NT Wright has a very specific agenda and he is very concerned with how he can use scripture to support that agenda - not with the truth.
I wouldn't listen to a word he says.
The NIV is a far better modern language translation...
But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ28 for all who believe.
Is NT Wright saying this is speaking about the 'faithfulness' of Christ Himself in obeying His Father by giving His life?
That's what I am not sure.
One of the reasons I like it is it's rendering of "gehenna", "age ages" and "temple vs sanctuary/shrine", esecially the Temple and Santuary
YLT is how I found out the the word "temple" is never used once in Revelation and thus I began a deeper study on that.
G3485
Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)
Genesis 1:1 (YLT)
This is my translation from the Greek texts on these verses [I have this posted on this other thread].
New House New Stones
Luke 1:8
And it came to pass, in his acting as priest in the order of his course before God, 9 according to the custom of the priesthood, his lot was to make perfume, having gone into the Sanctuary<3485> of the Lord, 10 and all the multitude of the people were praying without, at the hour of the perfume
11 And a Messenger of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right of the Altar of the incense.
12 And having seen him, Zechariah was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
Similar event is shown in Revelation 8 showing a Messenger standing at the Golden Altar:
Revelation 8:3
Then another Messenger, having a golden censer, came and stood at the Altar.
He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the Saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
I would think it is the Golden Altar being measured?
Revelation 11:
1 And was given to me a reed like-as rod saying "rouse! and measure! the Sanctuary<3485> of the God and the Altar and those worshiping in it
2 and the Court/fold<833>, without of the Sanctuary, be casting-out!<1544> out-side<1854>, and no it thou should be measuring, that it was given to the nations and the holy City they shall be treading<3961> forty two months.
Good post.The NIV is in fact a problem, but the problem isn't the phrase "in Christ." NRSV also translates "in" and footnotes "of" as an option.
It's not a manuscript issue. Rather, it's a real ambiguity. The wording could mean either things, either "faith in" or "faithfulness of."
I'm looking at Dunn's commentary. Like Wright, he also tends to support the New Perspective. He says that both are syntactically possible, so you have to decide based on the context. The context is contrasting faith with works of the law, so it's our faith that's involved. I.e. "faith in Christ" is fine.
But that particular phrase isn't the problem with the NIV translation. NRSV:
NIV:
Note that NIV adds "given".
Paul is saying that God is righteous, i.e. faithful to his covenant. He carries out his covenant commitment by justifying all who have faith in Christ. The righteousness of God is his commitment to save his people. It's not some entity that he transfers to us, as is implied by NIV's translation. The word "given" in the NIV is not present in the Greek. Of course translators often have to supply additional words to make sense of the Greek, but in this case it's almost certainly wrong.
KJV is nearly unintelligible here. It's hard to know what it means. ESV, NKJV and Holman are like NRSV. The most interesting is NET. This is a conservative translation. I don't think they're proponents of the New Perspective as Wright is. One the advantages is NET is wonderful footnotes. If you ever wondered why some translations say one thing and some another, the NET footnotes will explain it. They translate:
I like the translation theologically. Many distinguished scholars agree. But the majority view is NRSV / ESV / NKJV / Holman.
I use NRSV. If for some reason you don't like it, I'd recommend ESV. But NET is always worth looking at too.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 22. - Even the righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ unto all (and upon all is added in the Textus Receptus, but ill supported) them that believe: for there is no distinction.
We observe that the expression here used is not ἡ διὰ πίστεως but simply διὰ πίστεως. Thus διὰ πίστεως does not naturally connect itself with δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as defining it, but rather with εἰς πάντας which follows, and perhaps with reference to the πεφανέρωται of ver. 21 understood.
The idea, then, may be still that of God's own righteousness, manifested in Christ, unto or towards all believers, who through faith apprehended it and became sharers in it.
When St. Paul elsewhere speaks of the believer's imputed righteousness, his language is different, so as to make his meaning plain. Thus Romans 4:6, ῷ ὁ Θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην δικαιοσύνης πίστεως; Romans 5:17, τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης; Romans 9:30δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ πίτσεως; Philippians 3:9, τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει.
What we contend for is simply this - that the phrase δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ means God's own righteousness, which, manifested in the atoning Christ, embraces believers, so that to them too righteousness may be imputed (Romans 4:11).
Meyer's NT Commentary
Romans 3:22. A righteousness of God, however, (mediated) through faith in Jesus Christ. On δέ, with the repetition of the same idea, to be defined now however more precisely, the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (not merely δικαιοσύνη, as Hofmann insists contrary to the words); comp Romans 9:30. See on Php 2:8.
The genitive Ἰ. Χ. contains the object of faith[816] in accordance with prevailing usage (Mark 11:22; Acts 3:16; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 2:20; Galatians 3:22; Ephesians 3:12; Ephesians 4:13; Php 3:9; Jam 2:1). The article before διὰ πίστ. was not needed for the simple reason that δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ is without it. Therefore, and because the point at issue here was not the mode of becoming manifest, but the specific characterising of the righteousness itself that had become manifest, neither διὰ πίστ. (Fritzsche, Tholuck) nor the following εἰς πάντας κ.τ.λ[817] (de Wette, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Winer, Mehring and others) is to be made dependent on ΠΕΦΑΝΈΡΩΤΑΙ.
ΕἸς ΠΆΝΤΑς Κ. ἘΠῚ Π. Τ. ΠΙΣΤ.] scil. ΟὖΣΑ; see Bornemann, a[818] Xen. Symp. 4, 25. The expression is an earnest and significant bringing into prominence of the universal character of this ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ ΔΙᾺ ΠΊΣΤ. Ἰ. Χ.: which is for all, and upon all who believe. Both prepositions denote the direction of aim, in which the δικαιοσύνη presents itself, though with the special modification that under the ΕἸς lies the notion of destination (not “the immanent influx,” Reithmayr), under the ἐπί that of extending itself over all. On the peculiar habit, which the Apostle has, of setting forth a relation under several aspects by different prepositional definitions of a single word, see Winer, p. 390 [E. T. 521]; compare generally Kühner, II. 1, p. 475 f. While recent expositors (including Rückert, Reiche, Köllner, de Wette) have often arbitrarily disregarded the distinction in sense between the two prepositions,[819] and have held both merely as a strengthening of the idea all (“for all, for all without exception,” Koppe), the old interpreters, on the other hand, forced upon the εἰς and ἐπί much that has nothing at all in common with the relation of the prepositions; e.g. that εἰς π. applies to the Jews and ἐπὶ π. to the Gentiles; ‘thus Theodoret, Oecumenius, and many others, who have been followed by Bengel, Böhme and Jatho (and conversely by Matthias, who explains ἐκ and εἰς in Romans 1:17 in the same way).
οὐ γάρ ἐστι διαστ.] Ground assigned for the πάντας τ. πιστ. “For there is no distinction made, according to which another way to the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ would stand open for a portion of men, perchance for the Jews,” and that just for the reason that (Romans 3:23) all have sinned, etc.
[816] This view of the genitive is justly adhered to by most expositors. It is with πίστις as with ἀγάπη, in which the object is likewise expressed as well by the genitive as by εἰς. Nevertheless, Scholten, Rauwenhoff, van Hengel and Berlage (de formulae Paulinae πίστις Ἰ. Χριστοῦ signif., Lugd. B. 1856) have recently taken it to mean the “fides, quae auctore Jesu Christo Deo habetur” (Berlage). Against this view we may decidedly urge the passages where the genitive with πίστις is a thing or an abstract idea (Php 1:27; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Acts 3:16; Colossians 2:12); also the expression πίστις Θεοῦ in Mark 11:22, where the genitive must necessarily be that of the object. Comp. the classical expressions πίστις Θεῶν and the like. See besides Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 109 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 335.
[817] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[818] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[819] For in none of the similar passages are the prepositions synonymous. See Romans 3:20, Romans 11:36; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 4:6; Colossians 1:16. See also Matthias and Mehring in loc. The latter, following out his connection πεφανέρ., explains: “manifested to all men and for all believers.” But it is arbitrary to take τοὺς πιστεύοντας as defining only the second πάντας, as Morus and Flatt (see also Morison, p. 229 ff.) have already done. After the emphatic δικαιοσύνη δὲ Θεοῦ διά πίστεως the πιστεύειν is so much the specific and thorough mark of the subjects, that τοὺς πιστεύοντας must define the πάντας in both instances.
Expositor's Greek Testament
Romans 3:22. δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ. The δὲ is explicative: “a righteousness of God (see on chap. Romans 1:17) [Romans 3:21], and that a righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ”. In the Epistle to the Hebrews Jesus Christ is undoubtedly set forth as a pattern of faith: ἀφορῶντες εἰς τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελειωτὴν Ἰησοῦν, Hebrews 12:2. Cf. Hebrews 2:13; but such a thought is irrelevant here. It is the constant teaching of Paul that we are justified (not by sharing Jesus’ faith in God, as some interpreters would take it here, but) by believing in that manifestation and offer of God’s righteousness which are made in the propitiatory death of Jesus. εἰς πάντας καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας: the last three words are omitted by and most edd. If genuine, they add no new idea to εἰς πάντας; see Winer, p. 521. For διαστολή, cf. Romans 10:12. The righteousness of God comes to all on the terms of faith, for all alike need it, and can receive it only so.
22. even] Perhaps translate but, i.e. with a sort of contrast to the words just before. The “righteousness” was witnessed indeed by the O. T., but it resided in Christ and His work.
faith of Jesus Christ] Faith in Jesus Christ is certainly the meaning. The same Gr. construction occurs in Mark 11:22; Acts 3:16; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 3:12; Php 3:9; with the same sense.
In this verse the Saviour’s Name is first brought into the argument.
unto all and upon all] The Gr. phrases respectively indicate destination and bestowal. The sacred pardon was prepared for all believers, and is actually laid upon them as a “robe of righteousness.” (Isaiah 61:10.)
no difference] i.e., in respect of the need of the revealed justification. Between Jew and Gentile, and soul and soul, there were and are countless other differences; but in this respect, none. A mountain-top differs in level from a mine-floor; but it is as impossible to touch the stars from the mountain as from the mine. The least sinful human soul is as hopelessly remote from the Divine standard of holiness as the most sinful, and that standard is inexorable.
And the others:Bengel's Gnomen
Romans 3:22. Δὲ [even] but) An explanation is here given of the righteousness of God, Romans 3:21.—διὰ πίστεως Ἰησο͂υ κριστο͂υ, by faith of Jesus Christ) by faith in Jesus.—See Galatians 2:16, notes.—εἰς, unto) To be connected with the righteousness, Romans 3:21.—εἰς πάντας, unto all) the Jews, who are, as it were, a peculiar vessel.—ἐπὶ πάντας, upon all) the Gentiles, who are as a soil which receives an exceedingly abundant rain of grace, comp. Romans 3:30.—οὐ γάρ ἐστι διαστολή, for there is no difference) Jews and Gentiles are both accused and justified in the same way. The same phrase occurs in ch. Romans 10:12.
The NIV is in fact a problem, but the problem isn't the phrase "in Christ." NRSV also translates "in" and footnotes "of" as an option.
It's not a manuscript issue. Rather, it's a real ambiguity. The wording could mean either things, either "faith in" or "faithfulness of."
I'm looking at Dunn's commentary. Like Wright, he also tends to support the New Perspective. He says that both are syntactically possible, so you have to decide based on the context. The context is contrasting faith with works of the law, so it's our faith that's involved. I.e. "faith in Christ" is fine.
But that particular phrase isn't the problem with the NIV translation. NRSV:
NIV:
Note that NIV adds "given".
Paul is saying that God is righteous, i.e. faithful to his covenant. He carries out his covenant commitment by justifying all who have faith in Christ. The righteousness of God is his commitment to save his people. It's not some entity that he transfers to us, as is implied by NIV's translation. The word "given" in the NIV is not present in the Greek. Of course translators often have to supply additional words to make sense of the Greek, but in this case it's almost certainly wrong.
KJV is nearly unintelligible here. It's hard to know what it means. ESV, NKJV and Holman are like NRSV. The most interesting is NET. This is a conservative translation. I don't think they're proponents of the New Perspective as Wright is. One the advantages is NET is wonderful footnotes. If you ever wondered why some translations say one thing and some another, the NET footnotes will explain it. They translate:
I like the translation theologically. Many distinguished scholars agree. But the majority view is NRSV / ESV / NKJV / Holman.
I use NRSV. If for some reason you don't like it, I'd recommend ESV. But NET is always worth looking at too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?