Romans. Craig S. Keener

47. To “justify” was also to “render justice” on someone’s behalf (2 Sam 15:4); one should “justify,” “vindicate,” “defend the rights of” the widow (Isa 1:17) and the poor (Ps 82:3).

48. In the Greek version of Isa 53:11, it is the servant who is justified.

49. Some other Jews also depended on God’s “righteousness” to vindicate or save them (1QS 11.5, 9–14; cf. 1QH 4.29–37; 11.10–11; 1QM 11.3–4; Gen. Rab. 33:1; for a fuller range of biblical (and some early Jewish) background, see e.g., Stuhlmacher 2001: 13–24).

50. Cf. also Phil 3:9; Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (CSEL 81:37); John Chrysostom Hom. Rom. 2; Basil Humility 20 (Bray 1998: 31–32).

51. Schlatter 1995: 26–27.

52. This “transformative” righteousness view (vs. mere acquittal) is the one dominant in most of church history (Fitzmyer 1993: 118–19).

53. Cf. the construction in 2 Cor 2:16 (a rhetorical flourish, as in Menander Rhetor 2.3, 378.29–30; Ps 84:7; Jer 9:3). Alternatively, God’s righteousness may be revealed on the basis of faith in the gospel, generating more faith (cf. Rom 10:17; the construction in Gal 6:8). “From faith” might counter the assertion that it was “from works” (cf. 3:20; 4:2; 9:11, 32; 11:6); it also reflects Hab 2:4 lxx. Many understand it as from God’s faithfulness (3:3) to human faithfulness, yet one would expect Paul’s context to clarify such different uses more adequately.

54. Scholars debate whether “faith” here attaches to “live” or to “righteous”; normally in Romans Paul connects faith with righteousness (3:22, 26, 28, 30; 4:3, 5, 9, 11, 13; 5:1; 9:30; 10:4, 6, 10), though in any case all three terms are closely connected here.

55. Cf. e.g., 2 Chron 23:18; 1QS 5.15, 17; CD 5.1; 7.10; 11.18, 20. On Paul and ancient citation techniques, including adaptation of wording to fit the context, see especially Stanley 1992 passim.

56. Some think that Paul alludes to both the Greek and Hebrew versions, but his audience likely was unacquainted with the Hebrew version.

57. T. Hul. 10:16; Sipra A.M. par. 8.193.1.10; Sipre Deut. 336.1.1; ’Abot R. Nat. 40 A; y. Hag. 2:1, §9; cf. Ezek 33:14–16, 19; 4 Ezra 7:21; m. ’Abot 6:7; but contrast L.A.B. 11:9.

58. Salvation and wrath seem to be two sides of God’s righteousness (1:16–18); the latter responds to human unrighteousness (1:18). The gospel reveals the former (1:16) and presupposes the situation (depicted in 1:18–32) of the latter.

59. Recognized also by Ambrosiaster and Apollinaris of Laodicea (Bray 1998: 35).

60. E.g., the language of Ps 94:11 in Rom 1:21; exchanging God’s glory for idols (1:23) in Ps 106:20 (cf. Jer 2:11; possibly language from Deut 4:16–18); perhaps also moral hardening (cf. Rom 1:28; 11:7, 25) and the handing over to their sins (Rom 1:24; Ps 81:12).

61. The judgment of consequences of false belief appears elsewhere (cf. Isa 29:9–14; Jub. 21:22; Josephus J.W. 5.343; Epictetus Disc. 1.12.21–22; 3.11.1–3; Porphyry Marc. 22.348–360).

62. So Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.29, 34, 36–37; for examples, cf. Plutarch Isis 76, Mor. 382A; in Jewish sources, Let. Aris. 132.

63. A Pythagorean in Diodorus Siculus 12.20.2.

64. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.23–24; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.190, 192; cf. 2.167.

65. Ps.-Heraclitus Ep. 4, 9.

66. Socrates in Xenophon Mem. 4.3.12–13; for their benevolence, cf. also Seneca Ep. Lucil. 95.50.

67. Some decided that the divine nature must be spherical, since this was the perfect shape (Cicero Nat. d. 2.17.45–46)!

68. Cf. Diogenes Laertius 7.1.134; cf. earlier Heraclitus in Diogenes Laertius 9.1.1. Some earlier Stoics tended toward pantheism, but Stoicism generally distinguished between matter and the logical principle (the logos) which organized matter (I explore some of these ideas further in Keener 2003b: 341–47).

69. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.3–6.

70. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.7.

71. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.7 (LCL translation, 1:41).

72. Epictetus Disc. 1.16.8.

73. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.10; cf. Rom 1:19.

74. Cicero Nat. d. 2.54.133—58.146; Seneca Ben. 6.23.6–7; cf. Cicero Fin. 5.12.35–36; Let. Aris. 156–57.

75. E.g., Cicero Nat. d. 2.59.147—61.153; Porphyry Marc. 26.410–11. They viewed knowledge of a deity as innate in people (Seneca Ep. Lucil. 117.6; Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.27–28; Iamblichus Myst. 1.3). Some also adduced in favor of deities’ existence the universal pervasiveness of belief in them (Cicero Tusc. 1.13.30; cf. Maximus of Tyre Or. 11.5).

76. For example, the Jewish philosopher Philo borrows various philosophers’ arguments for God’s existence (Wolfson 1968: vol. 2, 73–93), including Plato’s argument from creation (p. 74) and material from Stoic sources (pp. 75–83).

77. He may especially draw on the Wisdom of Solomon, a widely circulated Jewish work in Greek (cf. Wis 13:1–9, including “without excuse” in 13:8); there the consequences of idolatry culminate in a vice list (Wis 14:12–31). Cf. also Jewish stories about Abram reasoning back to a first cause and resisting idolatry. For subsequent Christian approaches to “natural theology” here, see concisely Bray 1998: 34, 37–38; Reasoner 2005: 11–17.