiosu,nhj eivj
zwh.n aivw,nion); see Ridderbos, “Atonement,” 84–85. On Christ’s sacrifice and resulting
justification as the basis of the believer’s restoration to his inheritance, and that inheritance
conceived as being within the sphere of the presence and glory of God, see, e.g., Rom 4:13,
25; 5:1–2; 8:16–23.
128
Goppelt, in fact, states that Deutero-Isaiah presents the redemption from Babylon as
the antitype of the liberation from Egypt (Typos, 39, note 99).
129
Childs (Isaiah, 299) asserts that “. . . the two events are fused into a single all-
encompassing paradigm of divine deliverance.”
130
Isaiah is apparently building upon the theology and typology of the Pentateuch in re-
spect to such themes as the abrahamic promise (as blessing countering the curse [Isa 51:1–
3]), the redemption from Egypt (as a typological fulfillment of the promised blessing [Gen
15:13–16; Exod 2:24]), and Deuteronomy’s prophecy of Israel’s future captivity arising
out of the covenant curse (and so reiterating both the fall as well as the Egyptian redemp-
tion). In doing so the prophecy closely aligns the Egyptian and Babylonian redemptions
and presents both as types which come to fulfillment in the redemption accomplished by
the Servant of the Lord.
322 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

deliverance. It is important to note, however, that contextually the dominant

redemptive backdrop is Isa 52:5 as quoted in Rom 2:24 (cf. Rom 3:9/Isa
50:1). This is extremely significant not only because the Babylonian redemp-
tion within the context of Isaiah typologically incorporates the Egyptian, but
because the Babylonian redemption within that same context points to the
redemption accomplished by the Servant of the Lord as the antitypical ful-
fillment of both redemptive types. Based upon this Isaianic backdrop, Paul’s
synthetic reading of these two redemptive events comes to expression in Rom
3:21–26 as it builds on this wider Isaianic context. Negatively, the back-
ground of the fall (cf. Rom 1:23; 3:23) which stands behind the Exodus re-
demption in the theological context of the Pentateuch, is clarified and rein-
forced through the typology of Israel’s sin and exile in Isaiah, which, likely
following Deuteronomy, portrays a reenactment of the fall. On the positive
side of this synthetic reading, redemption is accomplished both through sacri-
fice (as in the Egyptian redemption131 [e.g., Isa 43:3–4]) as well as through
messianic mediation (as in the Babylonian redemption, with Cyrus as God’s
anointed [e.g., Isa 45:1; cf. Isa 42:1; 61:1–2]), and so fulfilled in the messian-
ic self-sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ, as christology (again)
becomes the basis of soteriology. This particular typological synthesis as
fulfilled in the messianic self-sacrifice is unique to Isaiah and very likely
demonstrates Paul’s dependence.132
The apostle’s understanding of the Passover redemption as based in aton-
ing sacrifice, typologically portraying Christ’s atonement, receives a signifi-
cant measure of confirmation in 1 Cor 5:6–8 in which Paul describes Christ

131
In Num 9:1–14 the Passover lamb is called an “offering” (!B;r>q') which is offered
(brq) to the Lord (v. 7 – hw"hy> !B;r>q'-ta, brIq.h;; v. 13 – byrIq.hi al{ hw"hy> !B;r>q' yKi). The root of
these terms, which are from the same cognate family, “. . . denotes being or coming into
the most near and intimate proximity of the object (or subject)” (Leonard J. Copes, “br;q'
(qārab),” TWOT, 2:811–13 [811]). The terms, therefore, are predominantly cultic in signif-
icance, particularly the noun, which occurs only in Leviticus, Numbers and Ezekiel. Both
terms are used in reference to a variety of offerings, including sin offerings. In Num 28:1–
31 the Lord commands Israel through Moses to be careful to present their offerings at the
appointed times, using the same terminology as in Numbers 9 (v. 2), and in which the
Passover was included (v. 16). According to this chapter (Numbers 28), an important
element of the feast of unleavened bread, which was part of the Passover week, was the
sacrifice at the tabernacle of both burnt offerings and sin offerings for atonement.
As Dunn comments, “Although the theology of sacrifice within Judaism is obscure
. . . it is possible to say something more positive about Paul’s own theology of sacrifice
from . . . his own use of sacrificial language in speaking of Christ’s death . . .” (Romans,
172).
132
On the themes of Messiah and Servant as derived from Isaiah within the wider con-
text of the epistle, and as related to this crucial connection between christology and soteri-
ology, see in chapter two above, “Romans 1:1–15: The Gospel of the Messianic Servant
and the Conquest of Death.”
 V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26 323

as having been sacrificed as our paschal lamb (to. pa,sca h`mw/n evtu,qh Cris-
to,j). This sacrifice, according to his analogy of leaven, was explicitly intend-
ed to cleanse from sin. 133 Within Romans, the atoning significance of the
exodus redemption is evident in Paul’s allusions to that event in Rom 6:1–10
and 8:1–3, 12–30, which in both cases grounds freedom from the dominion of
sin in Christ’s sacrificial death.134 In Rom 8:3 in particular, the phrase peri.
a`marti,aj, used throughout the LXX (primarily Leviticus and Numbers) for
the sin-offering, including the offerings of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:3,
5, 9), is used of God’s sacrificial offering of his Son, the Messiah. The phrase
is used specifically of Christ’s sacrifice only here in the NT,135 and within the
context it forms the sacrificial basis of the definitive redemption, a redemp-
tion portrayed through allusion to the exodus (vv. 14–30).
This exodus allusion, however, following Isaiah 40–55, is placed within a
larger redemptive framework. The allusive exodus background in Romans 8
gradually shifts, until in vv. 31–34 the source of vindication becomes the
sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord (Isaiah 50 and 53; see Appendix). These
last allusive references, therefore, connect thematically with and further iden-
tify Paul’s understanding of the sacrifice of Rom 8:3. In fact, the only place
in the LXX in which the phrase peri. a`marti,aj (Rom 8:3) is used of a messi-
anic figure (or of a human) is in Isa 53:10. There it translates ~v'a', “guilt
offering,” and refers to the Servant who, according to the purpose of God,
gives his life to “bear the iniquity” of his people through a sacrifice that ef-
fects their redemption (e.g., Isa 51:10; 52:3, 9; 54:5, 8).136 Based upon these
contextual considerations, then, Rom 8:3 constitutes a clear allusion to the
sacrifice of the Servant in Isaiah 53. The exodus allusions in Romans 8,

133
qu,w is a very common word for sacrifice in both the LXX and the NT, and though it
is applied generally to all sacrifices that an individual Israelite might offer (Deut 17:1), it
was typically used for peace and thank offerings. On leaven as picturing sin, cf. Matt 16:6.
Evans considers that Paul in 1 Cor 5:7 not only viewed the paschal sacrifice as sin-
atoning, but that he derived the analogy with Christ’s sacrifice from Isa 53:7, in which the
Servant is described as a lamb led to the slaughter (“Isaiah 53,” 161–62). See also, e.g.,
Hays, Conversion, 23–24.
Several scholars hold that this understanding of Christ as a paschal, sin-atoning sacri-
fice related to the Servant of Isaiah 53 is evident in John 1:29, in which John the Baptist
describes Jesus as “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” See, e.g.,
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, AB 29, vol. 1 (Garden City:
Doubleday, 1966–70), 60–63; Evans, “Isaiah 53,” 163, note 41; Craig S. Keener, The
Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003),
452–54.
134
On the allusions to the Exodus in these passages, see France, “New Exodus,” 28ff;
and above in this chapter, “Perceived OT Backgrounds to Romans 3:21–26.”
135
In Hebrews it is used of the sin-offering (Heb 10:6, 8, 18; 13:11; Heb 10:6 and 8
quoting Ps 40:6), but implicitly by contrast of the final significance of Christ’s sacrifice.
136
On ~v'a' see further below.
324 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

therefore, are taken up into a larger Isaianic redemptive framework – the

climactic, eschatological redemption in which “. . . the creation itself also
will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of
the children of God” (v. 21). These passages in Romans 3 and 8, then, are
both mutually reinforcing and mutually informing, and together strongly
suggest a primary scriptural background in the redemptive narrative of Isaiah.
It is this Isaianic redemption, therefore, by means of these various
intertextual connections (including and especially Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5
in Rom 2:24), that forms the backdrop to Rom 3:21–26, creating a synthetic
typological reading of the Egyptian and Babylonian redemptions which
serves as a powerful metaphor for the climactic deliverance the Lord accom-
plished through the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ. Paul’s theology of re-
demption as based in the atoning sacrifice of Christ and prefigured in both the
Egyptian and Babylonian deliverances reflects and resonates powerfully with
the redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55.

3. The Sacrifice of the Servant/Christ as the Fulfillment of the Guilt Offering

The above considerations, particularly the allusion to Isa 53:10 in Rom 8:3,
strongly suggest that Paul also had the guilt offering in mind in his richly
allusive reference to redemption through atonement in Rom 3:24–25. In the
context of Isaiah 53, one key element that draws together the sacrificial types
of the Passover and Day of Atonement, and particularly the definitive restora-
tion typologically portrayed through the redemption from Babylon, is the act
of the Servant in rendering himself a “guilt offering.” 137 As the only sacrifice
specifically mentioned in this great chapter, ~v'a' in Isa 53:10 has within its
cognate family a wide range of nuances, from the sin(s) itself, to the guilt so
incurred, to the punishment for or judgment upon that sin, to the aftermath or
consequences of the sin. 138 In relation to punishment and consequences comes
the noun form ~v'a', which refers to a “guilt offering” provided to make
atonement for the sin of one who had “become guilty” (e.g., Lev 5:6, 16, 18;
7:7; 14:21; 19:22; Num 5:8; cf. esp. Isa 24:6). It was, in fact, closely related
to and considered a type of sin offering. 139 Lev 7:7 states, “The guilt offering

137
On the cultic significance of the term ~v'a' here, see Gignilliat, Paul and Isaiah’s
Servant’s, 83–86.
138
G. Herbert Livingston (“~v;a' (’āsham),” TWOT, 1:78–80) notes in relation to the
verbal form, “Perhaps, one may hold that the ’āsham connotes the totality of alienation
from God, including its consequences” (79). On the guilt offering / ~v'a', see also Leon
Morris, “’Asham [‘Guilt’ and ‘Guilt-offering’ in the Old Testament],” EvQ 30.4 (1958):
196–210; Norman H. Snaith, “The Sin Offering and the Guilt Offering,” VT 15 (1965): 73–
80; Diether Kellermann, “~v'a' ’āshām,” TDOT, 1:429–37.
139
Regarding both the sin and the guilt offerings, Richard Averbeck comments that they
“. . . are widely regarded as the primary expiatory offerings in the Levitical system of
offerings.” See “Sacrifices and Offerings,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Penta-
 V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26 325

is like the sin offering, there is one law for them . . .” Of particular im-
portance, however, is the fact that this offering dealt not only with sin but
with its consequences, in other words, with the guilt in its entirety. Because
of this it included the payment of restitution for damages, plus an additional
twenty percent.140 It was, therefore, a comprehensive type of sacrifice.
In Isaiah 53 the Servant as ~v'a' bears not only the sin of the people, but
their “sickness” (ylix\; vv. 3–4; cf. Isa 1:5; 38:9) and “pain/sorrow” (bAak.m;;
vv. 3–4; cf. Exod 3:7; Jer 30:15; Lam 1:12, 18; cf. also Isa 1:4–7), likely
alluding to the wider context of Israel’s sin with its devastating consequences
in the divine judgment of exile.141 Yet the suffering of the Servant is set with-
in the eschatological context of the revelation of God’s righteousness. There-
fore, while he clearly enters into their sickness, pain and sorrow, he neverthe-
less exclusively bears the full weight of their sin in eschatological judgment
unto death, in their place and as their substitute. In becoming himself a “guilt
offering,” then, he brings full healing and restoration from the curse itself,
depicted in the larger context as recreation.142
In the place of the people’s sickness and sorrow, therefore, he bestows (v.
5) healing (apr) and peace (peace/wholeness/well-being; ~Alv'), which in the
eschatological context of justification (see below) connotes salvation.143 The

teuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press, 2003), 720.
140
For a discussion of the guilt offering within Leviticus, see, e.g., Gordon J. Wenham,
The Book of Leviticus, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 104ff. He notes that the
chief distinctive of this sacrifice was to render reparation or compensation, and that the
“guilt” was understood to be both against God and man.
On the term as used in Isaiah against this background, see, e.g., Delitzsch, Isaiah, 333;
Motyer, Isaiah, 439. For the similarities and distinctions between the sin and guilt offer-
ings, and a discussion of the unique emphases of the various offerings fulfilled in the
Servant of Isaiah 53, see Delitzsch, 332–34. Delitzsch notes that the guilt offering was to
be presented by the individual. This points to the emphasis in the wider context of Isaiah
40–55 on the individual appropriation of the redemptive promise centering in the Servant,
an appropriation which constituted one part of the “seed of Israel” (e.g., Isa 6:13; 45:25;
50:10; 53:10). On this point see also Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 402.
141
Chisholm, “Isaiah 53,” 207, 209.
142
It seems to be the case, then, that in the Servant’s becoming himself an ~v'a'
(Avp.n: ~v'a' ~yfiT'-~ai), the concepts of substitution and representation come together.
143
Chisholm, “Isaiah 53,” 203. Chisholm notes that in the Psalms apr is frequently
used with terms for deliverance (cf. Pss. 6:2[3]; 30:2[3]; 41:4[5]; 107:20), with Ps 103:3–
4a being a particularly relevant parallel, speaking of the Lord as One “. . . Who pardons all
your iniquities; Who heals (apr) all your diseases (~yailux]T;); Who redeems (lag) your life
from the pit . . .”
With regard to ~Alv' in Isa 53:5 Chisholm states, “The healing effected by the Servant’s
sufferings brings full health (~Alv' ) to its beneficiaries. At the surface level of the healing
metaphor, the noun ~Alv' refers to the health that is restored to those who were sick (cf. its
use in Ps. 38:3 and Isa. 38:17). At a deeper level there may be intertextual links to other
326 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

use of ~v'a' in Isaiah 53, then, points to the Servant’s sacrifice as not only
cleansing and forgiving, but undoing, healing, and fully restoring his people
from the comprehensive and calamitous consequences that their sin has
brought upon them, so that “. . . the ransomed of the LORD will return, And
come with joyful shouting to Zion; And everlasting joy will be on their heads.
They will obtain gladness and joy, And sorrow and sighing will flee away”
(Isa 51:11; cf. Isa 35:10).
The Servant as ~v'a',, then, aligns itself contextually and conceptually with
both the sacrifices of the Passover and Day of Atonement in the Jubilee year,
as well as with restoration from the more immediate type of the Babylonian
exile. The Servant, therefore, becomes the definitive fulfillment of these
various redemptive types. But specifically in terms of sacrifice, the Servant of
the Lord becomes the climax of Israel’s two central sacrificial rituals and
their shared concept of an atoning sacrifice as the basis of redemption from
captivity and curse, into edenic bliss and glory. 144 The Servant as ~v'a' be-
comes the source of redemptive recreation.
But further, because of the process of assessing damages and calculating
compensation involved in the “guilt offering,” it naturally bore a relation to
the forensic sphere. This relation created a unique appropriateness in applica-
tion to the antitypical sacrifice of the Servant, which had as its chief effect
the rendering of eschatological justification. The Servant as the mediator of
eschatological justification is a central theme in the wider context of the trial
motif in Isaiah 40–55.

4. The Servant/Christ as the Mediator of Eschatological Justification

Throughout Isaiah 40–55 the trial motif builds towards its climax in the justi-
fication granted through the Servant of the Lord, and so points to the antitypi-
cal significance of both the Servant’s sacrifice and the redemption which it

Isaianic texts where ~Alv' is associated with deliverance from exile (see Isa. 45:7 [cf. v. 8];
48:18 [cf. vv. 19–22]; 52:7 [cf. vv. 8–12]). However, the tightest intertextual link is with
Isaiah 57:18–19, where ~Alv' and apr are closely associated . . . The promised ‘peace’
appears to be the result of spiritual healing that brings with it moral transformation (cf. Isa.
57:17–18, 20–21). The same may be true in Isaiah 53 . . .” This understanding is further
confirmed, moreover, in light of the intertextual link between Isa 57:21 and Isa 48:22.
144
Paul’s use of both the Passover and Day of Atonement likely highlights Paul’s un-
derstanding of the nature of these sacrifices as complimentary in terms of foreshadowing
the antitypical sacrifice of Christ. As being mutually informing, one may surmise that the
Passover redemption is predominantly intended to convey the concept of deliverance from
the bondage and devastating consequences of sin stemming from the fall, though a deliver-
ance based in atoning sacrifice. The allusion(s) to the Day of Atonement, however, would
seem to focus more upon the sacrifice itself, and its nature as propitiatory and atoning, and
therefore a sacrifice the effect of which was to reconcile God and man, and so restore man
to his lost inheritance.
 V. Isaiah (53) as the Background to Romans 3:21–26 327

accomplishes. In this movement toward the climax there is a noticeable and

crucial shift in the trial motif from chapter 48 to 49, paralleling the shift in
the captivity motif at this same point in the narrative.145 Indeed, the two mo-
tifs at this transition are united in the person of the Servant who himself be-
comes both forensic intercessor as well as redeemer, an intertwining of con-
cepts that culminates in the revelation of God’s righteousness in terms of both
his absolute justice in judgment and vindication as well as his faithfulness to
his saving covenant promises – Isaiah’s “redemption through righteousness,”
which, as in Romans, perfectly meets the need of a captive and condemned
humanity typified in Israel. This transition from chapter 48 to 49, then,
changes the issue from the court case itself to focus rather on the Servant as
the divinely appointed agent in mediating righteousness and salvation (Isa
49:1–9), who becomes the intercessor within the motif of the trial (Isa 50:1–
10; 53:12) through becoming the sacrificial basis of its verdict of acquittal
(Isa 52:13–53:12 [esp. v. 11]; 54:17).
As this subsidiary theme of intercession develops within the trial motif
there is a strong relationship between Isa 50:1–10 and 52:13–53:12. The
Lord’s search for an intercessor for sinful Israel (Isa 50:2) is answered by the
Servant of the Lord (Isa 50:4ff; 53:12), who in his vindication before God’s
court (Isa 50:7–9) justifies the many (Isa 50:10; 53:11; cf. 54:14, 17) – an
intertextual interplay reflected in Rom 8:31–34 (see Appendix).146 Isa 53:12
employs the Hiphil of the Hebrew verb [gp, with the meaning “to intercede”
(“. . . Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgres-
sors”). This concept of intercession as derived from Isa 53:12 is very likely
alluded to by Paul in Rom 8:34 (Ellis), the Hebrew term being rendered in the
allusion by the Greek evntugca,nw, with the allusion itself strengthened and
expanded by the reference to Christ’s death for sin as the basis of the inter-
cession (“who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes,
rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes
for us”).147 Rom 8:33–34, moreover, replete with courtroom terminology, is a
recognized allusion to the vindication of the Servant in Isa 50:8–9 (Ellis,
Shum, Wilk; Wagner [50:8]), and is situated within an allusive context that
repeatedly alternates between Isaiah 50 and 53 (again, see Appendix), so that
the apostle in bringing these passages together is undoubtedly conveying that

145
See in chapter two above, pp. 102ff.
146
See in chapter two above, pp. 77–79.
147
The LXX does not contain a term for “intercession” in its translation of this verse.
The Hiphil of [gp also appears in Isa 59:16 which lies between two passages Paul quotes in
Romans (cf. Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8; Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21). In the context of both
of these passages in Romans, as in Isaiah 59, the apostle is dealing with the messianic
mediation of God’s righteousness.
328 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

our vindication is “in Christ,”148 through his intercessory, sacrificial death in

our behalf. It is this Isaianic scriptural background, therefore, that
intertextually relates to, informs, and confirms the Isaianic background of
eschatological justification granted through the sacrifice of Christ in Rom
3:21–26.
With this added dimension of intercession to the trial motif within the pro-
phetic narrative of Isaiah comes the additional emphasis on the invitation to
enter into the vindication provided by the Servant’s redemptive sacrifice
(e.g., Isa [45:22–25;] 50:8–10; 53:11; 54:17; 55:1–7), a theme which, as men-
tioned above, the apostle likewise draws from Isaiah (Rom 9:33; 10:11, 15–
16).149 Within the conceptual framework of the trial in Isaiah 40–55, there-
fore, and as reflected in Romans, the verdict is left pending, but rendered
certain based upon one’s response to the Lord’s promise of redemption
through the Servant (Isa 50:10–11)150 – an emphasis on personal appropria-
tion corresponding appropriately to the Servant as ~v'a'. The verdict of con-
demnation is generally rendered by vAB (“to be [a]shamed”) and its cognate
tv,Bo used in the forensic sense. Those whose faith is placed outside of God’s
redemptive promise will find certain shame (Isa 41:11; [42:17;] 44:9, 11;
45:16, 24),151 whereas those whose faith rests in these redemptive promises

148
The concept of “in Christ” in Romans could well be based in the Isaianic concept of
messianic intercession through sacrifice. The phrase evn Cristw/| is found in Rom in 3:24;
6:11, 23; 8:1, 2, 39; 9:1; 12:5; 15:17; 16:3, 7, 9, 10.
149
Note that Rom 9:33 and 10:11, both of which quote Isa 28:16, highlight faith as the
means of appropriating God’s righteousness, a truth emphasized in their immediate con-
texts (cf. 9:30–33; 10:10–11). The connotation of vindication is present in the text of
Paul’s quotations of LXX Isa 28:16 particularly through the use of the term kataiscu,nw in
the forensic sense. The apostle, moreover, goes on to link the eschatological vindication of
Isa 28:16 with that which is accomplished in the good news of the redemptive sacrifice of
the Servant of the Lord, both through explicit citation in the immediate context (Rom
10:11–16; see vv. 15–16), as well as through allusion in the broader context of the epistle
(Rom 3:29–30; 4:25; 5:1, 19b; 8:31–34; see Appendix). Paul’s use of this positive aspect
of Isaiah’s trial motif – justification – lends support to his dependence upon the negative
aspect in 1:18–3:20.
150
On the significance of Isa 50:10–11 in identifying the redeemed community on the
basis of faith in the Servant, see, e.g., above, p. 104, note 123.
In Isaiah 40–55 the redemption accomplished by the Servant is at first promised (Isa
40:3–5, 9–11), then provisional, as Israel is invited to “rise up . . . loose yourself from the
chains around your neck” (Isa 52:2); “Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you
may live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you, According to the faithful
mercies shown to David” (Isa 55:3). This provisional redemption is actualized in the na-
tional life of Israel in Isa 59:20–21 (cf. Rom 3:15–17; 11:26–27).
151
Shame as the result of misplaced trust is a common theme throughout Isaiah (Isa
1:29; 20:5; [23:4;] 26:11; 30:1–5 [vv. 3, 5]; 65:11–13 [v. 13]; 66:1–5 [v. 5]). On this con-
cept of “shame” in the forensic context of Isaiah 40–55, see in chapter two above, “The
Gospel as the Basis of Eschatological Vindication.”
 VI. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26 329

will not be put to shame (Isa 45:17; 49:23; 50:7; 54:4), but rather will experi-
ence God’s eschatological righteousness in the justification granted through
the Servant’s sacrifice (Isa 45:25; 50:8, 10; 53:11; 54:14, 17).
The Servant as the mediator of eschatological justification, therefore,
points to the antitypical nature of both his sacrifice as well as the ultimate
redemption it secures, so that the Isaianic “good new” of the sacrifice of the
Servant of the Lord – fulfilled in Jesus Christ and portrayed in Rom 3:21–26
– becomes the revelation of the righteousness of God.

VI. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26

VI. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26
Set against the dark backdrop of Isaiah’s typological portrait of humanity’s
captivity to sin and condemnation before God’s tribunal, Rom 3:21–26 re-
counts the long-awaited revelation of the eschatological righteousness of God
as disclosed in Isaiah’s good news. In this passage Paul’s use of Isaiah’s re-
demptive narrative continues, answering the Isaianic typological portrait of
humanity’s condemnation before God’s tribunal and captivity to sin and death
with the promised eschatological justification and redemption based in the
Servant’s sacrifice. This relationship is evidence of Paul’s use of a demon-
strable theological framework based in the broad scope of prophecy’s re-
demptive narrative.
Paul’s dependence on Isaiah’s narrative of redemption seems particularly
warranted in light of Paul’s quotations of Isa 52:5 (Rom 2:24) and 59:7–8
(Rom 3:15–17), which help typologically set the stage for the redemption
about to be recounted in Rom 3:21–26. This narrative backdrop is further
confirmed by his use of these same passages later in the epistle to set forth
both the basis (Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1) and event (Rom 11:26–27/Isa
59:20–21; 27:9) of Israel’s redemption, a fact which strongly suggests that
Paul’s principle use of Isaiah’s narrative of redemption extends to the epistle
as a whole. Therefore, Paul’s use of Rom 3:21–26 within a demonstrable
scriptural framework is itself verified by the criterion of recurrence.
Building upon the description of the Isaianic gospel in Rom 1:16–17 as the
revelation of God’s righteousness in his saving power, available to all, and
appropriated through faith, Rom 3:21–26 further describes this manifestation
of righteousness as that which accomplishes eschatological justification
“through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (v. 24), whom God set
forth as a propitiatory sacrifice (v. 25). This description, particularly as it is
situated within its wider context in Romans, presents a unique combination of
themes which is scripturally mirrored only in Isaiah 53, as situated within its
wider context. The concept of “the messianic sacrifice” alone recalls Isaiah
53. The Messiah’s sacrifice for the sin of his people effecting both eschato-
logical justification as well as redemption from captivity to sin and death (as
330 Chapter Four: The Antitypical Nexus

set against an Isaianic backdrop) renders this background in Isaiah 53 virtual-

ly certain. Further, as in Isaiah 53, this messianic sacrifice in Rom 3:21–26,
in effecting eschatological justification, is thus definitively identified as the
antitypical sacrifice. Isaiah 53 is the only place in the OT where all of these
themes come together, where the Messiah, veiled under the figure of the
Servant of the Lord, is presented through sacrificial and cultic terminology as
offering his life as a substitute to accomplish atonement, justification and thus
the climactic redemption from the power of the curse and its tyranny of sin
and death. This messianic sacrifice, then, as in Romans, is definitive and
eschatological, and thus effects recreation. This unique combination and
integration of terms and themes (or thematic clustering) in Romans, there-
fore, constitutes a clear allusion to Isaiah 53 and its wider context.
Paul’s dependence upon apostolic tradition which is itself based upon Isai-
ah 53 strengthens this background further in terms of the criterion of Histori-
cal Plausibility. The criterion of recurrence has been mentioned above; but
Paul’s explicit use of Isaiah as a source for the specific concepts of redemp-
tion and atonement (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–21; 27:9) is another significant
aspect of the confirmation of this allusion by means of this criterion. With
respect to this more specific application of the criterion of recurrence, Paul’s
use of Isaiah 59 in Romans 11 is extremely telling, for it is not only
intertextually based in the Isaianic gospel (Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1) but
its concepts of redemption and sacrificial atonement through the Redeemer
himself necessarily relate intertextually to and so inform the messianic
atonement and redemption in Rom 3:21–26. Reinforcing this close
intertextual relationship even further is the fact that Isaiah 59 is quoted just a
few verses before Rom 3:21 (Rom 3:15–17/Isa 59:7–8) to depict Israel’s
plight in anticipation of the redemption disclosed in 3:21–26. This relation
between Isaiah 53 and 59 in Romans, moreover, reflects the intertextual rela-
tion between these chapters within Isaiah itself, as setting forth the basis
(Isaiah 53) and consummation (Isaiah 59) of eschatological redemption dis-
closed in Isaiah’s proclamation of good news.
Bolstering the Isaianic background yet more (and blending somewhat the
criterion for allusion based on volume in terms of thematic clustering with the
criterion based on thematic coherence of the passage’s broader epistolary
context) is Paul’s presentation of Christ’s sacrifice in Rom 3:21–26 as a ful-
fillment, not only of redemption from the typologically-conceived Babyloni-
an captivity (Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5), but – in direct relation to that redemption –
as a fulfillment of the sacrifices of the Passover, the Day of Atonement and
the guilt offering. He draws these themes, moreover, from Isaianic quotations
and allusions which are themselves both essentially related to Isaiah’s narra-
tive of redemption and also intertextually related to (and so informing) Rom
3:21–26.
 VI. Summary of Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans 3:21–26 331

To put the matter a bit more concisely: in Rom 3:21–26 the proclamation
of good news is the divine message which has as its content and is in itself
the revelation of God’s long-promised eschatological righteousness in the
atoning sacrifice of the Messiah, which achieves eschatological justification
and redemption, and therefore becomes manifest as the antitypical sacrifice,
the fulfillment of the sacrifices of the Passover, Day of Atonement and guilt
offering, with this realized redemption appropriated solely through faith in
that saving event disclosed in the proclamation – this is a unique combination
and integration of themes which finds its source only in Isaiah.
In terms of the relative significance of Paul’s use of Isaiah, the fact that
this allusion in Rom 3:21–26 clearly ties in to Paul’s use of a demonstrable
scriptural/theological framework – that of Isaiah’s redemptive narrative –
combined with the immense theological weight of this biblical reference
within its quoted context (as the scriptural complexion of this weighty text
relates to the nature of the framework as a whole), leads to the firm conclu-
sion that Paul’s primary scriptural framework in Rom 3:21–26 (as well as
Romans 1–4 as a whole) is Isaiah’s redemptive narrative centering in the
proclamation of good news.
Rom 3:21–26, therefore, creates an antitypical nexus. In relation to its
wider context, the passage reveals Paul’s understanding of the Isaianic gospel
as the distillation of the prophetic promise in its many and various forms. As
the climactic scriptural expression of the saving promise, the apostle views
the numerous lines of this redemptive promise as powerfully merging and
concentrating in Isaiah’s proclamation of good news, so that it becomes not
only the fulfillment of all previous covenant expressions, but, again, the quin-
tessential prophetic promise. The Isaianic gospel, therefore, is set forth in this
epistle as the revelation of God’s righteousness, the fullest disclosure of his
holy character.
 Chapter Five

Conclusion

It would prove helpful at this point to review the results of this thesis in terms
of the recent proposals regarding Paul’s use of scripture and his primary
scriptural background, as initially discussed in the introduction. 1
It will be remembered that Christopher Stanley, in Arguing with Scripture,
has asserted that Paul’s quotations of scripture are primarily intended for
rhetorical effect. With reference to rhetorical theory, he states, “. . . the mean-
ing and/or effect of a quotation arises out of its secondary literary and rhetor-
ical context, regardless of how this relates to the ‘original sense’ of the quot-
ed passage.”2 But while Paul certainly evidences a powerful rhetorical use of
scripture, as Stanley often demonstrates, it was argued above that Stanley’s
rhetorical approach was insufficient to account for the reality of Paul’s own
understanding of his apostolic authority and mission, and with that, the nec-
essary canonical relation his epistles (expounding the gospel) bore to the
scriptures of Israel. Therefore, while Stanley’s rhetorical approach can indeed
shed light on certain aspects of Paul’s use of scripture, it is inadequate as an
overarching methodological approach.
It was further argued that while Paul’s discourse was certainly understand-
able on the rhetorical level, this by no means discounted a deeper understand-
ing based upon the intertextual nature of Paul’s argument. In relation to this,
Stanley’s case for a low level of reader-competence was countered by the
portrayal of a Roman congregation whose close ties with the synagogue
pointed to the likely existence of a competent core within a re-reading and
teaching community focused on the study of scripture.
Therefore, in light of both Paul’s own stated presuppositions, as well as a
very plausible conception of the Romans’ reader-competence, the essential
proposal of this thesis – that Paul is evoking a scriptural framework in Ro-
mans centering in Isaiah’s good news of redemption – legitimately presup-
poses an understanding of Paul as recalling through his scriptural references
the wider narrative context of the prophecy. This presupposition (consistent
with the view of many scholars that Paul’s quotations are situated within his
broader conception of a narrative scriptural framework, and so draw upon

1
See the introductory section above, “Paul’s Recent Interpreters and the Challenge to
an Isaianic Background.”
2
Arguing with Scripture, 21.
 Chapter Five: Conclusion 333

their immediate and wider context) has been extensively tested in this thesis.
It has been demonstrated that Paul, indeed, formulates his gospel in this open-
ing section of Romans as based upon Isaiah’s narrative of the revelation of
God’s redemptive righteousness in the proclamation of good news, the con-
tent of which is the atoning, sacrificial death of the Messiah as the antitypical
fulfillment of Israel’s various redemptive types. Paul’s various citations of
and allusions to Isaiah, moreover, were seen to be coherently plotted along
this narrative, and consistently evidenced a significant thematic coherence
with their given context.
Stanley’s work brings an important question to the fore that is appropriate-
ly considered here at the conclusion, namely, what is the relationship between
the role of quotations and allusions in Paul’s scriptural references. For exam-
ple, Romans 9–11 contains approximately a dozen explicit quotations of
Isaiah, whereas Romans 1–4 contains only two. How is this to be explained in
light of this thesis’ argument for a predominantly and overarching Isaianic
backdrop to these chapters?
Paul’s primary use of allusion rather than quotation in this opening section
of his epistle, as opposed to chapters 9–11, may perhaps be due to his specific
evocative intent. Paul, in Rom 1:16–17 and 3:21–26, for example, employs a
unique combination and integration of themes to evoke not only a larger
scriptural context (as quotations certainly do), but certain interrelated aspects
of that larger context, possibly in a way that could not be as effectively facili-
tated through quotation. In such cases, Paul’s clear quotations and allusions,
and particularly his recognized allusion in Rom 4:25 which identifies Jesus
Christ with the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 (it is Jesus who was “. . . deliv-
ered over because of our offenses . . .”), serve as crucial guides. To explain
this a bit further, Rom 1:16–17 introduces the climactic revelation of God’s
saving righteousness in the gospel in a manner analogous to Isaiah 40 (in its
intertextual relations). In both Isaiah and Romans this proclamation of good
news comes to a humanity captive in sin and condemned before God’s tribu-
nal (Rom 1:18–3:20), a plight portrayed through Isaiah’s typology of captiv-
ity. Rom 3:21–26, then, similar to Isaiah 52–53, presents this unique, unex-
pected and initially disbelieved (Rom 3:3; 10:16/Isa 53:1) revelation of God’s
righteousness in the sacrifice of the Messiah as the definitive redemptive
event, the basis of eschatological justification as achieved through the anti-
typical sacrifice. This is a combination of themes that, particularly with refer-
ence to 1:16–17 and 3:21–26, would perhaps be difficult to evoke through
quotation. (Even in the case of Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5, the quote only resonates
the typology of Isaiah as Paul situates it within the larger allusive context of
that section of Romans, as well as the larger context of the epistle.) It could
well be, then, that Paul’s evocative intent determined which mode of scriptur-
al reference was best suited to effectively and efficiently recall the specific
334 Chapter Five: Conclusion

blend and balance of scriptural truth he was bringing to bear upon his audi-
ence. The allusive density of Rom 3:21–26, after all, has often been noted.
This thesis, therefore, confirms and reinforces much of the work of Rich-
ard Hays. As discussed in the introduction, his book Conversion of the Imag-
ination demonstrates throughout its various chapters the nature of Paul’s
quotations and allusions as evoking their wider, literary-theological contexts.
But in one chapter specifically he reprises the subject of validating allusions
with specific reference to Paul’s use of Isaiah. 3 This chapter helps to provide
strong initial evidence for the apostle’s use of an Isaianic scriptural frame-
work particularly by noting that the criterion of recurrence has relevance not
only with reference to a single verse, but with reference to larger passages of
scripture as well. He further asserts that in Romans the passage of primary
importance is Isaiah 40–55, which, based upon the thematic coherence of
Paul’s various references, evidences a “. . . coherent prophetic vision . . . [a]
sustained and reflective patterned reading of a particular text . . .”4 This both
supports and is confirmed by the present study.
There are, however, considerable differences between Hays’ conception of
the significance of Isaiah for Paul and the view that has been presented in this
work. The differences, however, are primarily between Hays’ more general
presentation, and the more specific, developed, and integrated position advo-
cated here. Hays correctly perceives an overarching narrative – Israel’s diso-
bedience has separated them from God; God has preserved a remnant; God’s
present eschatological action calls for trust; Paul is called as an apostle to the
nations; some refuse to believe; God will ultimately redeem Israel.5 He con-
cludes, “The story [Paul] reads in the Isaiah scroll is closely constrained by
Isaiah’s original plotline of Israel’s exile and restoration.”6 Yet, as this study
has demonstrated, there is a crucial and central element missing from this
plotline: the sacrifice of messianic Servant of the Lord. It is this central ele-
ment that the apostle understands as the essential content of the “good news;”
it therefore both develops and integrates each of the above themes (and sev-
eral others), as well as provides the basis of various interrelated typologies. 7

3
See Hays, Conversion, 25–49.
4
Ibid., 40.
5
Ibid., 45–47.
6
Ibid., 47.
7
As an extremely brief and suggestive example that contrasts Hays’ points with Paul’s
understanding of the centrality of the Isaianic gospel as the message of God’s eschatologi-
cal manifestation of his righteousness in the redemptive sacrifice of the messianic Servant
of the Lord, the following may be noted. “Israel’s disobedience has separated them from
God” is greatly underscored by Isaiah’s typology of captivity, which projects the ultimate
plight upon the race, sources the plight in the fall, and creates the backdrop against which
the definitive redemption through the Servant is to be understood. “God has preserved a
remnant” is a prominent theme that is traced in Isaiah from the promise of Abraham to its
 Chapter Five: Conclusion 335

Therefore, Hays’ understanding of Paul’s use of Isaiah is primarily

ecclesiocentric.8 He states, “Paul’s primary interest in his actual use of Isaiah
does not seem to be christological. Here, as elsewhere, his hermeneutic is
ecclesiocentric.”9 This thesis, on the other hand, has presented a view of
Paul’s use of Isaiah that is first and foremost christological and soteriological,
with God acting through Christ to provide atonement, justification, and re-
demption for his people, scripturally foreshadowed in the sacrifice of the
Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53. This is for Paul the sole basis of his ecclesi-
ology, which he likewise derives from the Great Prophet. Hays’ position,
therefore, in no way negates the one here presented. Rather, the view here
proposed provides a crucial and immensely significant integrating center for
the one espoused by Hays. The view of the present work, moreover, receives
significant corroboration from scholars who recognize that “the servants of
the Lord” in Isaiah derive their status and identity by virtue of their faith in
the Servant of the Lord.10
A recent interpreter whose work, on the surface, appears to present a chal-
lenge to the proposal of a predominantly Isaianic background to Romans is
Francis Watson. Watson’s work (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith), how-
ever, as well as its major emphasis on the primary and generative role of Hab
2:4 for Romans 1–3, has been extensively discussed both in the “Introduc-
tion” and in the discussion of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17 in chapter two of this
work. A few comments, nevertheless, might be appropriate to wrap up the
discussion. Watson’s proposal of an antithetical hermeneutic epitomized in
Paul’s quotation of Hab 2:4 has much to commend it, and the text’s continu-
ing influence upon the epistle is indeed evidenced in various antithetical
constructions and echoes of the phrase “evk pi,stewj.” Yet this citation has
also been shown to be situated within a larger scriptural framework centering
in Isaiah’s proclamation of good news. In fact, Paul’s citation of Habakkuk

ultimate identity in reference to the Servant of the Lord. “God’s present eschatological
action calls for trust” is a theme that again comes to have reference to trust in God’s re-
demptive plan through the Servant. “Paul is called as an apostle to the nations” has direct
reference to the commission to carry the “good news” of redemption, the content of which
is the substitutionary sin-bearing sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. “Some refuse to
believe” is the obduracy motif that climaxes in Israel’s disbelief in God’s redemptive act
through his Servant. “God will ultimately redeem Israel” is again based, both in Isaiah 52
and 59 (through intertextual connection), in the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in
Isaiah 53.
8
This also appears, on the surface, to be Hays understanding of Paul’s use of scripture
as a whole (see Conversion, 6, 26, 43, 48; Echoes, 101–2), though he asserts the christo-
logical foundation for his ecclesiocentric view (Echoes, 120–21; Conversion, 186–87). See
also The Faith of Jesus Christ, xxxviii, 193–209, 225–35.
9
Conversion, 48.
10
See the above discussion of Mark Gignilliat and Paul and Isaiah’s Servants, pp. 12–
13 and notes. See also pp. 78–79 and note 40.
336 Chapter Five: Conclusion

was seen to create a trajectory in the saving promise, a trajectory which

pointed to the culmination of the saving promise in the Isaianic gospel. This
was evident both in Hab 2:4’s own intertextual allusion to Gen 15:6, as well
as in Paul’s intertextual “echoing” of Hab 2:4 in his various references to Gen
15:6 in Romans 4. In Romans 4, then, both the Abrahamic promise and its
later expression in Habakkuk are brought by Paul to their full scriptural ex-
pression in the sacrifice of the Servant of Isaiah 53, as recounted through
allusion in Rom 4:25. This salvation-historical development of the scriptural
promise in Romans 1–4 is further confirmed through Paul’s explicit tracing of
the redemptive promise from Abraham to Isaiah’s good news in Romans 9–
10. Paul uses Hab 2:4, then, to highlight a salvation-historical continuity in
the saving promise (and its appropriation by faith), a trajectory that is brought
to fulfillment in the redemptive narrative of Isaiah centering in the good
news.
Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17, therefore, is both situated within and points to a
larger Isaianic redemptive-narrative framework. This Isaianic framework is
evident in a series of strategically positioned passages that allusively recall
the Isaianic gospel and the redemption achieved through the sacrifice of the
Servant of the Lord: 1:1–6, 16–17a; 3:21–26; 4:25. Within this outer frame-
work, Rom 1:18–3:20 variously employs Isaiah’s typology to portray hu-
manity as captive in sin and condemned before God’s tribunal, a portrayal
preeminently expressed in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5, as well as in Rom 3:15–17/Isa
59:7–8 within the catena, which also allude to and anticipate the Isaianic
redemption through the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ in
Rom 3:21–26. These relations (explained much more fully in the discussion
of Hab 2:4 in chapter 2) demonstrate Paul’s use of a coherent scriptural narra-
tive, a redemptive narrative based upon Isaiah’s proclamation of good news.
The final work to be mentioned in this conclusion is N. T. Wright’s Paul
and the Faithfulness of God. Wright’s work is a substantial contribution to
the understanding of Paul’s use of scripture, and has been thoroughly can-
vassed in the introduction with respect to the present thesis. There remains
here only to echo some of my earlier comments in light of the completion of
the argument of the thesis itself.
Wright views Paul as dependant primarily upon the great scriptural narra-
tive of Israel as derived from Deuteronomy 27–32 with its pattern of trans-
gression, covenant-curse of exile, and ultimate restoration by God with its
attendant circumcision of the heart. This narrative is very obviously central to
Paul, as Wright so ably demonstrates. It is, however, in his view, a sub-plot
within a larger, overarching story of God’s purposes for humanity within his
creation. It is through the Israel-story that God would set both humanity (the
first subplot) and therefore creation itself (the overarching plot) to rights. Yet
this crucial sub-plot, the Israel-story, is a story that is in search of a resolu-
tion, for Israel’s role was itself derailed through sin and its subsequent cove-
 Chapter Five: Conclusion 337

nant curse. It is therefore in the third sub-plot, the story of the Messiah, the
faithful Israelite, that God’s redemptive purposes through Israel get put back
on track. Jesus Christ lived the faithful covenant life that Israel was called to
live, and then bore its curse, so that God’s promised covenant blessing could
flow through the nation to the world, and thereby also reestablish God’s pur-
poses for creation.
Within this conceptual framework of promise and fulfillment based in
Deuteronomy, however, a conspicuously large gap exists between the scrip-
tural witness and the Christ event. Wright, indeed, attempts fill this gap
through demonstrating how this Deuteronomic narrative was developed and
expanded in the psalms and the prophets, particularly in relation to the messi-
anic mediation of the covenant promises. And this he does somewhat. Never-
theless a significant gap still remains, exacerbated by the apparent disconnect
between the death of the Messiah for the curse of Israel, and the world at
large, itself languishing under the curse of sin. This gap is significantly filled
in by Paul’s reading of Isaiah, with its comprehensive narrative of redemption
centering in the proclamation of good news.
This thesis has argued that Deuteronomy’s covenant framework, as under-
stood in the larger context of the Pentateuch (particularly the Abrahamic
promise [as itself essentially related to the Lord’s promise to Adam(ic hu-
manity)]), is from Paul’s perspective taken up into and expanded by Isaiah’s
grand and epic narrative of redemption. Paul views the prophet Isaiah as
incorporating not only the deuteronomic story of covenant, curse, exile, and
restoration, but the wider story it was intended to recall and reflect – creation,
fall, and (messianic) promise, a promise coming to fulfillment in the good
news of the redemptive sacrifice of the Servant and culminating in the recrea-
tion of the people of God in a new heavens and new earth (Isa 65:17; 66:22).
All this is tersely expressed by the Lord to his Servant on the verge of the
manifestation of his righteousness through the Servant’s sacrifice: “I have put
My words in your mouth, and have covered you with the shadow of My hand,
to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, ‘You are My
people’” (Isa 51:16). Isaiah’s narrative of redemption, moreover, particularly
through its typology, clarifies that this definitive redemptive act directly ad-
dressed the plight of the world, a reality clearly reflected in Paul’s use of
Isaiah’s typology to describe humanity as “under sin” (Rom 3:9) and re-
deemed through the Messiah’s sacrifice (Rom 3:21–26).
Paul, therefore, employs Isaiah’s good news of the revelation of God’s
righteousness in the sacrificial death of the Messiah as his primary scriptural
hermeneutical key, a key that provides an integrating center for his other
scriptural sources. Within this framework, for example, it’s good news is used
to fulfill Deuteronomy’s covenant in relation to the law as both the answer to
its curse and the fulfillment of its promise, as the Servant through his sin-
bearing sacrifice “justifies the many” (Isa 53:11), and in this redemptive
338 Chapter Five: Conclusion

recreation “establishes [them] in righteousness” (Isa 54:14). Again, for exam-

ple, the prophetic types of the Passover/exodus and the Day of Atonement are
brought to fulfillment in a unique and comprehensive theological framework
centering in the “good news” of salvation through the redemption achieved
by the sacrifice of the messianic servant of the Lord. These themes and a host
of others (one is directed to the fuller discussion in the introduction) are ef-
fectively integrated through Paul’s hermeneutical key of the Isaianic gospel.
But again, this more comprehensive scriptural backdrop in no way negates
the framework presented by Wright, but, rather, completes it, and so brings
the prophetic witness of scripture into closer proximity to the saving event
which fulfills it, and thereby also creates a more thorough dynamic of mutual,
canonical interpretation.
There remains, then, to summarize the results of this study. I consider it
necessary at this point to indulge in a bit of repetition, both in terms of as-
pects of the material presented in the various summary sections, as well as in
terms of recapping the various Isaianic themes that appear in the successive
sections of Romans. This is due to the need both to summarize the argument
as a whole as well as to convey the interrelationships of the various recurring
Isaianic themes both with respect to one another as well as with respect to
Paul’s developing argument.
Rom 1:1–6 presents a very condensed summary of the gospel that recalls
various facets of the redemptive narrative of Isaiah. In these opening verses
the gospel discloses the Messiah’s conquest of sin and death on behalf of his
people, a distinctive conjunction of themes that points to its source in Isaiah.
This linking of messianic and servant concepts, based in Isaiah’s high chris-
tology (as is evident through the passage’s intertextual connections to Paul’s
other Isaianic allusions), becomes the basis of soteriology – Isaiah’s redemp-
tive recreation. This good news of the messianic conquest of sin and death,
moreover, forms the content and basis of the subsequent apostolic mission of
proclamation, which role and mission Paul likewise conveys through allusion
to Isaiah. Taken together, these Isaianic references reveal an integrated set of
themes that uniquely reflect Isaiah and its larger redemptive narrative.
As the opening verses of the epistle, this passage’s portrayal of the nature
of the gospel is vitally related to its continued exposition throughout the let-
ter. This vital relation is seen most notably in the passage’s intertextual rela-
tion to the Isaianic allusion in Rom 4:25. These two texts share the theme of
resurrection as emblematic of the messianic conquest over sin and death, an
intertextual link that forms an Isaianic bracket around the first major section
of the epistle, and further links with the theme of the glorification of believers
in Romans 8 as similarly situated within an Isaianic context. Rom 1:1–6,
therefore, introduces and augments the Isaianic nature of the gospel as more
thoroughly described in Rom 1:16–17, emphasizing the essential union be-
tween the realized and consummated forms of the messianic salvation.
 Chapter Five: Conclusion 339

In the thematic verses of the epistle (more specifically 1:16–17a), the gos-
pel is the central feature of a cluster of themes that together constitute an
allusion to Isaiah 40–55. This complex allusion focuses on Isaiah’s good
news as the basis of eschatological vindication. The Isaianic gospel as reflect-
ed in the thematic verses is God’s redemptive/saving power, available to all,
and is the eschatological manifestation of his saving righteousness. Within
the context of Isaiah, this proclamation of good news is the message of the
revelation of God’s eschatological righteousness specifically in the redemp-
tion accomplished by the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord (a redemption
first appropriated through faith and then consummated in resurrection and
return to the glory of God). This realized redemptive act disclosed in the
Isaianic gospel is, in Paul’s understanding, the fullness of the scriptures sav-
ing promise. This unique and central role of Isaiah’s good news is verified by
the Habakkuk citation, which bears witness to the scriptural promise in the
Isaianic gospel through allusively highlighting the continuity in both the
saving promise and its appropriation throughout salvation-history, as well as
through intertextually pointing to its fulfillment in relation to Isaiah’s Servant
of the Lord (Rom 4:25; see Appendix).
Rom 1:16–17a fulfills the criteria for an allusion first and foremost in
terms of volume, with the sheer number of its clustered themes that are not
only exclusively found in Isaiah 40–55, but within Isaiah 40–55 are vitally
integrated with the proclamation of good news. This allusion is rendered even
more certain through the criteria of both recurrence – as the various terms
and concepts are subsequently drawn from explicit quotations to Isaiah – and
thematic coherence. With reference to the relative priority of Isaiah, the fact
that this allusion predominantly constitutes the thematic verses of the epistle
points to a central role for Isaiah within Paul’s scriptural exposition. Rom
1:16–17a, then, is a vital element in a redemptive-narrative framework that
centers in Isaiah’s messianic sacrifice for sin, which surfaces explicitly in
Rom 3:21–26 – the two passages being intertextually linked through the
theme of the manifestation of God’s righteousness.
Paul sets the stage for this Isaianic redemption through an Isaianically
conceived plight in Rom 1:18–3:20, in which he presents humanity as captive
and condemned in anticipation of God’s redemptive righteousness in the
sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ. Central to Paul’s conception
of this plight is his quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24. This quotation forms
an important climax in Paul’s argument up to this point in his epistle, and its
typological nature within that climax as depicting covenant transgression with
its resulting captivity to sin (as a portent of eschatological death) demon-
strates its crucial role within and influence upon Rom 1:18–3:20 as a whole.
For example, the typology inherent in the quotation within its wider
Isaianic context echoes intertextually in the thematic movements of Rom
1:18–32 (which contains its own allusions to this typology), in which the sin
340 Chapter Five: Conclusion

and captivity of Israel reiterate the fall and serve as a type of fallen humanity.
Anticipating the continuing movement of the argument toward Rom 2:24/Isa
52:5, Rom 1:23 alludes to Isaiah 40 to convey the idolatrous exchange that is
characteristic of fallen humanity in its captivity to sin and corruption – the
exchange of the glory of the incorruptible God for the worship of corruptible
man. This idolatrous exchange begun at creation aligns Adam’s transgression,
Israel’s covenant breach, and the idolatry ubiquitously characteristic of hu-
manity, and so presents Israel as a type that projects upon the world the reali-
ty of its plight in Adam, captive to sin and death. Following Isaiah, and in
keeping with this typology, Paul thus places the world in a universal covenant
context that comes to full typological expression in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5.
Both Romans and Isaiah use this typologically-portrayed plight as a prel-
ude to the proclamation of good news, hinted at powerfully in this section of
Romans through God’s handing over of Israel/humanity (1:24, 26, 28), which
ultimately becomes his handing over of the Messiah to redeem his people
through the Messiah’s sacrifice for sin (Rom 4:25; 8:32/Isa 53:6; see Appen-
dix). This intertextual relation within Romans confirms the Isaianic back-
ground of covenant captivity in Romans 1, particularly as it stands in relation
to Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5, and points to the nature of both as deliberately em-
ployed to anticipate the messianic redemption.
In keeping with Paul’s emphasis on salvation-historical continuity in the
opening section of his epistle, Romans 2 presents a “layered reading” of the
human plight based in large part upon this Isaianic typology of captivity, a
typology thoroughly incorporated into this second chapter. This typology in
chapter two, however, conveys not only a solidarity of plight but also a conti-
nuity in promise, which in both respects point to the climax of redemption in
Isaiah’s “good news.” This “layered reading” is achieved in part through the
role of Rom 2:1 in uniting the typology of Romans 1 with its preeminent
expression in Rom 2:24, thus recalling God’s act of giving over humanity to
the power of sin and death as both a reflection of the fall and as typologically
portrayed in the covenant breach and captivity of Israel. Further, Rom 2:1ff
brings to the forefront Isaiah’s trial motif and links it to this typology of cap-
tivity, as the world-captives are ushered into the divine court. The chapter,
therefore, aligns the revelatory forensic confrontation of moral law, Mosaic
law and gospel (reinforced by the divine act of “giving over”), and so also
aligns the repentant/faith response called for in general revelation, Deuteron-
omy’s covenant context, and the Isaianic good news. This bringing together
of the two revelatory aspects of judgment and promise reach their eschatolog-
ical climax in the Isaianic Servant, as one who was “. . . delivered up
(paradi,wmi; cf. Rom 1:24, 26, 28 [“to give over”]; 4:25; 8:32) because of our
transgressions, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:25; see
Appendix).
 Chapter Five: Conclusion 341

Rom 2:1–4, moreover, as it stands in relation to Rom 2:16 (and augmented

by Isaianic allusions in the intervening verses), very likely reflects an allusion
to Isaiah 45 and its larger context. In Isaiah 45 the world-captives are again
brought to trial. Here the universal call to repentance within the conceptual
state of curse and exile (as Israel’s captivity typologically portrays the plight
of the world), with its prospect of justification for the repentant (Isa 45:25),
melds with an acceptance of God’s redemptive plan through the Servant of
the Lord as encapsulated in the proclamation of good news, a proclamation
which discloses the basis of eschatological vindication. Similarly in Romans
2, the repentance called for (Rom 2:1–4) and the justification granted in the
eschatological judgment to a captive and condemned humanity within the
trial motif (Rom 2:13) is mediated through Christ Jesus “according to [the]
gospel” (Rom 2:16), so that it is ultimately based in the sacrifice of the
Isaianic Servant of the Lord/Jesus Christ (Isa 53:11; Rom 2:16; 3:21–26).
This “layered reading,” therefore, is facilitated in large measure by Isaiah’s
typology, which comes to climactic expression in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5. Nega-
tively, the typology’s covenant context of transgression with its consequent
curse and captivity reiterates the fall and portrays the plight of humanity in its
guilt before God and its captivity to sin and death. Therefore, positively, the
typology sets the backdrop not simply for the repentance advocated in Rom
2:4, but to the faith-embrace of the eschatological redemption disclosed in the
sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah – the Isaianic good
news (Rom 1:1–6, 16–17a; 2:16; 3:21–26; 4:25). In Romans chapter 2, there-
fore, Deuteronomy’s covenant scenario of sin-exile-restoration marked by the
circumcision of the heart is taken up and incorporated into the account of the
Servant of the Lord and the larger Isaianic narrative framework of redemptive
recreation through the messianic sacrifice. The repentance and circumcision
of the heart called for in Deuteronomy, then, with the dawning of the new era
of salvation-history, comes to be expressed as faith in the gospel.
Paul’s use of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24, therefore, plays a leading role among
Paul’s scriptural sources in Rom 1:18–3:20. Paul’s strategic positioning of
the quotation forms a significant climax (if not the climax) of Paul’s “inner
argument.” It’s vital, intertextual relation to its larger context is evident in a
variety of ways, from its relation to the “giving over” of humanity into the
power of sin in Romans 1 (vv. 24, 26, 28) as fulfilled in the “giving over” of
the Servant (Rom 3:21–26; 4:25), to its essential connection with the “cap-
tives brought to trial” in Rom 2:1–4, to Paul’s characterization of Rom 1:18–
3:8 (Rom 3:9) as a description of Jew and Gentile being “under sin.” The dual
contextual nature of Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5 within this contextual climax in both
typologically portraying the human plight, and through that typology antici-
pating the messianic redemption, links to Paul’s use of Isaiah’s larger re-
demptive narrative (1:1–6, 16–17; 2:16; 3:21–26; 4:25), so that the quotation
342 Chapter Five: Conclusion

plays a key role in evoking an Isaianic framework for Romans 1–4 as a

whole.
In light of the continuity in the saving promise conveyed largely through
Isaiah’s typology, the promise of restoration through the divine circumcision
of the heart in Rom 2:25–29 may be appropriated only by a repentance that
aligns itself with the response of faith in the gospel (Rom 2:16, 24). In antici-
pation of the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel, Rom 3:1–4
clarifies and emphasizes the posture of appropriation. Paul re-evokes the
universal plight (Rom 3:4, “every man a liar”), but does so preeminently
through the predicament of David. David’s absolute and helpless guilt, and
therefore also his sole dependence upon covenant grace, becomes the pattern
of appropriation. Yet David’s plight points to God’s faithfulness to bring his
saving purposes to pass in spite of (and even through) the sin of his people.
God sovereignly superintends, through the sin and unbelief of his people, to
manifest his righteousness both in the saving event disclosed in the gospel, as
well as in its ultimate appropriation by Israel, with both aspects communicat-
ed largely through Isaiah.
Romans 3:9–20, then, is a powerful declaration and reiteration, primarily
scriptural, of man’s plight before God as captive in sin and condemned before
God’s judgment – prominent dual motifs in the redemptive narrative of Isaiah
40–55. These dual motifs of “captive” and “condemned” are explicitly and
respectively articulated in the verses that introduce and conclude the catena –
Rom 3:9 and Rom 3:19–20 – passages which derive these themes in whole or
in part from their allusions to Isaiah. Rom 3:9 reasserts what Rom 1:18–3:8
was intended to demonstrate, that all people are “under sin.” This phrase
alludes to the concept of captivity to sin in Isaiah 40–55, and points to the
overarching significance of both the theme itself (as derived from Isaiah) as
well as Paul’s quotation of Isa 52:5 in Rom 2:24. But Rom 3:9 also introduc-
es a catena of verses that further demonstrate this reality, and in which the
quotation of Isaiah 59 plays a crucial role.
Paul’s use of Isaiah 59 within this string of verses ties in with his use of
Isaiah’s typology throughout the section and presents Israel’s captivity to sin
as representative of humanity. But Paul’s quotation of Isaiah 59 also alludes
to the Isaianic way of peace, the redemptive path of the new exodus. This is
significant, for it anticipates the redemption soon to be disclosed in Rom
3:21–26. This unique relevance of Paul’s quotation of Isaiah within the cate-
na in terms of pointing to plight as well as solution is evident in Paul’s con-
tinuing use of this very text to portray Israel’s ultimate redemption through
atonement in Romans 11, an atonement which, intertextually, finds its basis
in the Isaianic redemptive sacrifice of the Messiah in Rom 3:21–26.
The concluding verses, Rom 3:19–20, focus on the theme of helpless guilt
before God’s tribunal. In Rom 3:19 the allusions to Psalms 63 and 107 rein-
force the primarily Isaianic depiction of the “world trial,” with humanity’s
 Chapter Five: Conclusion 343

silent guilt before God’s law and inexcusable accountability in judgment.

This concept of the “shutting of the mouth,” moreover, quite possibly evokes
the transition in Isaiah’s narrative from humanity’s silent guilt to the Serv-
ant’s role in taking this guilt, with the result that “He was oppressed and He
was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to
slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not
open His mouth” (Isa 53:7). Rom 3:20, then, contains a combined allusion to
Isa 40:6 and Ps 143:2, as the Isaianic “flesh” motif is injected into the Psalm
to emphasize the impossibility of fallen humanity doing that which essential-
ly reflects the nature and character of God.
Rom 1:18–3:20 as a whole, therefore, demonstrates a high degree of the-
matic development reflecting Isaiah’s larger redemptive-narrative context.
The deuteronomic curse of captivity is taken up into a larger typological
portrayal of humanity and set within a pre-eschatological trial scenario, so
that humanity is portrayed as captive to sin and death, and condemned before
God’s tribunal. It is this Isaianic backdrop of despair that serves as a prelude
to the Isaianic depiction of God’s redemptive righteousness in the gospel.
Set against this dark backdrop of Isaiah’s typological portrait of humani-
ty’s captivity to sin and condemnation before God’s tribunal, Rom 3:21–26,
then, recounts the long-awaited revelation of the eschatological righteousness
of God as disclosed in Isaiah’s good news. In this passage Paul’s use of Isai-
ah’s redemptive narrative continues, answering the Isaianic typological por-
trait of humanity’s condemnation before God’s tribunal and captivity to sin
and death with the promised eschatological justification and redemption
based in the Servant’s sacrifice. This relationship is evidence of Paul’s use of
a demonstrable theological framework based in the broad scope of prophe-
cy’s redemptive narrative.
It bears repeating that Paul’s dependence on Isaiah’s narrative of redemp-
tion seems particularly warranted in light of Paul’s quotations of Isa 52:5
(Rom 2:24) and 59:7–8 (Rom 3:15–17), which help typologically set the
stage for the redemption about to be recounted in Rom 3:21–26, particularly
in light of his use of these same passages later in the epistle to set forth both
the basis (Rom 10:15–16/Isa 52:7; 53:1) and event (Rom 11:26–27/Isa 59:20–
21; 27:9) of Israel’s redemption. These facts strongly suggest that Paul’s
principle use of Isaiah’s narrative of redemption extends to the epistle as a
whole. Therefore, Paul’s use of Rom 3:21–26 within a demonstrable scrip-
tural framework is itself verified by the criterion of recurrence.
Building upon the description of the Isaianic gospel in Rom 1:16–17 as the
revelation of God’s righteousness in his saving power, available to all, and
appropriated through faith, Rom 3:21–26 further describes this manifestation
of righteousness as that which accomplishes eschatological justification
“through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (v. 24), whom God set
forth as a propitiatory sacrifice (v. 25). This description, particularly as it is
344 Chapter Five: Conclusion

situated within its wider context in Romans, presents a unique combination of

themes which is scripturally mirrored only in Isaiah 53, as situated within its
wider context. The concept of “the messianic sacrifice” alone recalls Isaiah
53. The Messiah’s sacrifice for the sin of his people effecting both eschato-
logical justification as well as redemption from captivity to sin and death (as
set against an Isaianic backdrop) renders this background in Isaiah 53 virtual-
ly certain. Further, as in Isaiah 53, this messianic sacrifice in Rom 3:21–26,
in effecting eschatological justification, is thus definitively identified as the
antitypical sacrifice. Isaiah 53 is the only place in the OT where all of these
themes come together, where the Messiah, veiled under the figure of the
Servant of the Lord, is presented through sacrificial and cultic terminology as
offering his life as a substitute to accomplish atonement, justification and thus
the climactic redemption from the power of the curse and the tyranny of sin
and death. This messianic sacrifice, as in Romans, then, is definitive and
eschatological, and thus effects recreation. This unique combination and
integration of terms and themes (or thematic clustering) in Romans, there-
fore, constitutes a clear allusion to Isaiah 53 and its wider context.
Further, Paul presents Christ’s sacrifice in Rom 3:21–26 as a fulfillment,
not only of redemption from the typologically-conceived Babylonian captiv-
ity in Isaiah (Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5), but – in direct relation to that Isaianic re-
demption – as a fulfillment of the sacrifices of the Passover, the Day of
Atonement and the guilt offering. He draws these themes, moreover, from
other Isaianic quotations and allusions which are themselves both essentially
related to Isaiah’s narrative of redemption and also intertextually related to
(and so informing) Rom 3:21–26.
As stated above, in Rom 3:21–26 the proclamation of good news is the di-
vine message which has as its content and is in itself the revelation of God’s
long-promised eschatological righteousness in the atoning sacrifice of the
Messiah, which achieves eschatological justification and redemption, and
therefore becomes manifest as the antitypical sacrifice, the fulfillment of the
sacrifices of the Passover, Day of Atonement and guilt offering, with this
realized redemption appropriated solely through faith in that saving event
disclosed in the proclamation – this is a unique combination and integration
of themes which finds its source only in Isaiah.
Therefore, Paul employs in Romans a scriptural narrative framework cen-
tering in Isaiah’s proclamation of good news. This narrative framework spans
the entire first section of the epistle (chapters 1–4), from its opening verses to
the final allusion to Isaiah in Rom 4:25, and thus warrants a brief summary at
this point. Paul creates this Isaianic scriptural framework by means of a net-
work of textual links, informed by a typology of plight and promise, that
together point to the antitypical resolution of humanity’s plight in Isaiah’s
depiction of the Messiah’s sacrifice for sin as the basis of redemptive recrea-
tion. The outer elements in this scriptural framework are connected through
 Chapter Five: Conclusion 345

the themes of the good news of the Messiah’s conquest of sin and death in
behalf of his people by virtue of his resurrection (Rom 1:1–4). This good
news, “promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures”
(Rom 1:2), comes to its scriptural expression through the allusion to the res-
urrection of Jesus as the messianic Servant of Isaiah 53 in the final verse of
the section, Rom 4:25. The Isaianic nature of the gospel in the introductory
verses, therefore, is confirmed by and creates an overarching Isaianic frame-
work through its intertextual connection with its scriptural expression in 4:25.
The connection between the outer elements of this framework is then rein-
forced through a series of intervening and interlocking texts. The gospel in-
troduced in the opening verses is further developed in Rom 1:16–17a, which
is itself a complex allusion to Isaiah’s good news as the central element in the
redemptive narrative of Isaiah 40–55. The gospel, described in Rom 1:17 as
the “revelation of God’s righteousness,” is then subsequently reintroduced
under this heading in Rom 3:21 (“But now . . . the righteousness of God has
been manifested . . .”) and brought to full expression in the following verses
(Rom 3:21–26). In this passage the Messiah, in fulfillment of Israel’s scrip-
tures, dies as the antitypical sacrifice for sin (linking intertextually with Rom
1:1–6), and thereby provides the basis of justification for all who believe.
This unique combination of themes in Rom 3:21–26 as constituting an allu-
sion to the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 is then recalled in
Rom 4:25, as the section climaxes with a final allusion to Isaiah 53 in the
description of Jesus as one who “. . . was delivered over because of our trans-
gressions, and was raised because of our justification,” thus binding together
the Isaianic motifs of eschatological judgment and salvation within the sec-
tion as a whole.
Within this allusive network of texts that recall and develop the Isaianic
gospel, Paul strategically employs two explicit quotations from Isaiah to
depict, through the typology of Israel, the essential plight of humanity as
captive in sin and condemned before God (Isa 52:5/Rom 2:24; Isa 59:7–
8/Rom 3:15–17), a plight which characterizes Rom 1:18–3:20 as a whole
(Rom 3:9, 19–20). But this Isaianic typology of plight is also used to allude to
and so anticipate its Isaianic resolution in its counter-poised redemption and
justification achieved through the messianic sacrifice (Rom 3:21–26). And
further still, these Isaianic citations (and allusions) are employed to join Isai-
ah’s redemptive narrative in the first section of the epistle to the subsequent
sections, creating an overarching Isaianic narrative framework for the epistle
as a whole.
Concerning this Isaianic framework throughout the epistle as a whole, only
the barest sketch is possible here. In Romans 5–8, the initial verses of the new
section carry over the concepts of justification and its resulting eschatological
life from the Isaianic allusion in 4:25, as Isaiah’s new exodus narrative of
redemption, with its return to (/hope of) glory, becomes the dominant and
346 Chapter Five: Conclusion

framing theme, and therefore the basis of present sanctification. This “fram-
ing” characteristic is evident in the relation between the hope of glory which
opens the section (Rom 5:1–5), and the identical theme in Rom 8:16–25,
specifically as that latter text is situated within the allusions to Isaiah’s sacri-
fice of the Servant of the Lord (Rom 8:3, [28–30,] 31–34; see Appendix).
Reflecting Isaiah, this sacrifice is portrayed as the fulfillment of the typologi-
cally conceived exodus narrative, to which the passage also alludes (e.g.,
Rom 8:1–4, 14–17; cf. Rom 6:1ff), as covenant sons, having been set free
from their slavery to sin, follow the leading of the indwelling Spirit and so
tread the redemptive path to the full glory of their promised inheritance.
But the clearest example of the manner in which the Isaianic framework of
the opening section of the epistle is tied into the subsequent sections is seen
in the intertextual relation Paul creates between Romans 1–4 and 9–11 by
means of his two quotations of Isaiah. As mentioned earlier, Paul employs his
quotations of Isaiah chapters 52 and 59 in Romans 2 and 3 (respectively: Isa
52:5/Rom 2:24; Isa 59:7–8/Rom 3:15–17) first to depict Israel and humani-
ty’s plight, and then uses these same chapters of Isaiah in Romans 10 and 11
(respectively: Isa 52:7; [53:1/Rom 10:15–16;] Isa 59:20–21/Rom 11:26–27)
to depict the solution to this plight in divine redemption. The fact that Paul
quotes these same chapters of Isaiah to portray both plight and solution with-
in the broader theological argument of Romans strongly suggests that he
conceived of them as reflecting a crucial and coherent redemptive narrative, a
narrative, therefore, which remains prominent throughout his larger argu-
ment. In these chapters Paul traces the redemptive promise to its full scriptur-
al expression in the Isaianic gospel as the basis of Israel’s ultimate redemp-
tion. Additionally, then, the redemption disclosed and offered in the Isaianic
good news in Romans 10 becomes the basis of Israel’s actualized redemption
in Romans 11, with the Isaianic redeemer who takes away Israel’s sin (Rom
11:26–27) anchored intertextually in the Messiah’s propitiatory sacrifice as
expressed in Rom 3:21–26 (as Isaiah 59 is itself anchored intertextually in
Isaiah 53).
The final section of the epistle (chapters 12–16), like chapters 5–8, focus
on the realized nature of this Isaianic redemption, which, e.g., becomes the
basis of the formation of God’s holy eschatological people after the pattern of
the Servant’s sacrifice (Rom 12:1–2). This sacrifice, moreover, forms the
content of the apostolic proclamation of the Isaianic good news of redemption
(Rom 15:20–24 [Rom 15:21/Isa 52:15]). Thus, the Isaianic framework in
Romans 1–4 is integrally related to a much larger and overarching theological
framework for the epistle as a whole.
To summarize this work more generally, then, Rom 1:1–6, 16–17, the in-
troductory and thematic verses of the epistle, respectively, present a rich,
theological matrix reflecting and centering in Isaiah’s proclamation of good
news. Together with Rom 3:21–26 they create an Isaianic frame for 1:18–
 Chapter Five: Conclusion 347

3:20, a frame which emphasizes the revelation of God’s righteousness in the

sacrifice of the Servant as the content of this gospel. This Isaianic frame in-
forms the salvation-historical perspective of 1:18–3:20, which, by means of
the typology of Isaiah, conveys a fundamental consonance in sin and plight,
revelation and redemption.
Romans 1:18–3:20, therefore, depicts both a continuity and equality in the
affairs of man with regard to God across the salvation-historical continuum,
both in judgment and salvation, a continuity that serves as a prelude to its
fulfillment in the gospel. Through allusion it retraces indelibly the fall of
Adam upon the humanity that issues from him, so that both Gentile and Jew
alike in their corporate and individual existence stand condemned and captive
in their sin, helpless before the divine bar of justice, and under the sentence
of death. Creation, divine disclosure, and conscience point God’s law to
which all are accountable, and echo unanimous witness to the inescapable
guilt of humanity’s fundamental sin – a refusal to render due honor and
thanks to the One true God, and in that refusal an exchanging of creature for
Creator.11 Humanity’s rejection of God results in a divine “handing over,” a
captivity to sin that confirms guilt and in warning echoes back the impending
verdict from the final judgment.
The salvation-historical continuity in 1:18–3:20 is highlighted by this em-
phasis on divine law, which, while either issued through general revelation
and universally applicable (Rom 1:18–25, 28, 32; 2:1–3), or issued through
special revelation with particular reference to the Jew (Rom 2:17–24), results
in sin, condemnation, and judgment. As mentioned, the divine judgment or
wrath manifests itself initially in a further revelatory act, a divine “giving
over” into the power of sin (Rom 1:24, 26, 28; 2:24; 3:9, 15–17) – a captivity
designed to more fully disclose humanity’s plight as against the coming
judgement. This divine wrath in “giving over” humanity, then, eventuates in
“the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Rom
2:5), so that this ultimate scenario is similarly forewarned and typologically
echoed in the tragic consequences of both Adam and Israel’s sin, with its
expulsion and death. It is through this parallelism between Adam, Israel, and
humanity that Paul places the covenant people in a thoroughly biblical, rather
than Jewish light, that is, not as exclusively privileged humanity, but as typi-
cal humanity chosen to mediate the knowledge of God to the world.
This condemnation and captivity before God and his law, therefore, cannot
be divorced from the law’s divinely intended revelatory and scriptural context
11
This refusal to live in humble and grateful dependence upon the Creator is essentially
a refusal to exercise faith and to render that obedience which necessarily issues from it –
the “obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; 16:26). Davies (Faith, 26ff) argues for genitive of
origin for the phrase “obedience of faith” in Rom 1:5 and 16:26, and states, “For the ful-
fillment of God’s promises with respect to his gospel is to bring about the obedience of
faith among all peoples” (24).
348 Chapter Five: Conclusion

of promise, for its purpose is to reveal both the absolute need for as well as
the provision of mercy and grace in divine judgment, a mercy and grace that
is acquired only through repentance and the laying hold by faith of God’s
saving [covenant] promise. This promise nature under law is implicit in the
divine kindness, forbearance, and patience which, in light of the guilt and
captivity that portends eschatological judgment, is designed to lead one to
repentance. But this promise stands implicit in the law itself as revealing
God’s intention to refashion his fallen creatures after his moral likeness, and
so fulfill the “obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; 16:26), a principle goal of re-
demption, marking the recreation of man to accomplish in Christ what he
failed in Adam. Paul presents a salvation-historical continuity in the relation
of these concepts that culminates in the gospel, a continuity that is empha-
sized in this section of his epistle not simply by his words, but much more by
allusion and typology.
This sense of continuity is derived from many scriptural sources but is
uniquely integrated by Paul’s understanding of the prophecy of Isaiah. Paul’s
allusions to Genesis and the narrative of the fall (e.g., Rom 1:23; 3:23), his
allusions to the commandments and the curse of captivity from Exodus and
Deuteronomy (Rom 1:23–24, 26, 28; 2:21–22, 25–29), and his emphasis on
man’s accountability and guilt before the eschatological judgment drawn
primarily from the Psalms (e.g., Rom 2:6/Ps 62:12; Rom 3:4/Ps 51:4; etc.) –
together with their wider contexts of covenant promise – are all taken up in
the redemptive narrative of Isaiah. In chapters 40–55 of the prophecy the
typological nature of Israel as representative of Adamic humanity in its sin,
captivity and death, is a prominent feature which is reflected throughout this
section of Romans, particularly in Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5. This typology of cap-
tivity, moreover, is augmented by the equally prominent Isaianic courtroom
motif in which Israel and the nations, the world-captives, stand silent in their
guilt before the divine tribunal. The typology in Isaiah extends, then, to the
relation between Adam’s sin, Israel’s breaking of the Mosaic covenant, and
humanity’s breaking of the eternal covenant and divine laws. This relation is
reflected in Paul’s depiction of the continuity between Adam, Israel and hu-
manity; between Adamic law, Mosaic law and natural law, the breaking of
which brings captivity, judgment, and death.
But Paul, following Isaiah, uses this typology not simply to disclose the
human plight, but – as anticipated throughout salvation-history in repentance
before divine law/faith in the covenant promise – to provide the essential
backdrop for the invitation to enter by faith into the justification and redemp-
tion similarly portrayed by the typology and fulfilled in the intercession and
vindication of the Suffering Servant. In this Isaianic narrative, therefore,
Israel is also typical of redeemed humanity so that the covenant promises to
Israel stem from the Lord’s purposes that in Israel “all the families of the
 Chapter Five: Conclusion 349

earth shall be blessed.” 12 Paul, in line with Isaiah, views the redemption of
Israel as typical of the world-wide redemptive act accomplished through the
Servant, and similarly frames this redemption in terms of the new creation,
deliberately recalling the creation of Adam, and signifying redemption’s
universal nature. In Isaiah, uniquely, the storyline continues via the typology,
culminating in the good news of redemption. Therefore this Adamic solidari-
ty in sin and judgment that spans salvation-history has its counterpart in the
solidarity of the second Adam (Rom 5:12–21), which likewise spans salva-
tion history (e.g., Rom 1:17; 4:1–25; 11:35) but is uniquely revealed in the
gospel of Jesus Christ.
Though the apostle uses many scriptural sources both directly and indirect-
ly to establish this continuity in judgment and redemption, the various
Isaianic themes quoted or alluded to in this section of Romans provide a co-
hesive and coherent redemptive narrative within which these many scriptural
elements are integrated. So while Paul’s scriptural mosaic in [this section of]
Romans is not purely Isaianic, the Isaianic redemptive narrative appears to be
the central motif around which the others cohere as Paul continues to develop
his presentation of the gospel in this epistle.
In Isaiah, then, the themes of captivity and condemnation become the prel-
ude to the revelation of God’s saving righteousness in the redemption and
justification secured by the self-sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord. This
vicarious death of the righteous Servant is shown to be the definitive, antityp-
ical sacrifice by forming the sole basis of eschatological justification, thus
bringing to fulfillment Israel’s many sacrificial and redemptive types and
covenant expressions. This antitypical sacrifice of the Isaianic Servant of the
Lord, as the manifestation of God’s redemptive righteousness, comes to clear
scriptural expression in Rom 3:21–26, which thus forms an antitypical nexus.
As set within its wider context, the passage reveals Paul’s understanding of
Isaiah’s good news as the distillation of scripture’s promise of salvation. As
the climactic scriptural expression of God’s saving promise, the apostle views
the numerous lines of this redemptive promise as powerfully merging and
concentrating in the Isaianic gospel.
In Paul’s reading of Isaiah, then, the “good news” is the proclamation of
the reign of God evidenced and established by his ultimate redemptive act of
delivering his people from the power of sin and death, typified in the Egyp-
tian and Babylonian deliverances, as well as in the highly significant and
representative sacrifices of the sin and guilt offerings and the sacrifice of the
Day of Atonement in the Jubilee year. This definitive redemptive act comes
to full scriptural expression in the atonement, justification and glorification
achieved by the sacrifice of the Servant of the Lord as the fulfillment of
God’s saving, covenant promise in its many and various forms. This redemp-

12
Cf., e.g., Gen 12:3; Isa 51:1–3; Rom 1:16; 2:4–11; 3:21–24; 4:9–18; etc.
350 Chapter Five: Conclusion

tion, according to Paul, is the climactic act ultimately heralded in Isa 52:7 (so
also Isa 40:9; 60:6; 61:1). Paul, therefore, understands this redemptive narra-
tive centering in the proclamation of good news as a comprehensive and inte-
grating theological framework, and so employs that great prophetic text as his
primary scriptural source for understanding and explicating the gospel he so
passionately proclaims in Romans. The extensive continuity in both judgment
and salvation variously rehearsed in Isaiah, then, particularly in its typology,
prepares and points to the fullness of the saving promise and the supreme
revelation of God’s saving righteousness in the prophecy’s “proclamation of
good news,” fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
 Appendix

The following chart collates the conclusions of 5 scholars regarding Paul’s quotations and
allusions to Isaiah in Romans: Ellis (Paul’s Use of the Old Testament), Shum (Paul’s Use
of Isaiah in Romans), Stanley (Paul and the Language of Scripture), Wagner (Heralds of
the Good News), Wilk (Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus). (See bibliography for
full source details.)
Stanley treats only quotations, not allusions.
? = The given author views the quotation or allusion as a possibility, or less certain
(though for the sake of clarity the question marks do not appear within the text of the
thesis).
Romans Isaianic Quotation Isaianic Allusion
2:9 8:22 (Ellis?)
2:24 52:5 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)
3:15–17 59:7–8 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)
3:29–30 45:21–22 (Shum)
4:25 53:12 (Wilk)
53:4–5, 12 (Ellis)
53:6, 11–12 (Shum,
Wagner)
5:1 32:17 (Shum)
5:6, 8b 53:8 (Shum)
5:19b 53:11 (Shum)
8:3 53:10 (Ellis?)
8:31b 50:8–9 (Shum)
8:32 53:6 (Shum, Wag-
ner?, Wilk)
53:11–12 (Wagner?)
8:33–34 50:8 (Wagner)
50:8–9 (Ellis, Shum,
Wilk)
8:34 53:12 (Ellis)
9:6 40:7–8 (Wagner?,
Wilk1)

1
Wilk’s reference states “40:7ff.”
352 Appendix

9:20 29:16 / 45:9 (Ellis,

Wilk)
9:20–21 29:16 / 45:9 (Shum,
Wagner2)
9:27–28 10:22–23 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)
9:28 28:22 (Shum, Wagner3)
9:29 1:9 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)
9:30 59:9 (Wilk)
9:30–31 51:1 (Wagner?,
Wilk)
9:33 8:14/28:16 (Ellis, Shum,4 Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)
10:11 28:16 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)
10:12 45:21–22 (Shum)
10:15 52:7 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)
10:16 53:1 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)
10:19 1:3 (Wilk)
10:20–21 65:1–2 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)
11:5 Isaianic remnant
motif (Shum)
11:8 29:10 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk) 6:9–10 (Wagner)
11:26a 45:17 (Wilk)
11:26–27 59:20–21; 27:9 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner,
Wilk)
11:34 40:13 (Ellis, Wilk) 40:13 (Shum, Wag-
ner)
13:11 56:1 (Wagner?,
Wilk)
14:11 45:23 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)
49:18 (Ellis)
14:21 22:13 (Wilk)
15:12 11:10 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)
15:21 52:15 (Ellis, Shum, Stanley, Wagner, Wilk)

2
Though Wagner’s chart of citations and allusions (342, Heralds) cites only Romans
9:20 as alluding to Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9, his discussion on 58–59 indicates that he in-
cludes Paul’s reference to the potter and the clay in verse 21 to be part of the allusion.
3
For a clarification of Wagner’s chart, see Heralds, Figure 2.7, 95.
4
Shum includes 9:32c.
 Bibliography

I. Primary Sources
Chilton, Bruce D., trans. The Isaiah Targum. ArBib 11. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987.
Ellinger, K. and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1984.
The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. New York/Glasgow/London/
Toronto/Sydney/Auckland: Collins, 1973.
Martínez, F. García, and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. 2
vols. Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997–98.
Nestle, E., E. Nestle, K. Aland, B. Aland, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 199327.
The New American Standard Bible. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1977.
Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, 2
vols. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935.
Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum
Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Vol. I, Genesis. Ed. J. W. Wevers, 1974.
Vol. II, 1 Exodus. Eds. J. W. Wevers and U. Quast, 1991.
Vol. II, 2 Leviticus. Eds. J. W. Wevers and U. Quast, 1986.
Vol. III, 1 Numeri. Eds. J. W. Wevers and U. Quast, 1982.
Vol. III, 2 Deuteronomium. Eds. J. W. Wevers and U. Quast, 1977.
Vol. XIV, Isaiah. Ed. J. Ziegler, 19833.
Vol. XIII, Duodecim Prophetae. Ed. J. Ziegler, 19672.
Stenning, J. F., ed. and trans. The Targum of Isaiah. Oxford: Clarendon, 1949.
Vermes, Geza, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin, 19954.

II. Reference Works and Exegetical Aids

Balz, H., and G. Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. ET. 3 Vols.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–1993.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. Revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979.
Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early
Christian Literature. Trans. and ed. Robert W. Funk. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1961.
354 Bibliography

Botterweck, G. J., and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.
Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 14 vols. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974–2006.
Brown, Francis. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979 (19071).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook
of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.
Kittel, Gerhard, and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976.
Thayer, Joseph Henry. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Being C. G. Grimm
(1861–1868; 1879) and C. L. W. Wilke (1851) Clavis Novi Testamenti, translated,
revised, and enlarged, by Joseph Henry Thayer. New York: American Book Co., 1889.
Electronic edition: International Bible Translators, 1998–2000 (1889).
VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology
and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.

III. Secondary Sources

Ådna, Jostein. “The Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and Interceding Messiah: The
Reception of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 in the Targum of Isaiah with Special Attention to the
Concept of the Messiah.” In The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian
Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, translated by Daniel P.
Bailey, 189–224. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Alexander, L. C. A. “Chronology of Paul.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited
by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, 115–23. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press, 1993.
Allen, David L. “Substitutionary Atonement and Cultic Terminology in Isaiah 53.” In The
Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and
Christian Theology, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, 171–89. Grand
Rapids: Kregel, 2012.
Andersen, Francis I. Habakkuk. AB 25. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Averbeck, Richard. “Sacrifices and Offerings.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament:
Pentateuch, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, 706–33. Downers
Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2003.
Bailey, Daniel P. “Concepts of Stellvertretung in the Interpretation of Isaiah 53.” In Jesus
and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H.
Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer, 88–103. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998.
–. Jesus as the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in
Romans 3:25. Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge University, 1999.
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford, 1961.
Barrett, C. K. The Epistle to the Romans. BNTC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers,
1991.
Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Edwyn C. Hoskyns. London: Oxford
University Press, 1933.
Bates, Matthew W. The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation: The Center of Paul’s
Method of Scriptural Interpretation. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012.
 III. Secondary Sources 355

Bauckham, Richard J. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament.
Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998.
–. Jesus and the God of Israel: ‘God Crucified’ and Other Studies on the New Testament’s
Christology of Divine Identity. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2009.
Beaton, Richard. Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel. SNTSMS 123. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Begg, Christopher. “Isaiah in Josephus.” In Josephus und das Neue Testament, edited by
Christfried Bӧttrich and Jens Herzer, 233–43. WUNT 209. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2007.
Behm, J., and E. Würthwein. “metanoe,w, meta,noia.” TDNT. 1967. Vol. 4:975–1008.
Bell, Richard H. Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in
Romans 9–11. WUNT 2.63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.
–. No One Seeks for God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 1:18–3:20.
WUNT 106. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.
–. “Sacrifice and Christology in Paul.” JTS 53 (2002): 1–27.
–. The Irrevocable Call of God. WUNT 184. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
–. “Faith in Christ: Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections on Philippians 3:9 and
Ephesians 3:12.” In The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological
Studies, edited by Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, 111–25. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.
Bergman, Jan, Helmer Ringgren, and Horst Seebass. “rx;B' bāchar.” TDOT. 1977, revised
(1975). Vol. 2:73–87.
Berkley, Timothy W. From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline
Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29. SBLDS 175. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2000.
Betz, Otto. “Jesus’ Gospel of the Kingdom.” In The Gospel and the Gospels, edited by
Peter Stuhlmacher, 53–74. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
–. Was wissen wir von Jesus? Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1991.
Beuken, W. A. M. “Servant and Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61 as an Interpretation of
Isaiah 40–55.” In The book of Isaiah – Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures;
Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage, edited by J. Vermeylen, 411–42. BETL 81. Leuven:
Leuven University Press, 1989.
Bird, Michael F., ed. Four Views on the Apostle Paul. Counterpoints Series. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012.
Bird, Michael F., and Preston M. Sprinkle, eds. The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical,
Biblical and Theological Studies. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the
Book.” In Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive
Tradition, edited by C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans, 155–75. 2 Vols. VTSup 70. Leiden:
Brill, 1997.
–. Opening The Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
Bock, D. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology.
JSNT 12. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.
Bockmuehl, M. The Epistle to the Philippians. BNTC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1998.
Bonsirven, J. Exégèse Rabbinique et Exégèse Paulinienne. Bibliotheque de la Theólogie
Historique. Paris: Beauchesne, 1939.
356 Bibliography

Brewer, David Instone. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE.
TSAJ 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. AB 29. 2 Vols. Garden City:
Doubleday, 1966–70.
Brownlee, W. H. “The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk.” JBL 82.3 (1963): 319–25.
Broyles, C. C. “Gospel.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel B. Green,
Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, 282–86. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press, 1992.
Broyles, C. C., and C. A. Evans, eds. Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of
an Interpretive Tradition. 2 Vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. NICNT.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.
–. Romans: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press, 1985.
–. The Epistle to the Galatians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: The Paternoster Press and
Eerdmans, 1992.
Brueggemann, Walter. “Unity and Dynamic in the Isaiah Tradition,” JSOT 29 (1984): 89–
107.
Bultmann, Rudolf. “avfi,hmi, etc.” TDNT. 1964. Vol. 1:509–12.
–. “Dikaiosu,nh Qeou/.” JBL 83 (1964): 12–16.
–. “kauca,omai, etc.,” TDNT. 1965. Vol. 3:645–54.
Bultmann, Rudolf, and Dieter Lührmann. “fai,nw, etc.” TDNT. 1974. Vol. 9:1–10.
Burrows, Millar. More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Scrolls and New
Interpretations with Translations of Important Recent Discoveries. New York: Viking,
1958.
Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians.
Translated by Ross Mackenzie. Calvin’s Commentaries. London: Oliver and Boyd,
1961.
Campbell, Douglas A. The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26. JSNTSup 65.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.
–. The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy. New York: T&T Clark, 2005.
–. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Carson, D. A., and H. G. M. Williamson, eds. It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Carson, D. A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament.
Leicester: Apollos, 1992.
Carson, D. A., Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds. Justification and Variegated
Nomism: Vol. I – The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. WUNT 140. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
Carson, D. A., Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds. Justification and Variegated
Nomism: Vol. II – The Paradoxes of Paul. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Cavallin, H. C. C. “The Righteous Shall Live by Faith: A Decisive Argument for the
Traditional Interpretation.” ST 32 (1978): 33–43.
Cazelles, H. “hd'p' pāḏâ.” TDOT. 2001. Vol. 11:483–90.
Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. London: SCM Press,
1979.
–. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
–. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001.
 III. Secondary Sources 357

Chisholm, Jr., Robert B. “Forgiveness and Salvation in Isaiah 53.” In The Gospel
According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian
Theology, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, 191–210. Grand Rapids: Kregel,
2012.
Clements, R. E. Isaiah 1–39. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
–. “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah.” Int 36 (1982): 117–29.
Conzelmann, Hans. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. MeyerK 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1969.
–. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. NTL ET. London: SCM, 1969.
Coppes, Leonard J. “lben' (nābēl).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 2:548.
–. “ll;q' (qālal).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 2:800–801.
–. “br;q' (qārab).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 2:811–13.
Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.
Vol. I: Introduction and Commentary on Romans I-VIII. ICC. London: T&T clark,
1975.
–. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. II:
Commentary on Romans IX-XVI and Essays. ICC. London: T&T clark, 1979.
Creed, John Martin. “Pa,resij in Dionysuis of Halicarnassus and St. Paul.” JTS 41 (1940):
28–30.
Culver, Robert D. “jp;v' (shāpaṭ).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 2:947–49.
Das, Andrew A. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers,
2001.
Davies, Glenn N. Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4. JSNTSup 39.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.
Davis, John D. “The Child Whose Name is Wonderful.” In Biblical and Theological
Studies. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912.
Deines, Roland. “The Pharisees Between ‘Judaisms’ and ‘Common Judaism.’” In
Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. I – The Complexities of Second Temple
Judaism, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 443–504.
WUNT 140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
–. Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias. WUNT 177. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2004.
–. “Not the Law but the Messiah: Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew – An
Ongoing Debate.” In Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, edited by
Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland, 53–84. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Delitzsch, F. Commentary on the Old Testament, IV: Job. Translated by Francis Bolton.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 (reprint).
–. Commentary on the Old Testament, V: Psalms. Translated by Francis Bolton. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 (reprint).
–. Commentary on the Old Testament, VII: Isaiah. Translated by James Martin. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 (reprint).
Denney, J. The Death of Christ. Edited by R. V. G. Tasker. London: Tyndale, 1951.
Denny, D. R. The Significance of Isaiah in the Writings of Paul. PhD. diss., New Orleans
Theological Seminary, 1985.
358 Bibliography

Dietrich, Walter. “Habakkuk – ein Jesajaschüler.” In Nachdenken über Israel, Bibel, und
Theologie: Festschrift für Klaus-Dietrich Schunck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, edited by
Herman Michael Niemann, Matthias Augustin, and Werner H. Schmidt, 197–215.
Beitrage zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums, Bd. 37.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1994.
DiMattei, Steven. “Biblical Narratives.” In As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of
Scripture, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, 59–93. SBLSS 50.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008.
Dinter, Paul E. “Paul and the Prophet Isaiah.” BTB 13 (1983): 48–52.
Dodd, C. H. “Ila,skesqai, Its Cognates, Derivatives and Synonyms in the Septuagint.” JTS
32 (1931): 352–60.
–. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. MNTC. New York: Harper and Bros., 1932.
–. According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology. London:
Nisbet, 1952.
–. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1953.
Dunn, James D. G. “Paul’s Understanding of the Death of Jesus.” In Reconciliation and
Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris
on his 60th Birthday, edited by Robert Banks, 125–41. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
–. “The Relationship Between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2.” NTS
28 (1982): 461–78.
–. “Once More – Gal 1,18: i`storh/sai Khfa/n in Reply to Otfried Hofius.” ZNW 76 (1985):
138–39.
–. Romans 1–8. WBC. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.
–. Romans 9–16. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988.
–. “Once More, PISTIS CRISTOU.” In Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers,
730–44. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1991.
–. The Epistle to the Galatians. BNTC. London: A&C Black, 1993.
–, ed. Paul and the Mosaic Law. WUNT 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.
–. New Testament Theology: An Introduction. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.
Du Toit, A. “A Tale of Two Cities: ‘Tarsus or Jerusalem’ Revisited.” NTS 46 (2000): 375–
402.
Eichholz, G. Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag,
1972.
Ekblad, Jr., Eugene Robert. Isaiah’s Servant Poems According to the Septuagint: An
Exegetical and Theological Study. CBET 23. Leuven: Peeters, 1999.
Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Elliott, Mark Adam. The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of Pre-
Christian Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Ellis, E. Earle. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock
Publishers, 2003 (repr.; orig. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957).
–. “New Directions in Form Criticism.” In Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early
Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
Emerton, J. A. “The Textual and Linguistic Problems of Habakkuk ii.4–5.” JTS 28 (1977):
1–18.
Engnell, I. “The ‘Ebed-Yahweh’ Songs and the Suffering Messiah in ‘Deutero-Isaiah.’”
BJRL 31.1 (1948): 54–95.
Enns, Peter. “jP'v.mi.” NIDOTTE. 1997. Vol. 2:1142–44.
Evans, Craig A. “On the Quotation Formulas in the Fourth Gospel.” BZ 26 (1982): 79–83.
 III. Secondary Sources 359

–. “Obduracy and the Lord’s Servant: Some Observations on the Use of the Old
Testament in the Fourth Gospel.” In Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis, edited by
Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring, 221–236. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
–. “From Gospel to Gospel: The Function of Isaiah in the New Testament.” In Writing and
Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, edited by C. C.
Broyles and C. A. Evans, 651–91. 2 Vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
–. “Isaiah 53 in the Letters of Peter, Paul, Hebrews, and John.” In The Gospel According
to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology,
edited by Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, 145–70. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012.
Evans, C. A., and J. A. Sanders. Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in
Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1993.
Evans, Craig A., and James A. Sanders, eds. Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. JSNTSup
83/SSEJC 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987.
Fishbane, Michael. “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-biblical Exegesis.” JBL
99.3 (1980): 343–61.
–. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.
–. “Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel.” In
Midrash and Literature, edited by G. H. Hartman and S. Burdick, 19–37. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1986.
Fisk, Bruce N. “Synagogue Influence and Scriptural Knowledge Among the Christians of
Rome.” In As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, edited by Stanley E.
Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, 157–85. SBLSS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2008.
Fitzmyer, J. A. “Habakkuk 2:3–4 and the New Testament.” In To Advance the Gospel:
New Testament Studies, 236–46. New York: Crossroad, 1981.
–. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33. New York:
Doubleday, 1993.
France, R. T. “New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Structure of Romans 3–8.” 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, 26–35. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Friedrich, Gerhard. “eu,aggeli,zomai.” TDNT. 1964. Vol. 2:707–37.
Gathercole, Simon J. Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in
Romans 1–5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
–. “Justified by Faith, Justified by his Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21–4:25.” In
Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. II – The Paradoxes of Paul, edited by D. A.
Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 147–84. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2004.
–. Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul. Edited by Craig A. Evans and
Lee Martin McDonald. ASBT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.
Gerhardsson, B. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in
Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity; with Tradition and Transmission in Early
Christianity. Translated by Eric J. Sharpe. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19982
(19611/19641).
Gese, Hartmut. “The Atonement.” In Essays on Biblical Theology, 93–116. Translated by
Keith Crim. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981.
360 Bibliography

Gignilliat, Mark. Paul and Isaiah’s Servants: Paul’s Theological Reading of Isaiah 40–66
in 2 Corinthians 5:14–6:10. LNTS 330. London: T&T clark, 2007.
Godet, F. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Rev. A. Cusin. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1956.
Goldingay, John E. The Theology of the Book of Isaiah. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press, 2014.
Goppelt, L. Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New.
Translated by Donald H. Madvig. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Grimm, Werner. Die Verkündigung Jesu und Deuterojesaja. ANTJ 1. Bern and Frankfurt
am Main: Lang, 19812 (orig. Weil ich dich liebe, 1976).
Grogan, Geoffrey W. “Isaiah.” In EBC, vol. 6. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.
Hafemann, Scott J. “The Glory and Veil of Moses in 2 Cor. 3:7–14: An Example of Paul’s
Contextual Exegesis of the Old Testament – A Proposal.” In The Right Doctrine from
the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, edited by G. K.
Beale, 295–309. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. (Reprinted from Horizons in Biblical
Theology 14 [1992]: 31–49.)
–. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument
from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. WUNT 81. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995.
Hahn, F. “Der Apostolat im Urchristentum: Seine Eigenart und seine Voraussetzungen.”
KD 20 (1974): 54–77.
Hamilton, Victor P. “bWv (shûb).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 2:909–10.
Hanson, A. T. Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology. London: SPCK, 1974.
Hanson, Paul D. Isaiah 40–66. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press,
1995.
von Harnack, Adolf. “Das Alte Testament in den Paulinischen Briefen und in den
Paulinischen Gemeinden.” In Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 124–41. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1928.
Harris, J. Rendel. Testimonies, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19161;
19202.
Harris, Murray J. “2 Corinthians.” In EBC, vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
–. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1992.
Hartley, John E. “!ac (ṣ’n).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 2:749.
Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1989.
–. “Three Dramatic Roles: The Law in Romans 3–4.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited
by James D. G. Dunn, 151–64. WUNT 89. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996.
–. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 20022 (19831).
–. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scriptures. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Hengel, Martin. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-
Hellenistic Religion. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.
–. “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period.” In The Suffering
Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and
Peter Stühlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 75–146. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2004.
Hengel, Martin, and Anna Maria Schwemer. Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The
Unknown Years. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press Ltd, 1997.
 III. Secondary Sources 361

Henze, Matthias, ed. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
–. “The Use of Scripture in the Book of Daniel.” In A Companion to Biblical
Interpretation in Early Judaism, edited by Matthias Henze, 279–307. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2012.
Hill, D. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological
Terms. SNTSMS 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Hofius, Otfried. “Gal 1,18: i`storh/sai Khfa/n,” ZNW 75 (1984): 73–85.
–. “Sühne und Versöhnung: Zum paulinischen Verständnis des Kreuzestodes Jesu.” In
Paulusstudien, 33–49. WUNT 51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989.
–. “The Fourth Servant Song in the New Testament Letters.” In The Suffering Servant:
Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter
Stühlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 163–88. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Holland, Tom. Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on
Paul’s Biblical Writings. Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor (Christian Focus Publications),
2004.
Hollander, John. The Figure of Echoe: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1981.
Hooker, M. D. “Adam in Romans 1.” NTS 6 (1959–60): 297–306.
–. Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah in the
New Testament. London: SPCK, 1959.
–. “A Further Note on Romans 1.” NTS 13 (1967): 181–83.
Hübner, Hans. Law in Paul’s Thought. Translated by James C. G. Greig. Edited by John
Riches. SNTW. Edinburgh: T&T clark, 1984 (orig. Germ., 1978).
–. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Band 2. Gӧttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1993.
Hughes, Philip E. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1962.
Hultgren, A. Paul’s Gospel and Mission: The Outlook from His Letter to the Romans.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Hurtado, Larry W. “Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.” 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, 217–33. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999.
–. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2003.
Janowski, Bernd. Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie der
Priesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. WMANT
55. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982.
–. “He Bore Our Sins: Isaiah 53 and the Drama of Taking Another’s Place.” In The
Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd
Janowski and Peter Stühlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 48–74. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2004.
Janzen, J. Gerald. “Habakkuk 2:2–4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances.” HTR
73 (1980): 53–78.
Jensen, J. “Helel ben Shahar [Isa 14:12–15] in Bible and Tradition.” In Writing and
Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, edited by C. C.
Broyles and C. A. Evans, 339–56. 2 Vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
362 Bibliography

Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. Translated by John Bowden. NTL. London:
SCM Press, 1971.
Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
Johnson, Dan G. From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27.
JSOTSup 61. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Response to Douglas A. Campbell.” In Four Views on the
Apostle Paul, edited by Michael F. Bird, 149–52. Counter Points Series. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012.
Kaiser, Otto. Der königliche Knecht. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962.
–. Isaiah 13–39. Translated by R. A. Wilson. OTL. Philadelphia: The Westmintster Press,
1974.
–. Isaiah 1–12. Translated by John Bowden. OTL. Philadelphia: The Westmintster Press,
1981.
Käsemann, Ernst. Perspectives on Paul. Translated by Margaret Kohl. NTL. London: SCM
Press, 1971.
–. Commentary on Romans. Translated and edited by Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 19803.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 Vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2003.
–. Romans: A New Covenant Commentary. NCCS 6. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock
Publishers, 2009.
Keesmaat, Sylvia C. “Exodus and the Intertextual Transformation of Tradition in Romans
8:14–30.” JSNT 54 (1994): 29–56.
–. Paul and His Story: (Re)interpreting the Exodus Tradition. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1999.
Keil, C. F. Commentary on the Old Testament, X: Minor Prophets. Translated by James
Martin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 (reprint).
–. Commentary on the Old Testament, VIII: Jeremiah, Lamentations. Translated by David
Patrick and James Kennedy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 (reprint).
Kellermann, Diether. “~v'a' ’āshām.” TDOT. 1977, revised (1974). Vol. 1:429–37.
Kidner, Derek. Psalms 1–72. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1973.
–. Psalms 73–150. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1973.
Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. WUNT 2.4. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1984.
–. “Sayings of Jesus.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F.
Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, 474–92. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993.
Kirk, J. R. Daniel. Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Gand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Knibb, Michael A. “Isaianic Traditions in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” In Writing
and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, edited by C. C.
Broyles and C. A. Evans, 633–50. 2 Vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Knight, George A. F. Deutero-Isaiah: A Theological Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. New
York: Abingdon Press, 1965.
Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur
Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1986.
Kugler, Robert. “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Not-So-Ambiguous Witness
to Early Jewish Interpretive Practices.” In A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in
Early Judaism, edited by Matthias Henze, 337–60. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Kümmel, W. G. “Pa,resij und e;ndeixij.” ZTK 49 (1952): 154–67.
 III. Secondary Sources 363

Kuss, Otto. Der Römerbrief. 3 vols. Regensburg: Puset, 1963–78.

Ladd, George E. “Righteousness in Romans.” SJT 19 (1976): 6–17.
–. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993 (revised).
Liefeld, Walter L. “Luke.” In EBC, vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Lietzmann, Hans. An die Korinther 1/2. HNT 9. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),
19313.
Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. WBC. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.
Lindars, B. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament
Quotations. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961.
Livingston, G. Herbert. “~v;a' (’āsham).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 1:78–80.
Lührmann, Dieter. Das Offenbarungsverständnis bei Paulus und in paulinischen
Gemeinden. WMANT 16. Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965.
Luter, Jr., A. B. “Gospel.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F.
Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, 369–72. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993.
Luther, Martin. Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia. Luther’s Works 25. St. Louis:
Concordia, 1972.
Manson, T. W. “ILASTHRION.” JTS 46 (1945): 1–10.
Marcus, Joel. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the
Gospel of Mark. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992.
Marshall, I. Howard. I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.
–. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978.
–. “An Assessment of Recent Developments.” In It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture,
edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, 1–21. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1988.
–. 1 Peter. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press, 1991.
Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. WBC. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986.
–. Philippians. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19872.
Matlock, R. B. “Zeal for Paul but Not According to Knowledge: Douglas Campbell’s War
on ‘Justification Theory.’” JSNT 34 (2011): 115–49.
Maurer, Christian. “u`po,dikoj.” TDNT. 1972. Vol. 8:557–8.
Mays, James Luther. Psalms. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press,
1994.
McConville, J. Gordon. Deuteronomy. AOTC 5. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press,
2002.
McGinnis, Claire Mathews and Patricia K. Tull, eds. As Those Who Are Taught: The
Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL. SBL Symposium Series 27. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.
McGrath, A. E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. 2 vols.
Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987.
Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. A Farewell to the Servant Songs: A Critical Examination of an
Exegetical Axiom. Translated by Frederick H. Cryer. Scripta minora 1982–1983.3.
Lund: Gleerup, 1983.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: German
Bible Society, 19942 (19711).
Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. WBC. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988.
364 Bibliography

Michel, Otto. Paulus und seine Bibel. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,

1972 (reprint; orig. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1929).
–. Der Brief an die Römer. MeyerK 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978.
Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike. Der Sühnetod des Gottesknechts: Jesaja 53 im
Lukasevangelium. WUNT 220. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Moody, R. M. “The Habakkuk Quotation in Romans 1:17.” ExpT 92 (1981): 205–8.
Morris, Leon. “The Use of i`la,skesqai etc. in Biblical Greek.” ET 62 (1951): 227–33.
–. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.
–. “The Meaning of i`lasth,rion in Romans 3.25.” NTS 2.1 (1955): 33–43.
–. “’Asham [‘Guilt’ and ‘Guilt-offering’ in the Old Testament].” EvQ 30.4 (1958): 196–
210.
–. “Hebrews.” In EBC, vol. 12. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
Motyer, J. A. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove,
IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993.
Moyise, Steve. “The Catena of Rom. 3.10–18.” ExpT 106 (1995): 367–70.
–. The Old Testament in the New. The Continuum Biblical Studies Series. London:
Continuum, 2001.
–. “Isaiah in 1 Peter.” In Isaiah in the New Testament, edited by Steve Moyise and
Maarten J. J. Menken. London: T&T clark, 2005.
–. Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New. New York: T&T Clark, 2008.
–. “Quotations.” In As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, edited by Stanley E.
Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, 15–28. SBLSS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2008.
Moyise, Steve, and Maarten J. J. Menken, eds. Isaiah in the New Testament. London: T&T
clark, 2005.
Muilenburg, J. “The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66.” In IB, vol. 5. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1956.
Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.
Naselli, Andrew David. From Typology to Doxology: Paul’s Use of Isaiah and Job in
Romans 11:34–35. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012.
North, Christopher R. The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical
Study. London: Oxford University Press, 19562 (1948).
Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949.
O’Brien, P. T. “Justification in Paul and Some Crucial Issues of the Last Two Decades.” In
Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World, edited by D. A. Carson, 69–
78. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
O’Day, Gail R. “Jeremiah 9:22–23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26–31: A Study in Intertextuality.”
JBL 109.2 (1990): 259–67.
O’Neill, J. C. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Pelican New Testament Commentaries.
Baltimore: Penguin, 1975.
Oepke, Albrecht. “DIKAIOSUNH QEOU bei Paulus in neuer Beleuchtung.” TLZ 78
(1953): 257–64.
–. “kalu,ptw, etc.” TDNT. 1965. Vol. 3:556–92.
Olson, Robert C. “The Contribution of John 12:38 to the Structure and Theology of the
Fourth Gospel.” Th.M. thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1999.
Ortlund, Dane. “Justified by Faith, Judged According to Works: Another Look at a Pauline
Paradox.” JETS 52:2 (2009): 323–39.
 III. Secondary Sources 365

Oss, D. A. Paul’s Use of Isaiah and its Place in His Theology: With Special Reference to
Romans 9–11. Ph.D. diss., Westminister Theological Seminary, 1992.
Oswalt, John. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
–. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. WUNT 2.130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2000.
Pao, David W., and Eckhard J. Schnabel. “Luke.” In Commentary on the New Testament
Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 251–414. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
Philonenko, M. “Sur l’expression ‘vendue au péché’ dans l’Épître aux Romains.” RHR 203
(1986): 41–52.
Piper, J. “The Demonstration of the Righteousness of God in Romans 3:25, 26.” JSNT 7
(1980): 2–32.
–. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23.
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 19932.
Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul
to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915.
Porter, Stanley E., and Christopher D. Stanley, eds. As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use
of Scripture. SBLSS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008.
Procksch, O., and F. Büchsel. “lu,w, etc.” TDNT. 1967. Vol. 4:328–56.
Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia. Translated by Henry
Zylstra. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.
–. “The Earliest Confession of the Atonement in Paul.” In Reconciliation and Hope,
edited by Robert Banks, 76–89. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
–. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John Richard de Witt. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1975.
Riesner, Rainer. Jesus als Lehrer: eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-
Überlieferung. WUNT 2.7. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981.
Ringgren, Helmer. “la;G' gā’al.” TDOT. 1977, revised (1975). Vol. 2:350–55.
Roberts, J. H. “Righteousness in Romans with Special Reference to Romans 3:19–31.”
Neot 15.1 (1981): 12–33.
Roberts, J. J. M. “Isaiah in Old Testament Theology.” Int 36.2 (1982): 130–43.
Robertson, A. T., and A. Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First
Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19142.
Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1980.
–. “‘The Justified (by faith) shall live by his steadfast Trust’: Habakkuk 2:4.” Presbyterion
9 (1983): 52–71.
Ropes, J. H. “‘Righteousness’ and ‘The Righteousness of God’ in the Old Testament and in
St. Paul.” JBL 22 (1903): 211–27.
Rowley, H. H. The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 19652 (1952).
Sailhamer, John H. “The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch.” WTJ 53
(1991): 241–261.
Sanday, William and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T clark, 1902.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
–. Paul, the Law and the Jewish People. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983.
366 Bibliography

Sanders, J. A. “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4.” In Christianity, Judaism, and other Greco-
Roman Cults, edited by J. Neusner, 75–106. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
–. “Torah and Christ.” Int 29.4 (1975): 372–90.
Sawyer, J. F. A. The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Scharbert, Josef. “hl'a' ’ālāh.” TDOT. 1977, revised (1974). Vol. 1:261–66.
Schilling, O. “rfb bśr.” TDOT. 1977, revised (1975). Vol. 2:313–16.
Schreiner, Thomas R. “‘Works of Law’ in Paul.” NovT 33 (1991): 217–44.
–. The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1993.
Schrenk, Gottlob, and Gotffried Quell. “evkle,gomai.” TDNT. 1967. Vol. 4:144–68.
Scott, C. A. A. Christianity According to St. Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1939.
Scott, Jack B. “hl'a' (’ālâ).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 1:45–46.
Scott, James M. Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation in the Background
of UIOQESIA in the Pauline Corpus. WUNT 2.48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992.
Secombe, D. “Luke and Isaiah,” NTS 27 (1981): 252–59.
Seifrid, Mark A. Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline
Theme. NovTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
–. “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism.” In Justification
and Variegated Nomism: Vol. I – The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, edited
by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 415–42. WUNT 140.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
–. “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background.” In
Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. II – The Paradoxes of Paul, edited by D. A.
Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 39–74. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2004.
–. “Unrighteous by Faith: Apostolic Proclamation in Romans 1:18–3:20.” In Justification
and Variegated Nomism: Vol. II – The Paradoxes of Paul, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter
T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 105–45. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
–. “Romans.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by
G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 607–94. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
Seitz, C. R. Isaiah 1–39. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
Shum, Shiu-Lun. Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans: A Comparative Study of Paul’s Letter to
the Romans and the Sibylline and Qumran Sectarian Texts. WUNT 2.156. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2002.
Silva, Moisés. “Old Testament in Paul.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by
Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, 630–42. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press, 1993.
–. “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: Baker Academic, 2007.
Smith, D. Moody. “Ho de dikaios ek pisteōs zēsetai.” In Studies in the History and Text of
the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, edited by B. L. Daniels and M. J.
Suggs, 13–25. SD 29. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967.
–. “The Pauline Literature.” In It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, ed. D. A. Carson
and H. G. M. Williamson, 265–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Snaith, Norman H. “The Sin Offering and the Guilt Offering.” VT 15 (1965): 73–80.
Snodgrass, Klyne R. “Streams of Tradition Emerging from Isaiah 40:1–5 and Their
Adaptation in the NT.” JSNT 8 (1980): 24–45.
 III. Secondary Sources 367

–. “Justification by Grace – To the Doers: An Analysis of the place of Romans 2 in the

Theology of Paul.” NTS 32 (1986): 72–93.
Sprinkle, Preston M. “Pi,stij Cristou/ as an Eschatological Event.” In The Faith of Jesus
Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies, edited by Michael F. Bird and
Preston M. Sprinkle, 166–84. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.
Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the
Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 74. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1992.
–. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. New York:
T&T Clark, 2004.
Stanley, Christopher D., ed. Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation. ECIL 9.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
Stanton, G. Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching. SNTSMS 27. London:
Cambridge University Press, 1974.
Stigers, Harold G. “qdec' (ṣādēq).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 2:752–55.
Stockhausen, Carol K. Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant: The Exegetical
Substructure of II Cor 3,1–4,6. AnBib 116. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press,
1989.
–. “2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis.” In Paul and the Scriptures of
Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, 143–64. JSNTSup 83/SSEJC 1.
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Recent Exegesis on Romans 3:24–26.” In Reconciliation, Law and
Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology, translated by Everett R. Kalin, 94–109.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
–. “The Pauline Gospel.” In The Gospel and the Gospels, edited by P. Stuhlmacher, 149–
72. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
–. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Translated by Scott J. Hafemann.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994.
–. “Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts.” In The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and
Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stühlmacher, translated by
Daniel P. Bailey, 147–62. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Thielman, Frank S. “Ephesians.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 813–33. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2007.
Thiselton, Anthony. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of
Transforming Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
–. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Thrall, Margaret E. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Vol. I: Introduction and
Commentary on II Corinthians I-VII. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench,
Trübner & Co., 189412.
Tzoref, Shani. “The Use of Scripture in the Community Rule.” In A Companion to Biblical
Interpretation in Early Judaism, edited by Matthias Henze, 203–34. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2012.
VanGemeren, Willem A. “Psalms.” In EBC, vol. 5. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.
Via, D. O. “A Structuralist Approach to Paul’s Old Testament Hermeneutic.” Int 28.2
(1974): 201–20.
368 Bibliography

Wagner, J. Ross. “Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation of Paul’s
Use of Isaiah 51–55 in Romans.” In Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and
Christian Origins, edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer, 193–222.
Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998.
–. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans.
NovTSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Watson, Francis B. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. New York: T&T Clark, 2004.
Watts, John D. Isaiah 34–66. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2005 (revised).
Watts, Rikki E. Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark. WUNT 2.88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1997.
–. “Jesus’ Death, Isaiah 53, and Mark 10:45: A Crux Revisited.” In Jesus and the
Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr.
and William R. Farmer, 125–51. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998.
–. “‘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:
Eerdmans, 1999.
Weima, Jeffrey A. D. “Preaching the Gospel in Rome: A Study of the Epistolary
Framework of Romans.” In Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and
Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, edited by L. A. Jervis and P. Richardson, 337–66.
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.
Wenham, David. Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995.
Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
–. Genesis 1–15. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987.
–. Genesis 16–50. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1994.
Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. Translated by David M. G. Stalker.
OTL. London: SCM Press, 1969.
Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40–66. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1975.
Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche, 1910.
Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 13–27: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Thomas H.
Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
Wilk, Florian. Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1998.
–. “Die Geschichte des Gottesvolkes im Licht jesajanischer Prophetie.” In Josephus und
das Neue Testament, edited by Torsten Reiprich, 245–64. WUNT 209. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2007.
Wilkins, Michael J. “Isaiah 53 and the Message of Salvation in the Four Gospels.” In The
Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and
Christian Theology, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, 109–32. Grand
Rapids: Kregel, 2012.
Williams, Catrin H. “The Testimony of Isaiah and Johannine Christology.” In As Those
Who Are Taught: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL, edited by Claire
Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull, 107–24. SBL Symposium Series 27. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.
Williams, Sam K. Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a
Concept. HDR 2. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975.
–. “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans.” JBL 99 (1980): 241–90.
 III. Secondary Sources 369

Williamson, H. G. M. Variations on a theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of

Isaiah. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1998.
Witherington III, Ben. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary.
Assisted by Darlene Hyatt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Wolf, Herbert. “rrd (drr).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 1:197–98.
Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology.
Edinburgh: T&T clark, 1991.
–. “The Law in Romans 2.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by James D. G. Dunn,
131–50. WUNT 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.
–. “Romans.” In The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002.
–. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God Series,
Volume 4 (Books I and II). Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013.
Yamauchi, Edwin. “!n;x' (ḥānan).” TWOT. 1980. Vol. 1:302–4.
Yang, A. L. Paul’s Prophetic Reapplication of Isaiah in Romans 9–11. Ph.D. diss., The
University of Bristol, 2001.
Yarbrough, Robert W. “Paul and Salvation History.” In Justification and Variegated
Nomism: Vol. II – The Paradoxes of Paul, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien,
and Mark A. Seifrid, 297–342. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Young, Edward J. “The Interpretation of yzh in Isaiah 52:15.” WTJ 3.2 (1941): 125–32.
–. The Book of Isaiah. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965–72.
Young, Norman H. “C. H. Dodd, ‘Hilaskesthai’ and His Critics.” EvQ 48 (1976): 67–78.
Zeller, D. “Sühne und Langmut: Zur Traditionsgeschichte von Röm 3:24–26.” TP 43
(1968): 51–75.
Ziesler, J. A. The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological
Investigation. SNTSMS 20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Zimmerli, Walther, and Joachim Jeremias. “pai/j qeou/.” TDNT. 1967. Vol. 5:654–717.
 Index of References

Old Testament
Old Testament
Genesis
1 147, 148, 205 15:6–7 99
1:20 148 15:13–16 321n
1:20–27 147n, 152n 17:5 93n
1:26 149n, 150n, 152, 18:18 150n
177n 22 155
1:26–27 289 22:17 119n, 132n, 207,
1:27 177n 245
2:7 165n 22:18 149n
2:7–8 177, 177n 26:1–5 150n
2:16–17 163 26:10 314n
3 147, 158 27:27–29, 33 150n
3:15 65n, 149n 28:13–15 150n
3:17 163, 150n, 163n, 31:38 314n
165n 32:12 245
3:17–19 163 48:15–20 294n
3:19 115n, 164, 165n 48:16 295n
3:22–24 289n 49:15 313n
3:23–24 290n
5:29 165n Exodus
6 149 2:24 321n
6:1–4 180n 3:7 325
6:8 293n 3:21 293n
6:11–12 152n 4:22 308
6:12 274n, 276n 6:6 83n, 294n
7:11 162n 9:12 209n
9:16 161n 9:16 83, 88n
12:1–3 99, 149n 11:3 293n
12:2 150n 12:3, 4, 5 314n
12:3 150n, 179n, 349n 12:21 314n
15 57, 308 12:36 293n
15:1–6ff 149–50n 12:37 115n
15:5 93n 14 35
15:6 18, 50n, 51, 55, 56, 15:6 83n
57, 118, 124, 128, 15:13 294n
128n, 130, 130n, 19:10–12 290n
131, 133, 134n, 336 20 230
372 Index of References

23:7 100, 101 18:5 51, 51n, 53n, 185n,

24:8 38n 279n
24:12 126n 19:22 324
24:16–17 290n 25 294n
25:17 297n, 298 25:9–10 319
25:22 297n, 300n 25:10 320n
27:8 126n 26 51, 54n
28:15, 29–30 316n 26:25 180n
29:10–14 69 26:28 179n
29:24–26 69 26:40–45 54n
32:11 83n 26:41 239
33:7 193n 28 322n
33:12, 13, 16, 17 293n 28:1–31 322n
33:18–20 290n
33:18–34:8 291 Numbers
33:20 293n 5:8 324
34:5–8 101 7:89 297n, 300n
34:6 248n 8:11 69
34:9 293n 8:12 69
9 322n
Leviticus 9:1–14 322n
1:2 314n 9:12 40n
4:5 299n 18:1, 22–23 313n
4:20, 26, 31, 35 318n 28 322n
5:6–7 314n 28:1–31 322n
5:6, 10, 13, 16,
18 318n Deuteronomy
5:6, 15–16, 18, 3:24 83, 83n
25–26 314n, 315n 4 147, 149, 149n,
5:6, 16, 18 24 153n, 161
6:7 318n 4:16 148n, 149, 150n,
7:7 324 175n
7:89 297n, 300n 4:16–18 147n
9 322n 4:16–19 148, 178
9:1–14 322n 4:19 149
9:12 40n 4:32 149
10:17 13n 4:34 83n
12:6–8 314n 5 224, 230, 230n
14:21 324 5:15 83n
16 97, 297n, 299n 6:21 83n
16:2 297n 6:25 100, 107n
16:3, 5, 9 323 7:8 294n
16:5ff 314n 7:8, 19 83n
16:16, 21, 22 313n 9:4 209n
16:21–22 318 9:19 178n
16:22 313n, 318n 9:25, 29 83n
16:26 299n, 320n 9:26 294n
17:11 299n, 318n 9:27 209n
18:1, 22–23 313n 10:12–22 214
 Old Testament 373

10:16 230, 239, 240 30:19–20 243

10:16, 36 101n 32 18, 50, 51, 128n,
10:17 214 153n
11:2 83n 32:4 128n
17:1 321n 32:21 53, 81n, 241n
24:13 101 32:24 100
25:1 100 32:30 180n
26:8 83n 32:43 93n, 232, 241n
27–28 150n 33:2 126n
27–32 59, 61, 336 33:21 102n
27:2–3, 8 126n 34:14 218n
27:13 149n
27:15ff 149n Joshua
27:26 51, 62 10:29, 31, 34 115n
28 240, 240n, 241n 24:19–20 101
28–32 133, 161
28:15 149n Judges
28:16–19 149n 11:40 115n
28:44 61 24:19 115n
28:53 212
28:53, 55, 57 212n Ruth
29–31 81n 2:2 293n
29:2–30:20 240n
29:4 81n, 225n, 240n, 1 Samuel
241n 1:3, 25 115n
29:12 162n 1:18 293n
29:19 163n 2:19 115n
29:19, 20, 21 162n 6:3–4, 8, 17 314n
29:22–28 178n, 179, 230 12:7 102n
29:24–28 235 13:15 115n
29:28 179n
30 66, 186, 218, 240n, 2 Samuel
242, 243 2:12 115n
30, 32 52, 53, 61, 62, 99, 4:10 83n
229n, 237 7 61, 64, 65, 67, 70n,
30:1 81n 72
30:1–10 230, 239, 240 7:23 294n
30:2 240n 11:1–7 258n
30:2, 10 218 22:50 93n
30:4–5 81n
30:6 52, 81n, 143, 186, 1 Kings
232n, 237n, 239, 2:41 115n
240n, 242, 245 5:29 313n
30:6, 15, 19 219 8:32 316n
30:11–14 52, 81n, 218, 240n 12:33 69n
30:12–14 51n, 114n, 219,
241n 2 Kings
30:15–20 240n 3:14 214n
30:19 149n, 161 17:36 83n
374 Index of References

24:15 115n 2:7 36, 72n

4:1 101
1 Chronicles 5 262
16:10–11 193n 5:9 258, 261
17:21 294n 5:10 261n
28:8–9 193n 8 170
8:3–4 170
2 Chronicles 8:5 289
2:1, 17 313n 9 262
7:14 193n 10 262
11:16 193n 10:7 258, 262
15:12, 15 193n 11:7 101
16, 12 193n 13:7 261n
19:7 214 14 259–261
20:4 193n 14:1 260
21:15, 19 115n 14:1–3 258, 258n, 260,
22:9 193n 260n
26:5 193n 14:5 261
33:12 193n 16:10 72n
34:3 193n 18:1 75n
34:13 313n 18:49 93n
19 170, 171
Ezra 19:1ff 170
1:7–8 71n 19:12–14 294n
1:11 115n 24:5 102n
8:22–23 193n 24:6 193n
25:2 129n
Nehemiah 25:22 294n
1:10 294n 27:8 193n
9:1–38 61 31:1–5ff 101
32:1–2 101, 119, 249n, 259
Esther 32:1–11 101
1:7 212n 32:23 313n
4:17 270 34:22 294n
9:22 115n, 116n 35:27–28 101
36:1 258, 260n, 267
Job 36:5–6 99
5:16 270 37:6 101
10:19 115n 37:21 101
12 170 40:6 323n
12:7–9 170 40:9 80n
13:23 313n 40:16 193n
14:4 281n 44:3 83n
27:5 316n 44:9 129n
29:12–15 100 44:26 294n
49:7–10, 15 107n, 294n
Psalms 51 101, 247, 249
1:5 101 51:1–19 101
2 61, 64, 65, 67, 72
 Old Testament 375

51:4 101, 248–250, 107:2ff 294n

258n, 261n, 348 107:10 271
51:5 249n 107:10–32 271n
51:7 101 107:18–20 271
51:10 249n 107:42 270, 271
51:14 102n 107:43 271
51:16 101 110:1 76
53:1–3 258, 258n 110:5 209n
55:18 294n 112:4 101
61:3 210n 116 247, 248
62 211 116:3 247, 248n
62:12 210, 211, 245, 348 116:5 101, 248n
63 271, 272, 281, 342 116:10 248n
63:11 270 116:11 247, 248
65:5 102n 117:1 93n
68:11 80n 118:22 80n
69:6 193n 119:37 101
69:18 294n 119:134, 154 294n
70:4 193n 119:142 99
71:18 83n 130:3–8 107n
71:23 294n 130:7–8 294n
74:2 294n 136:12 83n
76:15–16 83n 140:3 258, 262
77:14–15 83n 140:12–13 262
77:15 83n, 294n 142 262
78:35, 42 294n 143 277
78:61 180n 143:1–3ff 101
79:11 83n 143:2 101, 277, 282, 343
82:2 214n 147:15 88n
84:7 115n, 116n
88:11 83n Proverbs
89:10 83n 2:3, 4 193n
89:11, 14 83n 8:17 193n
94:11 176n 11:24 209n
96:2 80n 16:8 (LXX) 193n
97:2 101 27:24 115n
98:1 83n 28:5 193n
98:2 102n
98:2–3 129n Isaiah
103:3–4 325n 1 206
103:4, 10–16 294n 1–5 211
104:13 115n 1:1–27 114
105:3–4 193n 1:2 102, 162, 235
106 147 1:4–7 325
106:10 294n 1:5 325
106:20 147, 147n, 175n, 1:9 154, 199
179 1:9, 27 220
106:41 180n 1:27 202
107 271, 272, 281, 342 1:27–29 86
376 Index of References

2:1–4 242, 319 25:6–8 163

2:8, 18, 20 203 25:6–9 164, 319
4:2–6 292 25:7–8 165
5:13–14 235 25:8 157, 310, 319
5:16 100 26:1–2 319
5:24 89 26:1–4 164
5:25 212 26:9–12 86
6 71, 101, 110, 292 26:19 163, 164, 165
6:1–7 102 27 319
6:5 102, 114, 242 27:1ff 165
7:9 87 27:2–13 164
8:6 213 27:7–11 164
8:14 37, 86, 213 27:9 21, 53, 119, 136,
8:21–22 227 156, 159, 160, 211,
8:22 212 227, 238, 244, 250,
9 72, 74 253, 265, 298, 308,
9:1–2 227 310, 318, 319, 329,
9:1–7 162 330, 343
9:6–7 74 27:13 319
10:10–11 203 28 166
10:22 154, 155, 162, 207 28:1–4 88
10:22–23 199, 245, 246 28:1, 4 166
11 74 28:5–6 88, 89
11:1 78 28:7 70
11:1–10 162 28:16 85, 87, 91, 92, 155,
11:1, 10 74 219, 289
11:10 73, 93, 227 28:17 114
11:14 312 29 225
12:18 171 29:1–4 226
14 157, 163 29:10 142, 224–226
14:1 78 29:13–16 226
14:9–20 164 29:22–23 162
17:4–7 164 30:1–3 226
17:4–8 207 30:3–5 86
17:6–7 199 30:6 212
17:8 203 30:15–17 226
20:4–5 86 30:30 106
24 147, 162, 163, 179, 31:7 203
199 34:2 212
24–27 159–161, 163, 164 34:4 166
24:1–6 114, 212, 269 35:2 266
24:2 70 35:5–6 37
24:3 166 35:10 164, 326
24:4 165, 166 37:35 162
24:5 160, 161 38:9 325
24:5–6 163, 199 40 78, 103, 112, 142,
24:6 324 147, 150, 151, 166,
24:13 164, 199, 207 167, 168, 175, 181,
24:21–22 164 182, 201, 202, 205,
 Old Testament 377

255, 274, 276, 278, 41:2–4, 17–20 172

333, 340 41:2–4, 25–26 166
40–45 221 41:4 328
40–48 201, 202, 246 41:5–7 176
40–55 12, 13, 18, 20, 35, 41:8 162
48, 49, 72, 79, 86, 41:8–9 79
102, 107, 111, 112, 41:8–12 86, 87
113, 114, 122, 136, 41:8–16 172
153, 155, 157, 158, 41:10 202
160, 162–166, 169, 41:17–20 173
170, 172, 190, 199, 41:18 227
200, 213, 223, 228, 41:21–24 203
235, 262–266, 271, 41:21–29 273
272, 275, 290, 295, 41:24 273
319, 320, 321, 326, 41:25–26 273
339, 342, 345, 348 41:27–29 203
40–66 24 41:29 273
40:1 201, 235 42 225–227
40:1–2 166, 202 42:1 36, 79, 322
40:1–2, 6–9 142 42:1–7 91, 104, 110, 166
40:1–11 35, 93, 103 42:1–9 167
40:2 200 42:1–17 87
40:3–5 34 42:3–4 202
40:5 150, 266, 292 42:5 171
40:5–6 274 42:5–7 172, 173
40:6 93, 166, 168, 276, 42:6 220, 227
282, 343 42:6–7 166, 168, 190, 202,
40:6–8 151 264
40:6–10 207 42:6–7, 16 226
40:6–11 88, 272 42:6–7, 16, 19 224
40:7–8 166 42:7 227
40:9 5, 65, 111, 173, 42:14–17 173
201, 207, 273, 320 42:17 86, 328
40:9–11 35 42:18, 20–25 167
40:10 106, 111 42:20ff 204
40:10–11 89 42:20–25 200, 203
40:12–13 206 42:21 99
40:12–17 201 42:21–22 167
40:12–18 150 42:21–25 102, 114, 162, 235,
40:12–26 150 243
40:18–20 201 43–45 177
40:21–22, 26 173 43:1–7, 14–21 173
40:21–27 201 43:1, 7, 21 218
40:26, 28 170, 171 43:3–4 322
40:27 173, 201 43:6–7 266
40:28–31 201 43:7 292
41:1 173, 190, 202, 203 43:8ff 203
41:1–29 202 43:8–9 204
41:2–4 201 43:8–10 229
378 Index of References

43:8–21 272 45:24–25 86

43:9 203, 247, 248 45:25 79, 107, 111, 201,
43:9–11 273 207, 217, 243, 251,
43:9, 26 273 271, 292, 329, 341
43:10–11 247 46 204
43:10–13 248 46:3 79, 203
43:10, 20 79 46:3–4, 8–10 172
43:12, 15–17 172 46:5 273
43:14, 18–20 172 46:10–13 172
43:22–24 204 47:1 164
44 147, 173, 177, 204 47:3 86
44:1, 2 79 48:1, 12 203
44:1–5 172 48:3–5 172
44:6–8 273 48:6 273
44:9 176 48:6–15, 20–22 172
44:9–11 86, 328 48:12–16 173
44:9–20 176 48:14 106, 273
44:20 176, 189, 247 48:18–19 155
44:21 203 49 225–227
44:21–23 172 49–55 82
44:24–28 172, 173 49:1–7 91
44:25 173 49:1–9 110, 327
44:27 172 49:1–13 87, 104
45 111, 185–187, 189, 49:3, 5–6 227
191, 197–199, 205– 49:5–9 172
208, 215–222, 251, 49:6 93
341 49:6–7, 9 264
45:1 322 49:6, 8 90
45:1–7, 9–10, 49:6, 9 224
13, 19, 21 220 49:7 79, 87
45:1–7, 9–13, 49:8 220
18–25 173 49:8–9 320
45:4 79 49:8–13 173
45:7 171 49:14–26 104
45:9–10 176 49:23 86, 87, 329
45:12–25 247 49:24–26 104
45:16–17 86 50 78, 111, 142, 156,
45:16, 24 328 160, 168, 218, 220,
45:17 329 323, 327
45:17, 25 87 50:1 70, 114, 143, 160,
45:18 205 162, 168, 181, 200,
45:20 203 203, 256, 272, 275,
45:20–25 204, 295 322
45:21 172, 273 50:1–2 102, 142, 160, 235,
45:21–22 173 264
45:22 91, 197, 200, 218, 50:1–3 104, 141
220, 248 50:1–10 172, 327
45:22–25 219, 235, 328 50:2 104, 327
45:23 189, 197 50:4ff 327
 Old Testament 379

50:4–9 87, 91, 104, 264, 234, 235, 237–242,

295 245, 252, 256, 258,
50:4–11 271 270, 281, 295, 308,
50:7 329 318, 321, 324, 329,
50:7–9 87, 107, 111, 272, 333, 336, 339, 340,
327 341, 342, 343, 344,
50:8–9 78 345, 346, 348
50:8–10 328 52:6 89
50:8, 10 329 52:7 2, 4, 5, 21, 30, 52,
50:10 13, 89, 91, 273, 327 65, 68, 70, 86, 89,
50:10–11 87, 104, 220, 328 91, 107, 108, 109,
51 218, 220, 235 110, 111, 119, 132,
51:1 220 136, 155, 173, 207,
51:1–2 155, 207 219, 227, 235, 238,
51:1–3 119, 158, 162, 207 246, 267, 272, 273,
51:1–3, 6–9, 11 173 289, 308, 320, 321,
51:1–8, 11 165 329, 330, 343, 346
51:1–11 106, 158, 266 52:7–10 13, 103, 104, 105,
51:1–16 207 106, 108, 111, 307
51:1–52:12 89, 105 52:7–10, 15 93
51:4–5 87 52:7–12 65
51:4–11 106 52:7–53:1 159, 177, 220
51:5 110 52:7, 10 90
51:5–6, 9–11 307 52:9 181
51:5–9 106, 111 52:10 87, 89, 106, 109,
51:5, 9 89 110
51:5–11 295 52:11 70
51:6–8 164 52:11–12 105
51:7 218, 219, 220 52:13 75, 87, 132, 272,
51:10 323 310
51:11 164, 326 52:13–53:12 89, 103, 105, 106,
51:12 89 142, 172, 235, 237,
51:12–16 173 264, 271, 327
51:16 337 52:15 4, 30, 70, 108, 109,
52 4, 52, 142, 208, 267 110, 111, 119, 346
52–53 136, 159, 333 52:15–53:1 92
52:1 239, 242 53 5, 20, 38, 52, 56,
52:1–2 238 57, 74, 78, 108,
52:1–6 140 111, 112, 122, 124,
52:2 164, 167, 247 131, 133, 156, 198,
52:3, 9 323 201, 236, 249, 284,
52:5 4, 21, 22, 59, 64, 297, 300, 304, 308–
65, 86, 123, 138, 313, 317–320, 321,
139, 140, 141, 142, 323–327, 329, 330,
143, 144, 147, 159, 333, 335, 336, 344,
160, 161, 168, 180, 345, 346
181, 182, 197, 198, 53:1 2, 21, 30, 53, 86,
200, 211, 213, 222, 89, 91, 106, 107,
223, 227, 230, 232, 108, 109, 110, 111,
380 Index of References

119, 132, 155, 156, 55:12–13 158, 162, 165

219, 227, 235, 246, 56–66 13, 112
264, 272, 273, 289, 56:1 107, 111–113, 220,
307, 308, 321, 329, 263
330, 333, 343, 346 56:6 13
53:2 74 57:14–21 266
53:2–12 110 57:19 267
53:4 317 59 112, 142, 159, 160,
53:4–5 243, 318 168, 208, 227, 258,
53:4–5, 11–12 114 264, 265, 266, 268,
53:4–6, 11–12 4, 132, 222 281, 318, 320, 330,
53:5 267, 309 342, 346
53:6 78, 181, 182, 316, 59:1–2 114, 160, 200, 227,
340 257, 264
53:6, 10 93 59:1–2, 16ff 142
53:7 136, 270, 272, 282, 59:1–15 102
343 59:7–8 4, 21, 123, 138,
53:10 70, 323, 324 160, 200, 256, 257,
53:10–11 220 262, 265, 266, 308,
53:10–12 107, 272 318, 329, 330, 336,
53:11 13, 87, 111, 114, 343, 345, 346
134, 162, 201, 207, 59:15–21 111, 227
215, 243, 252, 292, 59:16–21 107, 142
295, 313, 327, 328, 59:20 85, 318
329, 337, 341 59:20–21 4, 21, 53, 119, 136,
53:11–12 77, 78, 318 156, 159, 211, 238,
53:11, 12 272 244, 250, 253, 265,
53:12 87, 104, 132, 310, 268, 292, 308, 329,
327 330, 343, 346
54:1–3 162, 172 59:20, 21 160
54:1–5 87, 155, 158 59:20–60:1ff 292
54:1–55:13 107 59:20, 27 159
54:4 87, 329 59:21 264, 318
54:5, 8 323 60:1–2 266
54:9 220 60:1–22 112, 242
54:9–10 162, 243 60:6 5, 111
54:10 267 60:21 243
54:14 338 61:1 5, 37, 111, 173,
54:14, 17 107, 111, 327, 329 319, 320
54:16 166 61:1–2 320, 322
54:17 13, 292, 327, 328 61:1–3 112
55:1 93, 105 61:6 70
55:1–3 235, 272 61:8 160
55:1–5 172 64:6 166
55:1–7 89, 328 65:17 337
55:3 79, 119, 160, 162, 65:22 337
201, 220 66:20–21 71
55:10–13 89
55:12 267
 Old Testament 381

Jeremiah Lamentations
1:5 29n 1:12, 18 325
2:5 176, 176n 2:1 115n
2:11 147, 147n, 179 3:25 193n
3:17 209n
4:4 101n, 239 Ezekiel
6:12 209n 5:13 212n
7:1–15 230n 7:12, 19 209n
7:20 179n, 212n 7:21 180n
9:3 115n 8:10 175n
9:13 209n 10:4, 18 290n
9:24 174n 11:23 290n
9:25–26 239 20:34 83n
10 173 21:29 313n
10:7–8 174n 23:9, 28 180n
10:10 209n 36 141n, 224, 229n,
10:25 179 232n, 233n, 234n,
17:10 210n 237n
18:12 209n 36:20ff 232n
20:12–18 83n 36:20–23 141n, 224n
20:15 83n 36:24–27 224n
21:10 180n 36:24–32 242n
23:10 163n 36:25–27 101n
23:29 88n 43:1–5 61
25:11–12 61 43:4–5 291n
25:15ff 179n 43:14, 17–20 299
28:6 115n 44:4 291n
29:10 61 44:7–9 239
29:13 193n 44:9 242n
29:18 163n 46:17 320n
30:15 325
31 219 Daniel
31:11 294n 1:2 180n
31:31–34 218n, 240 4:34 294n
31:33 218, 218n 6:23 270
32:17, 21 83n 8:19 178n
32:28 180n 9:1–27 61
32:37 179n 9:4–19 61
33:8 313n 9:11 163n
34:8, 15, 17 320n 9:15 83n
35:6 (LXX) 115n 9:16 212n
42:18 163n 9:24 313n
43:7 212n 12 24n
44:12 163n 12:3 316n
50:4 193n
50:34 294n Hosea
51:6 212n 6:7 178n
52:34 115n 10:12 101n
13:14 310
382 Index of References

Joel 2:2–4 128n, 132

2:32 114n
3:5 (LXX) 30n 2:2–20 126
2:3 125, 126
Amos 2:4 18, 49, 49n, 50n,
1:1–2:16 179n 51, 54, 55, 55n, 56,
9:1 299n 57, 118, 118n, 120–
135, 279n, 305,
Jonah 335, 336
1–4 179n 2:5–20 126
2:8–9 179n 3:3 126n
4:10–11 179n 3:3–15 126
3:12–13 126
Micah
4:10 294n Zephaniah
5:14–15 179n 1:6 193n
6:5 102n 1:15 209n
1:18 178n, 209n
Nahum 2:3 193n
1:6–7 209n
Haggai
Habakkuk 2:1–9 61
1:1–4 126
1:5–11 126 Zechariah
1:6, 11, 16 127 12:10 293n
1:12 128n
1:12–2:1 126 Malachi
2:2 126, 126n 3:1 61, 193n
2:2–3 127

New Testament
New Testament
Matthew 17:5 36
1:21–23 37n 17:22–23 37n, 38n
3:1–3 34 20:17–19 37n, 38n
3:16 36n 20:28 38n, 294n
3:17 36 22:35–40 190n
4:23 33 23:23 303n
5 195n, 231 23:34 115n, 116n
5:20 195n 24:22 275n
8:15–17 37n 26:2, 17–19,
11:2–6 37 26–28 38n
12:17–21 37n 26:24 38n
16:6 323n 27:37 38
16:21 37n, 38n 27:51 38n
16:27 210n 28:20 37n
 New Testament 383

Mark 17:30 94n

1:1–4 34 18:31–33 37n
1:2–3 20 20:17–18 80n
1:3 36n 22:7–20 38n
1:11 36 23:35 38n
1:14–15 33, 67 23:38 38
1:15 43n 24:25–27,
8:31 37n 44–47 27n
9:30–31 37n 24:44–49 29, 33
9:31 38n
10:32–34 37n John
10:38–39 36n 1:19–23 34
10:45 38n, 39n, 294n 1:29 38, 39, 323n
11:15–17 38 3:16 39n
11:22 305n 5:39 27n, 43n
12:10 80n 8:42 27n
13:20 275n 10:11, 15,
14:12–16, 17–18 39n
22–34 38n 12 40n, 315n
14:22–24 38n 12:38 40n, 84
15:26 38 12:40 40n
15:38 38n 12:41 40n
13:1 38n
Luke 16:13–15 33
1:15 84 19:14, 30–36 40n
1:78 36n 19:14–16,
1:79 271n 32–36 38n
2:40 36n 19:19–22 38
3:1–6 34 19:36 39n
3:4–6 320n
3:6 275n Acts
3:9, 16 36n 2:14–36 72, 72n
3:18 34n 3:16 305n
3:22 36 7:2–7ff 308n
4 39n 8:26 115n, 116n
4:16–21 39n, 320n 9:5 31
4:43 33 9:19–25 31
7:18–23 37 10:34–43 108n
9:22 37n 10:36–43 108
9:26 85 10:43 27n
9:35 36 13 72n
9:43–44 37n 13:15 288n
10:7 115n 13:17 84
10:25–37 195n 13:32 29
10:30 115n 13:32–34 43n
11:42 303n 13:32–39 315n
12:50 36n 13:33 72, 72n
15:17–19 247 13:34 160n, 167n
16:16 288n 13:35 72n
384 Index of References

13:38 320n 287, 293, 302, 329,

14:14–17 196n 333, 336, 338, 339,
20:28 294n 341, 345, 346
22:8 31 1:16–3:26 174
24:14 288n 1:16–3:31 55
26:6 29 1:17 50, 55, 57, 102,
26:15 31 107, 115, 124, 131,
26:15–18 28 133, 134, 184, 305,
26:18 115n, 116n, 320n 306, 335, 336, 349
28:23 288n 1:17, 18 183
28:25–27 3n 1:18 179, 209, 268, 284
1:18–19 183
Romans 1:18–20 152
1 56, 151, 172, 173, 1:18–20, 32 191
174, 182, 190, 223, 1:18–21 191
243, 252, 340 1:18–23, 25,
1–3 16, 19, 53, 55, 335 28, 32 269
1–4 21, 50, 55, 135, 1:18–25 198, 269
239, 252, 331, 333, 1:18–25, 28, 32 347
336, 342, 344, 346 1:18–32 56, 143, 144–182
1:1–4 119, 122, 232, 259, (144, 147, 168, 170,
345 172, 176, 178, 180,
1:1–5 42, 68 181), 185, 187, 189,
1:1–6 21, 56, 67–79 (67), 223, 236, 339
136, 186, 227, 252, 1:18–2:4 248, 272
336, 338, 341, 345, 1:18–2:6 201
346 1:18–2:8 172
1:1–6, 16–17 238, 239 1:18–2:24 176, 202, 204
1:2 29, 71, 118, 122, 1:18–3:8 138, 143, 252, 253,
345 254, 281, 341, 342
1:2–3 56 1:18–3:20 137, 138, 156, 166,
1:2, 16–17 291 172, 181, 182, 184,
1:3 76 187, 191, 207, 239,
1:3–4 71, 75, 76 252, 253, 254, 271,
1:5 348 282, 289, 301, 304,
1:6–7 50, 79 333, 339, 341, 343,
1:8–15 70 345, 346, 347
1:8–17 1 1:18–4:25 271, 283
1:13 1, 296 1:19–20 169, 173, 203
1:16 91, 92, 117, 244, 1:20 143, 152, 169, 170,
289 173, 183, 187, 189,
1:16–17 20, 50, 55, 57, 68, 237, 272
80–135 (80, 82–85, 1:20–21, 32 192
93, 96, 98, 111, 1:20–23 151
113, 114, 122, 124) 1:20–25 259
136, 137, 159, 173, 1:20, 25 248
182, 186, 201, 209, 1:21 175
215, 222, 236, 251, 1:21–22, 25 173
252, 272, 284, 285, 1:21–23 176
 New Testament 385

1:21–25 168 2:1–3:8 251

1:23 53, 143, 146–148, 2:1–3:23 169
150, 151, 152, 157, 2:2 191
166–170, 173, 175, 2:2–3 204
178, 181, 200, 280, 2:2–4 303
289, 290, 291, 322, 2:2–6 304
340, 348 2:2, 14–16 269
1:23–24 201 2:3–5 168
1:23–24, 26, 2:4 185, 186, 191, 192,
28 348 207, 211, 216, 218,
1:23–24, 26, 222, 230, 240, 245,
28, 32 168, 223 252, 333, 341
1:23–25 143 2:4–5 176
1:23, 25 202, 204, 261 2:4–7 219
1:24, 26, 28 142, 152, 167, 172, 2:4–7, 10 291
181, 204, 210, 211, 2:4, 7, 10, 13 188
236, 237, 243, 252, 2:5 178, 347
340, 341, 347 2:5–6 169
1:25 174, 176, 244, 246 2:5–12 211
1:26, 28 201 2:5–13, 16 191
1:29 261 2:6 225, 245, 348
1:32 143, 167, 191, 269, 2:6, 11, 12, 13 216
271, 303 2:7 192, 211, 220
2 4, 53, 143, 159, 2:7, 9, 14, 15 216
181, 182, 185, 186, 2:7, 10 240
201, 214, 215, 217, 2:8 212
231, 251, 252, 340, 2:8–9 304
341 2:8–9, 12 180
2:1 173, 187, 188, 189, 2:9 213, 227
190, 261, 340 2:9–10 289
2:1–3 143, 192, 347 2:9–24 172
2:1–3, 5–6, 8–9, 2:11 214
12, 16 188 2:11–13 304
2:1–3, 14–16 191 2:13 201, 207, 217, 218,
2:1–4 186, 187, 191, 197, 219, 341
198, 201, 202, 208, 2:13–15 220
209, 211, 221, 222, 2:14 217, 218
238, 241, 242, 251, 2:14–15 221, 222, 240
252, 258, 262, 268, 2:14–15, 29 222
279, 280, 341 2:14–16 189
2:1–4, 14–15 228 2:14–16,
2:1–4, 25–29 242 25–29 231
2:1–5, 14–16, 2:15 218, 220
25–29 269 2:16 186, 188, 196, 207,
2:1–5, 21–27 268 216, 220, 222, 237,
2:1–6 180, 303 238, 239, 243, 251,
2:1–16 143, 187, 197, 199, 252, 341
201, 209, 215, 236 2:16, 24 252, 342
2:1–29 241 2:17–20 228
386 Index of References

2:17–23 142 3:4 101, 225, 243, 247,

2:17–24 143, 168, 188, 189, 248, 250, 252, 259,
190, 201, 211, 223, 261, 342, 348
236, 280, 347 3:4–6 304
2:17–29 222 3:5–8 251
2:19 224, 225, 226, 227 3:6–7 307
2:21–22 202, 224, 230 3:8 268
2:21–22, 3:9 123, 138, 160, 167,
25–29 348 168, 181, 190, 200,
2:21–24 186 227, 235, 237, 252,
2:22 176 254–256, 258, 275,
2:24 4, 21, 22, 59, 64, 276, 278, 281, 295,
65, 86, 123, 138, 322, 337
139–144, 147, 159– 3:9, 15–17 143
161, 168, 180–182, 3:9, 19–20 143, 253, 254, 256,
197, 198, 200, 204, 269, 345
211, 213, 223, 224, 3:9–18 172
227, 230, 231, 232, 3:9–20 202, 253, 281, 342
237, 239, 241, 245, 3:10–12 258, 268
252, 256, 258, 270, 3:10–18 253, 255
281, 295, 300, 308, 3:13 258
318, 321, 322, 324, 3:13–14 268
329, 330, 336, 339, 3:14 258, 262
340, 341, 342, 343, 3:15–17 4, 21, 123, 138,
344, 345, 346, 347, 142, 160, 200, 256,
348 257, 262, 265, 266,
2:25–29 52, 142, 211, 216, 268, 308, 318, 329,
220, 222, 224, 228, 330, 336, 343, 345,
230, 232, 237, 239, 346, 347
240, 252, 280, 342 3:17 267
2:27 216 3:18 258, 267, 268
2:28–29 143 3:19 207, 269, 270, 273,
2:29 186, 237, 240, 245 278, 281, 287
3 4, 324 3:19–20 123, 258, 281, 342
3:1 244 3:20 142, 166, 168, 251,
3:1–2 93 270, 274, 276, 277,
3:1–3 89 282, 284, 343
3:1–4 22, 129, 135, 172, 3:20, 21 55
176, 244, 246, 247, 3:20–22,
342 27–28 305
3:1–4, 22 291 3:21 122, 172, 183, 188,
3:1–8 172, 243, 244 254, 279, 284, 285,
3:2 245 286, 288, 330, 345
3:2–3 71 3:21–22 184, 307
3:3 236, 243, 245, 246, 3:21–26 20, 50, 53, 56, 57,
333 65, 68, 71, 90, 97,
3:3–4 142 98, 118, 119, 122,
3:3–5 303 123, 137, 142, 143,
3:3–6 228 156, 159, 182, 184,
 New Testament 387

186, 201, 202, 207, 4:3–9, 13, 17 244

208, 209, 211, 215, 4:3–13 77
222, 224, 227, 236, 4:3, 5, 9,
237, 238, 239, 242, 11, 13 97
243, 244, 249, 250, 4:3, 6–12 259
251, 252, 253, 258, 4:3, 9, 22 57, 128
265, 266, 268, 271, 4:4–9 119
272, 273, 275, 281, 4:6–8 101
283–331 (283, 284, 4:6–9 131
286, 291, 304, 307, 4:7–8 259
308, 310, 311, 313, 4:9 211
317, 318, 320, 321, 4:9–16 307
322, 324, 328, 329, 4:9–25 186
330, 331) 333, 334, 4:13 77
336, 337, 339, 341, 4:13–14 308
342, 343, 344, 345, 4:13–25 119
346, 349 4:15 55
3:21–31 305 4:16 130, 305
3:21–4:25 118, 156, 187, 207, 4:22–25 57, 131, 242, 259
305, 306 4:23–24 21
3:22 93, 285, 286, 288, 4:23–25 50, 77
304 4:23–5:2 291
3:22, 24 318 4:24–25 120, 222
3:22, 25, 26 292 4:25 4, 31, 50, 57, 65,
3:22, 26 306 74, 77, 120, 122,
3:23 53, 259, 281, 287, 123, 132, 133, 136,
289, 291, 302, 322, 142, 143, 156, 181,
348 182, 186, 211, 223,
3:23–24 194 227, 238, 239, 243,
3:23–25 86, 292 252, 259, 272, 300,
3:24 242, 249, 286, 292, 302, 310, 311, 318,
295, 307, 308 333, 336, 338, 339,
3:24–25 169, 318, 324, 329 340, 341, 344, 345
3:24, 26 86 4:25–5:1 238
3:25 293, 298, 299, 300, 4:25–5:2 118, 292
301 5–8 118, 135, 142, 156,
3:25–26 286, 291, 295, 296, 345, 346
302 5:1 86, 156
3:27–28 278 5:1–2 169, 291, 303
3:27–31 206 5:1–2, 17, 21 271
3:29–30 289 5:1–5 120, 132, 346
4 56, 111, 118, 129, 5:6–8 304
130, 155, 156, 242, 5:6–10 302
243, 307, 336 5:8 302
4:1ff 156 5:12 259
4:1–8 278 5:12–21 143, 156, 167–169,
4:1–25 119, 172, 349 180, 289, 349
4:2–3 305 5:15, 17,
4:3 131 21–22 303
388 Index of References

5:17 97 8:28 296

5:17–19 272 8:28–30 304, 346
5:17, 21 259 8:28–34 54, 78
5:19 156 8:29 53, 77
5:20 55, 143 8:29–30 120
6 77, 142 8:31–34 107, 156, 173, 220,
6–7 53 327
6:1 308 8:32 74, 181, 340
6:1–10 169, 321, 323 8:33–34 272
6:4 132, 291 8:34 327
6:10 302 9 50, 218
6:16–23 180 9–10 336
6:23 167, 168, 192, 259, 9–11 6, 12, 14, 16, 26,
271, 272 135, 159, 172, 187,
7 231 208, 209, 228, 236,
7:5, 10, 13, 24 180 244, 245, 246, 250,
7:5, 18, 25 276 333, 346
7:7–11 55 9:1–8, 27–33 142, 244
7:7–14 143 9:4 172
7:7–25 276 9:4–5 1, 93
7:9–10 167 9:4, 15–17 272
7:14 142, 168, 255, 256, 9:5 76
275, 276 9:6 119, 166, 173
7:24 167 9:6–8 142, 246
8 77, 218, 323, 324 9:6–9 77, 119, 156
8:1ff 156 9:6–10:16 119, 289
8:1–3 75 9:11 296
8:1–3, 12–30 321, 323 9:17 83
8:1–3, 21, 23 291 9:18 176
8:1–4 53, 232, 346 9:20–21 176
8:1–10 132 9:20–26 93
8:1–11 76 9:27 154, 155
8:1–13 180 9:27–28 199, 245
8:1–23 77 9:27–29 64, 246
8:3 156, 173, 302, 323, 9:27–33 50, 77, 119
324 9:29 154, 199
8:3, 21, 30–34 292 9:30 86, 97
8:3, 31–34 238, 302, 346 9:30–33 176, 220
8:10–13 167 9:30–10:13 285
8:11–23 120 9:30–10:16 85
8:12–17 308 9:32 53
8:14–17 346 9:33 86, 155, 213, 289,
8:14–24 132 328
8:16–25 291, 346 10 4, 52, 53, 138
8:17–25 169 10:1–5 142
8:19–23 201 10:1–10 119
8:21 142, 167, 271, 324 10:1–16 119
8:23, 28–30 75 10:3 53
8:23–25 120 10:4–8 224
 New Testament 389

10:4, 9–10 219 15:6 70

10:6–8 52, 53, 218, 219 15:8 29, 93
10:6–8, 16 242 15:8–9 93
10:6–16 173 15:8–12 84, 119
10:9–10 52, 119 15:8, 21–22 93
10:9–11 155 15:10 219
10:11 219, 289 15:12 73, 74, 76, 93, 219,
10:11–12 91 227, 343
10:11–16 50, 86, 93, 272 15:15–21 90
10:11, 15–16 328 15:20–21 4, 30
10:12 93, 289 15:20–24 346
10:15 30, 52, 68, 272 15:21 70, 119, 346
10:15–16 3, 21, 91, 108, 119, 16:20 77, 156
132, 136, 142, 155, 16:25–26 29
156, 159, 177, 227, 16:26 348
238, 244, 246, 302,
308, 321, 329, 330, 1 Corinthians
343, 346 1:7 94n
10:16 3, 30, 53, 219, 236, 1:18–29 85
333 1:29 275n
10:19 53 3:13 94n
11 4, 138, 244, 250, 3:15 118n
258, 281, 330 5:6–8 322
11:1–2 93 5:7 157, 322n
11:1, 11–12 92 6:20 294n
11:8 142, 225 10 43
11:11–12, 15 93 10:1–13 304, 308
11:11–27 236 11:23–26 31
11:11, 14 53 11:25 318
11:15, 25–29 93 14:21 269n
11:25–27 93 15 156
11:26 85, 169, 318 15:1–4 33n, 40, 67, 302,
11:26–27 4, 21, 53, 119, 136, 309
142, 156, 159, 201, 15:3 31n, 37n, 309, 310n
211, 227, 238, 244, 15:3–4 310
250, 253, 265, 268, 15:3–5 32n
292, 308, 329, 330, 15:3–8 31
343, 346 15:20–28 171n
11:27 159, 160, 298, 310, 15:25 72n
318 15:39 275n
11:28–29 93 15:42–43 310n
11:32–36 136 15:54 157n, 163, 310, 319
11:35 349 15:55 310
12–16 346
12:1 69 2 Corinthians
12:1–2 70, 71, 346 1:19–20 136
13:8–10 231 1:20 135n
14:11 197, 220 2:15 116n
15 12 2:16 116, 116n
390 Index of References

3:18 115n, 116, 116n, 5:22–23 232

290n, 291 6:7 210n
4:13 248n 6:14–15 221n
5:10 210n
5:14–21 315n Ephesians
5:14–6:10 12 1:7 294n, 320n
5:17 291n 1:9 296n
5:19–6:2 69n 1:11 296n
5:21 69n, 70, 70n, 94 1:19 84n
6:1 69n 1:20 72n
6:2 68n, 118n 2:5, 8 118n
6:4 212n 2:8–9 90n, 279n, 293n
6:17 70 2:17 267
6:18 70n 3:3, 5 94n
7:9 192n 3:11 296n
11:15 210n 3:12 305n
12:21 192n 6:8 210n

Galatians Philippians
1 30 1:28 118n
1:11 30n 2 198n
1:11–12 28–29, 29n 2:5–11 157n, 198n, 220
1:15–16 29n, 68n 2:6–11 315n
1:15–19 28–29 2:7 198n
1:16 76n, 94n 2:8 198n
2:5, 14 3n 2:9 198n
2:16 90n, 275n, 305 2:10ff 207n
2:16, 20 305n 2:10–11 197, 198n
2:20 76n 2:12 118n
3 51 3:3–9 293n
3:1 296n 3:9 305, 305n
3:1–14 130n 3:21 290n
3:2, 5 305
3:2, 5–14 90n Colossians
3:5–6 305 1:14 320n
3:6–7 307 2:12 305n
3:8 29, 307 3:1 72n
3:10 216 3:24–25 210n
3:10–14 51n
3:11 125n, 131n, 133n 1 Thessalonians
3:13 294n 5:8–9 118n
3:15–18 308, 308n
3:16 77 2 Thessalonians
3:22 276n, 305n 1:7 94n
3:23 94n 1:8 193n
4:4, 6 76n 2:3, 6, 8 94n
4:21–31 29n, 157n 2:13 118n
4:28 29n
5:3 216
 Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Midrashim 391

1Timothy 1:12 94n

2:6 294n 1:17 210n
1:18ff 294n
2 Timothy 1:20 296n
1:8 85 1:23–25 89, 167
1:9 90n, 296n 1:24 275n
4:14 210n 2:4 79n
2:6 79n, 80n
Titus 2:6–8 79n, 80n
2:14 294n 2:9 79n
3:18 133n, 134n
Hebrews 4:13 94n
1:3–5 72 4:18 133n
2:5–9 171n 5:1 94n
8:1 72n
9–10 284n, 299n 2 Peter
9:5 297 2:1 294n
9:7–8 293n 2:11 84n
9:12, 15 294n 3:3–7 162n
10–13 129n 3:3–9 262
10:5–7 81n
10:6, 7, 18 323n 1 John
10:12 72n 2:1–2 131, 134n
10:28–31 231n
10:38 125n, 127n Revelation
12:2 72n 1:1 94n
12:12 303n 2:23 210n
13:11 323n 5:9 294n
5:12 84n
James 6:17 209n
4:11–12 189 7:12 84
14:3, 4 294n
1 Peter 20:12 210n
1:5, 7, 13 94n 22:12 210n

Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Midrashim

Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Midrashim
1 Esdras 13:6 146n
2:14 115n 13:10–19 146n
15 197n
Wisdom 15:1–5 146n
10:13 255n 15:10 146n
11:23 197n 15:11 146n
12–15 145n, 146n 18:14–16 88n
12:20–22 146n
13:1 146n, 176n Sirach
13:3 146n 23:2 303n
392 Index of References

29:24 115n 3 Baruch

36:26 115n 4:16 289n
41:10 115n
48:24–25 23n 4 Maccabees
Baruch 6:27–29 296n
1:13 212n 17:21–22 296n
2:11 83n 17:22 299n

1 Maccabees Apocalypse of Moses

10:67 115n 21:6 289n

2 Maccabees Genesis Rabbah

7:30–38 296n 12:6 289n
 Index of Authors

Adna, J. 75 Campbell, D. A. 144, 145, 185, 284,

Alexander, L. C. A. 30 304
Allen, D. L. 313, 315, 316, 317, 318 Carson, D. A. 6, 10, 29, 32, 34, 61, 94,
Andersen, F. I. 127, 130–31 98, 99, 179, 182, 195, 219, 267
Averbeck, R. 324 Cavallin, H. C. C. 125, 135
Cazelles, H. 294
Bailey, D. P. 23, 32, 75, 92, 297, 310, Childs, B. S. 12, 30, 70, 71, 73, 87, 88,
314 103, 104, 105, 111, 153, 157, 158,
Barr, J. 127 159, 160, 161, 164, 165, 166, 171,
Barrett, C. K. 115, 135, 175, 189, 190, 176, 199, 201, 204, 205, 207, 225,
196, 214, 216, 217, 275, 285, 287, 227, 238, 242, 263, 264, 266, 267,
288, 290, 291, 293, 296, 301, 302 273, 292, 313, 314, 321
Barth, K. 115 Chisholm, Jr., R. B. 316, 317, 318, 325
Bates, M. 17, 32, 144, 218 Clements, R. E. 104, 161
Bauckham, R. J. 13, 73, 215, 315 Conzelmann, H. 95, 309
Beaton, R. 34 Coppes, L. J. 150, 166
Begg, C. 11 Craige, P. C. 153, 240
Behm, J. 192 Cranfield, C. E. B. 1, 5, 69, 70, 76, 84,
Bell, R. H. 1, 2, 7, 8, 81, 95, 98, 182, 85, 88, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99,
188, 213, 214, 216, 224, 244, 245, 100, 115, 128, 135, 145, 147, 174,
247, 250, 258, 260, 265, 269, 276, 175, 180, 189, 190, 192, 194, 216,
279, 280, 281, 297, 305, 315 217, 219, 221, 223, 224, 231, 247,
Bergman, J. 79 255, 269, 270, 274, 276, 283, 284,
Berkley, T. W. 7, 18, 82, 226, 230, 231, 285, 287, 288, 289, 291, 292, 294,
232, 233, 234, 237 295, 296, 298, 301, 302, 303, 305,
Betz, O. 33 310
Beuken, W. A. M. 320 Creed, J. M. 303
Bird, M. F. 117, 305, 307 Culver, R. D. 316
Blenkinsopp, J. 13, 24, 33, 34, 37, 74,
78, 79, 104, 155, 296, 298, 311, 313 Das, A. A. 187, 195, 278
Bock, D. 34, 36, 40, 313, 316 Davies, G. N. 77, 95, 192, 209, 280, 347
Bockmuehl, M. 75, 198, 315 Davis, J. D. 73
Bonsirven, J. 7, 8 Deines, R. 2, 72, 93, 195, 221, 231, 280
Brewer, D. I. 22 Delitzsch, F. 74, 92, 153, 158, 164, 170,
Brown, R. E. 323 199, 204, 205, 242, 248, 260, 262,
Brownlee, W. H. 124 264, 267, 325
Broyles, C. C. 23, 33, 74, 158 Denney, J. 304
Bruce, F. F. 4, 95, 115, 267, 297 Denny, D. R. 10
Brueggemann, W. 104, 294 Dietrich, W. 129
Büchsel, F. 293 DiMattei, S. 46
Bultmann, R. 95, 224, 283, 285, 303 Dinter, P. E. 10
Burrows, M. 33 Dodd, C. H. 7, 8, 9, 27, 40, 92, 95, 98,
125, 178, 180, 190, 196, 210, 217,
Calvin, J. 95, 115, 276, 283, 289, 292, 228, 232, 245, 290, 298, 301
293, 297, 302
394 Index of Authors

Dunn, J. D. G. 3, 31, 33, 69, 94, 95, 98, Hafemann, S. J. 5, 25

115, 117, 120–21, 135, 147, 188, Hahn, F. 68
191, 194, 195, 226, 228, 245, 255, Hamilton, V. P. 184
256, 275, 276, 281, 283, 284, 287, Hanson, A. T. 125
288, 289, 292, 293, 296, 297, 298, Hanson, P. D. 103, 159, 165, 201, 205,
301, 303, 304, 305, 318, 322 227, 263, 273, 274, 316
DuToit, A. 8 von Harnack, A. 7
Harris, J. R. 6, 7, 8
Eichholz, G. 298 Harris, M. J. 76, 116
Ekblad, Jr., E. R. 107, 111 Hartley, J. E. 314
Ellingworth, P. 129 Hays, R. B. 6, 9–10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19,
Elliott, M. A. 78 20, 25, 26, 44, 45, 46, 48–49, 68, 70,
Ellis, E. E. 3, 6, 7, 8, 16, 27, 29, 32, 40, 73, 81, 85, 87, 98, 120, 121, 125,
74, 76, 77, 78, 119, 142, 156, 176, 129, 130, 133, 135, 140, 141, 167,
196, 197, 226, 227, 241, 243, 267, 194, 233, 234, 241, 256, 277, 304,
310, 327, 342–343 305, 323, 334–335
Emerton, J. A. 124 Headlam, A. C. 88, 95, 97, 115, 117,
Engnell, I. 349 145, 170, 178, 179, 180, 188, 212,
Enns, P. 349 216, 223, 245, 255, 275, 289, 291,
Evans, C. A. 17, 23, 33, 34, 35, 40, 68, 292, 293, 296, 300
74, 75, 89, 108, 158, 298, 309, 315, Hengel, M. 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 73,
323 75, 76, 77, 194, 309, 310
Henze, M. 22, 24
Fee, G. D. 76, 125, 307, 309 Hill, D. 95, 293, 301
Fishbane, M. 9, 17, 24, 82, 148, 165, Hofius, O. 31, 298, 310, 313, 314
173, 201 Holland, T. 146, 307, 311
Fisk, B. N. 45 Hollander, J. 9
Fitzmyer, J. A. 5, 85, 88, 95, 124, 226, Hooker, M. D. 145, 147, 148, 152, 180,
247, 255, 276, 283, 285, 289, 292, 311
293, 297 Hübner, H. 2, 195, 224
France, R. T. 307, 308, 323 Hughes, P. E. 116
Friedrich, G. 33 Hultgren, A. 284, 296, 297
Hurtado, L. W. 76, 77, 215
Gathercole, S. J. 179, 195, 224, 228,
275, 276, 280, 287, 298, 309, 313, Janowski, B. 23, 32, 75, 92, 297, 310
314, 315 Janzen, J. G. 127, 129, 130–31
Gerhardsson, B. 32 Jensen, J. 158
Gese, H. 298, 314 Jeremias, J. 33
Gignilliat, M. 12–13, 69, 79, 107, 215, Jewett, R. 5, 85, 94, 115, 187, 237
228, 314, 324, 335 Johnson, D. G. 161
Godet, W. 88, 90, 95, 100, 115, 245,
247, 269, 276, 283, 285, 287, 289, Kaiser, O. 75, 153, 155, 161, 163, 225
293, 298, 300, 303 Käsemann, E. 94, 95, 115, 117, 135,
Goldingay, J. E. 104 145, 146, 147, 152, 174, 175, 178,
Goppelt, L. 7, 8, 30, 81, 295, 321 179, 180, 184, 191, 192, 196, 216,
Grimm, W. 33 217, 221, 223, 226, 232, 245, 246,
Grogan, G. W. 103, 107, 158, 161, 164, 247, 255, 256, 269, 270, 274, 275,
177, 199, 202, 205, 218, 225, 263 276, 283, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291,
298, 303, 305
 Index of Authors 395

Keener, C. S. 69, 85, 88, 323 Moo, D. J. 5, 10, 32, 85, 88, 90, 94, 95,
Keesmaat, S. C. 25, 308 97, 98, 100, 118, 123, 124, 128, 146,
Keil, C. F. 126, 127, 128, 218, 299 147, 178, 180, 190, 192, 197, 209,
Kellermann, D. 324 216, 226, 232, 245, 254, 255, 269,
Kidner, D. 165, 170, 171, 210, 248, 260, 274, 275, 276, 279, 280, 283, 284,
261, 262, 268, 271, 272, 277 285, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292,
Kim S. 27, 31 293, 294, 296, 297, 299, 301, 303,
Kirk, J. R. 73 306
Knibb, M. A. 23 Moody, R. M. 135
Knight, G. A. F. 158, 218 Morris, L. 10, 32, 95, 100, 124, 293,
Koch, D. 3, 8, 9, 12, 17, 141, 257 296, 298, 301, 324
Kugler, R. 22 Motyer, J. A. 74, 77, 89, 103, 106, 155,
Kümmel, W. G. 303 158, 159, 160, 161, 165, 177, 202,
Kuss, O. 95, 117, 226, 283, 284, 287 205, 206, 207, 218, 239, 242, 264,
265, 267, 274, 317, 318, 325
Ladd, G. E. 95, 298 Moyise, S. 2, 20, 30, 34, 51, 80, 89,
Liefeld, W. L. 320 120, 125, 228, 233, 234, 259
Lietzmann, H. 116 Muilenburg, J. 103, 106, 177
Lim, T. H. 8, 9, 12 Murray, J. 71, 76, 93, 94, 95, 98, 115,
Lincoln, A. T. 267, 279 135, 245, 269, 276, 287, 288, 291,
Lindars, B. 7, 125 293, 305
Livingston, G. H. 324
Lührmann, D. 94, 285 Naselli, A. D. 17
Luter, Jr., A. B. 30 North, C. R. 79
Luther, M. 10, 95, 296, 297 Nygren, A. 95, 276, 297

Manson, T. W. 297 O’Brien, P. T. 61, 94, 98, 99, 179, 182,

Marcus, J. 34 195, 219
Marshall, I. H. 6, 7, 32, 33, 38, 89 O’Day, G. R. 25
Martin, R. P. 3, 30, 31, 70, 116, 198, O’Neill, J. C. 95
315 Oepke, A. 94, 95, 191
Matlock, R. B. 145 Olson, R. C. 40
Maurer, C. 270 Ortlund, D. 210, 217
Mays, J. L. 148, 165, 170, 171, 196, Oss, D. A. 10
210, 248, 249, 260, 261, 262, 271, Oswalt, J. 10, 13, 71, 73, 75, 79, 85,
272, 277, 294 103, 104, 105, 106, 154, 155, 158,
McConville, J. G. 148, 149, 150, 153, 160, 161, 165, 167, 199, 202, 203,
218, 219, 240, 241 204, 205, 206, 212, 225, 226, 227,
McGinnis, C. M. 11, 23 238, 239, 242, 263, 264, 265, 266,
McGrath, A. E. 94 290, 295, 311, 312, 314, 316, 318,
Menken, M. J. J. 34, 80 325
Mettinger, T. 105
Metzger, B. M. 92 Pao, D. W. 23, 34, 35, 36, 37, 320
Michaels, J. R. 80, 89, 275 Philonenko, M. 255
Michel, O. 3, 6, 7, 84, 95, 128, 135, Piper, J. 100, 284
146, 190, 197, 247, 255, 269, 272, Plummer, A. 116, 309
284, 285, 289, 293, 295, 303, 305 Porter, S. E. 30, 42, 45, 46
Mittmann-Richert, U. 34, 36, 39 Procksch, O. 293
396 Index of Authors

Ridderbos, H. 94, 95, 127, 284, 309, Stanton, G. 32

310, 311, 321 Stigers, H. G. 98, 100, 317
Riesner, R. 32 Stockhausen, C. K. 17, 25
Ringgren, H. 79, 294, 295 Stuhlmacher, P. 5, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38,
Roberts, J. H. 95 39, 40, 68, 93, 95, 98, 108, 135, 256,
Roberts, J. J. M. 104 269, 276, 283, 285, 289, 296, 297,
Robertson, A. T. 309 299, 314, 317
Robertson, O. P. 126, 135, 162
Ropes, J. H. 95 Thielman, F. S. 267
Rowley, H. H. 79 Thiselton, A. 29, 30, 309
Thrall, M. 116
Sailhamer, J. H. 194 Trench, R. C. 212, 303, 304
Sanday, W. 88, 95, 97, 115, 117, 145, Tull, P. K. 11, 23
170, 178, 179, 180, 188, 212, 216, Tzoref, S. 23
223, 245, 255, 275, 289, 291, 292,
293, 296, 300 VanGemeren, W. A. 170, 171, 210, 260,
Sanders, E. P. 51, 58–59, 188, 194, 195 261, 262, 271, 277
Sanders, J. A. 17, 33, 34 Via, D. O. 25
Sawyer, J. F. A. 33
Scharbert, J. 163 Wagner, J. R. 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19,
Schilling, O. 24 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 68, 74, 77, 78, 86,
Schnabel, E. J. 34, 35, 36, 37, 320 107, 108, 119, 141, 142, 155, 156,
Schreiner, T. R. 194, 281 166, 167, 176, 190, 225, 226, 232,
Schrenk, G. 79 233, 234, 241, 243, 246, 265, 267,
Schwemer, A. M. 28, 29, 30, 31, 76, 310, 327, 342–43
194, 309, 310 Watson, F. 26, 49–59, 100, 116, 117,
Scott, C. A. A. 95 120, 121, 125, 130–31, 134, 145,
Scott, J. B. 163 146, 185, 197, 217, 259, 279, 304,
Scott, J. M. 25 306, 335
Secombe, D. 34 Watts, J. D. 106, 107
Seebass, H. 79 Watts, R. E. 34, 36, 37, 38, 125, 126,
Seifrid, M. A. 61, 95, 97, 98, 99, 141, 127, 128, 135
179, 182, 184, 188, 189, 191, 195, Weima, J. A. D. 5
216, 217, 219, 225, 237, 239, 240, Wenham, D. 27
244, 247, 251, 255, 276, 279, 280, Wenham, G. J. 155, 161, 294, 325
283, 290, 295 Westermann, C. 35, 71, 89, 103, 105,
Seitz, C. R. 158, 179, 212, 213, 225, 165, 166, 201, 205, 206, 207, 218,
295 227, 242, 263, 264, 265, 273, 314,
Shum, S. 6, 10, 11, 14, 16, 25, 26, 74, 316, 317
77, 78, 119, 142, 156, 176, 226, 241, Whybray, R. N. 89, 105, 159, 160, 164,
243, 267, 310, 327, 342–43 165, 176, 201, 205, 218, 242, 263,
Silva, M. 3, 14, 29 264, 274, 312
Smith, D. M. 6, 25, 125, 135 Wilckens, U. 135
Snaith, N. H. 324 Wildberger, H. 153, 161
Snodgrass, K. R. 35, 194, 210 Wilk, F. 3, 10, 11, 16, 29, 31, 74, 77,
Sprinkle, P. M. 117, 305, 306, 307 78, 119, 142, 156, 166, 167, 176,
Stanley, C. D. 6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 30, 226, 241, 243, 246, 267, 310, 327,
41–47, 48, 68, 84, 140, 141, 228, 342–343
233, 234, 257, 258, 332–33, 342–43 Wilckens, U. 135
 Index of Authors 397

Wilkins, M. J. 34, 36, 38 Würthwein, E. 193

Williams, C. H. 23, 34, 106, 111
Williams, S. K. 94, 301, 303 Yamauchi, E. 293
Williamson, H. G. M. 6, 75 Yang, A. L. 10
Witherington III, B. 69, 146 Yarbrough, R. W. 182
Wolf, H. 320 Young, E. J. 199, 312, 316
Wright, N. T. 15, 26, 43, 46, 52, 59–66, Young, N. H. 301
68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 76, 81, 100, 121,
125, 130, 145, 146, 188, 215, 232, Zeller, D. 298
234, 238, 240, 241, 265, 307, 311, Ziesler, J. A. 95, 100
315, 304, 336–38 Zimmerli, W. 33
 Index of Subjects

Abraham 21, 51, 53, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, covenant
63, 64, 65, 72, 77, 99, 101, 118, 119, – adamic 149n
124, 127–31, 135, 155, 156, 158, – noahic 162, 243
162, 185, 186, 194, 211, 242, 243, – abrahamic 119, 155, 162, 243
244, 246, 305, 307, 308, 336, 337 – mosaic 119, 149, 154, 161, 162, 243,
Adam 56, 59, 60, 76, 142, 143, 144, 339
147, 149, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, – davidic 72, 118, 162, 243
158, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 177, – new 39, 65, 219
181, 218, 237, 278, 289, 290, 291, – everlasting 161, 162, 179, 201, 220,
337, 338, 339, 340 243
allusions – as fulfilled in the gospel 162, 243
– methodology of ascertaining 16–22
– Paul’s use of 3n, 342–343 David 3, 71, 72, 73, 76, 101, 185, 244,
ark of the covenant 296, 298, 307 248, 249, 252, 258, 259, 277
arm of the Lord 84, 89, 102, 105–12, Day of Atonement 38, 60, 118, 284,
264, 307 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, 307, 308,
atonement 4, 60, 71, 118, 119, 156, 159, 312, 317–21, 323, 324, 326, 330,
207, 227, 244, 250, 253, 265, 281, 331, 338
295, 297, 304, 308, 309, 310, 311, day of judgment 191, 210, 217
312, 317–21, 322, 324, 330, 335
election
calling, divine 42, 77–79 – of believers 77–79
captivity – of Christ 77–79
– to sin 64, 103, 138, 139, 178–81, – of Israel 77–79, 93
254–57, 262–67
– typology of 64, 139–44, 159–69, faith
223–39, 262–67 – Jesus Christ as the object of 288–89,
Christ 304–7
– deity of 62, 71–77, 215, 215n, 315n – nature of 90–93, 104, 130, 288–89
– pre-existence of 75–77 – as related to repentance 53–54, 128,
– sacrificial death of 63, 74, 86, 102, 209, 215–22
106, 107, 108, 111, 156, 184, 186, – as response to revelation 306
211, 241, 252, 287, 293–304, 310, fall
311–29, 333 – of Adam 54, 59, 76, 129, 143, 149,
– as wisdom of God 151, 173, 201, 152, 154–69, 175, 177, 179, 180,
303–4 195, 204, 230, 248, 253, 259, 261,
Christology 57, 62, 71–77, 136, 215, 266, 268, 289, 290, 322, 338, 339
215n, 315n, 322 – reiteration of 54, 129, 143, 153,
circumcision 52, 59, 61, 142, 143, 186, 154–69, 180, 181, 185, 186, 204,
187, 194, 216, 222, 223, 228, 230, 229, 230, 237, 252, 290, 322
232, 237, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, flesh
252, 280 – as fallen human nature 75, 88, 89,
condemnation 185–222, 274–81 93, 103, 142, 166, 168, 202, 205,
conscience 185, 191–92, 221, 338 255, 274–81, 282, 286
 Index of Subjects 399

– as condemned in the judgment 274– image of God 52–54, 60, 78, 99, 150–
81 52, 164, 192, 289
impartiality, divine 179, 214, 216, 285
general revelation 185, 191, 194, 196, Isaiah, the prophecy of
222, 223, 248, 251, 338 – as eschatological and messianic in
God nature 22–26, 102–15, 215–22, 283ff
– acknowledgement of 173, 189, 206, – gospel of 80ff
210, 253, 306 – inner-canonical status of 22–26
– attributes of 98, 100–101, 114, 286, – as a literary/theological unity 22–26
302 – in relation to the fall 154–59
– knowledge of 169, 192, 204, 223, – trial motif of 85–87, 169–78, 179–
229, 339 209, 269–81, 326–29
– love of 101, 214, 232, 248, 261, 262, Israel
268, 271, 272, 286, 302, 304 – salvation of 111–13, 249–50, 262–67
– mercy of 91, 101, 208, 248, 279, 339 – mediatorial role of 93, 211, 291
– power of 24, 56, 88–90, 96, 105–12, – typology of 138–44, 159–69, 262–67
286
see also righteousness of God; wrath judgment
of God – according to gospel 215–22
golden calf 197n, 293n – according to works 209–15
gospel – final 183, 209–15, 295–304
– as fulfillment of the saving covenant – covenant as refuge from 129, 170,
promise 57, 65, 115–35, 244, 245 183, 209–11, 225, 259, 261, 262
– Isaianic nature of 27–40, 67–79, 80– justification
115, 283ff – by faith 85–87, 215–22, 292–307,
– as power of God 88–90, 105–12 326–29
– as universally available 90–93 – in the final judgment 215–22, 269–
– as the revelation of God’s righteous- 81
ness 93–115, 286ff, 311ff – as fulfilled in the resurrection 71–77,
grace 28, 58, 91, 127, 167, 180, 185, 122–23, 131–36, 156–57
188, 191, 197, 208, 236, 238, 242, – of the Servant/Christ 77–78, 87,
252, 268, 279, 293, 303, 339 326–29
guilt offering 302 312, 315, 323, 324– – relation of works to 192–94n, 216–
26, 330, 331 22
– through Christ’s sacrifice 215–22,
Holy Spirit 52, 70, 71, 76, 156, 216, 292–304, 326–29
228, 232, 237, 264, 308
human guilt law
– as condemned in the eschatological – absolute nature of 229–32
judgment 187–222, 269–81 – as ethnic boundary marker 280n,
– disclosed in conscience 185, 191–92, 287n
221, 338 – as condemnation 187–222, 228–29,
– disclosed by law 187–222, 228–29, 269–74
269–74 – as promise 50, 187–97, 285, 339
– universal nature of 269–81 – mosaic 193, 195, 198, 215, 339
– moral 171n, 195, 198
idolatry 148–52, 168, 169, 173–77, 181, – natural 161, 180n, 339
189, 198, 202–6, 247, 279, 280 – perfect obedience to 278
legalism 51n
400 Index of Subjects

mercy seat 296–99 sacrifice of Christ 63, 74, 86, 102, 106,
Moses 3, 101, 149, 219, 230, 298, 319 107, 108, 111, 156, 184, 186, 211,
241, 252, 287, 293–304, 310, 311–
natural law 161, 180n, 339 29, 333
Noah 158n, 161, 162n salvation
– as based in justification 87, 187, 218,
parousia 13, 265n 247, 325
Paul – as the revelation of God’s righteous-
– apostolic consciousness 68–69 ness 102–13
– Damascus Road experience of 27– – by faith 51, 90–91, 96, 117–18, 243,
30, 39–40 286, 289
– dependence on apostolic tradition by – in the covenant 210, 245, 268
30–39, 309–10 – independent of works 3n, 52n, 53,
– mission strategy of 3, 70–71 55, 58, 59, 90, 92, 119, 121n, 124,
– use of scripture by 2–3, 2n–3n 192n, 217n, 218, 259n, 273, 274–81,
propitiation 293, 298, 300, 301 284, 287, 293, 305
– mediated by the Messiah 23, 25, 28,
redemption 106, 292–95, 321–24 43, 46, 50, 60, 62, 76, 86, 87, 120,
repentance 159, 172, 173, 223, 242, 243, 267,
– nature of 53–54, 187–209, 215–22 338
– as related to the covenant 53–54, – through the gospel 56, 60, 86, 88–90,
101, 128, 130, 185ff 102–13, 120, 159, 243, 286, 327,
– as related to faith 53–54, 128, 209, 338
215–22 salvation history 35, 50, 55, 57, 115–20,
resurrection 122, 124, 129, 130, 134, 135, 137,
– as conquest of sin and death 36, 38, 138, 172–73, 182–85, 187, 188, 191,
71–77, 118, 122, 131, 132, 134, 136, 194, 196, 199, 208, 215, 222, 242,
156, 157, 186, 211, 252, 292, 310 243, 251, 252, 286, 287, 336, 338,
– as fulfillment of promise 27–28, 36, 339, 340
38, 57, 62, 71–77, 108, 118, 120, sanctification 46–47n, 69–71, 321
131, 132, 136, 156, 184, 302 scripture
– in relation to justification 71–77, – as having the nature of promise 71,
122–23, 131–36, 156–57 245
revelation self-righteous Jew 224n
– general 185, 191, 194, 196, 222, 223, self-righteous judge 188–190
248, 251, 338 Servant of the Lord
– of God’s righteousness in the gospel – as divine 71–77, 215, 215n, 315n
93–115, 286ff, 311ff – as mediator of justification 85–87,
– in the law 98–102, 194–95 102–15, 215–22, 326–29
– as saving promise 187–209 – as mediator of redemption 106, 292–
righteousness of God 95, 321–24
– as eschatological justification 215– – as messianic 71–77
22, 286–304, 326–29 sin
– as eschatological wrath 178–81, – as captivating power 138–44, 159–
209–200, 300–304 69, 178–81
– as an attribute of God 94–102, 113– – as disclosed in law 53–55, 169–73,
14, 286–87, 295–304 187–209, 223–32, 269–81
– as present wrath 178–81
– as reflected in his law 98–99
 Index of Subjects 401

– nature of 147–54, 223–39, 253ff, – of the sacrifice of Christ 283ff

274–81, 289–92
– universality of 289–92 word of God 47n, 88–90, 127, 151n,
son of David 167n, 173, 246, 246n, 276n
– as divine 71–77 works of law 3n, 52n, 53, 55, 58, 59, 90,
– as Servant of the Lord 71–77 92, 119, 121n, 124, 192n, 217n, 218,
sonship 77–79 259n, 273, 274–81, 284, 287, 293,
305
tabernacle 101, 290n, 293n, 297, 297n, works-righteousness 51n, 184n, 195n,
298, 300n, 322n 279n
temple 1, 38n, 58, 59, 61, 69n, 70, 92, wrath of God
230n, 231n, 297 – covenant refuge from 129, 170, 183,
trial motif 169–78, 185ff, 269–81, 326– 209–11, 225, 259, 261, 262
29 – as eschatological judgment 178–81,
truth 209–11
– of the gospel 3–4, 3–4n – as fulfilled in Christ’s death 132,
– suppression of 183 133, 181, 300–304, 324–26
typology – as present captivity 159–69, 178–81
– of Adam 147–69 – as typified in Israel 64, 139–44,
– of captive Israel 138–44, 159–69, 159–69, 223–39, 262–67
262–67