for righteousness of God is revealed therein, on the principle of faith, to faith according as it is written, But the just shall live by faith.
Paul has just said he is not ashamed of the gospel because it is God's power to save. Verse 17 tells us why. Everything turns on one phrase: a righteousness that is God's own, revealed on the principle of faith.
The gospel reveals many things about God. Here Paul speaks of one quality — the very one a guilty person fears most.
Thirdly, the reason it is God's power to save everyone who believes is that "in it the righteousness of God is revealed". If there is no righteous way for man to be saved, there can be no salvation for man... It is true that in the gospel we see the love, and grace, and mercy of God revealed. But the Apostle does not speak of these blessed qualities in this passage. He speaks of the righteousness of God... The sinner does not fear the love, or grace, or mercy of God; but he fears the righteousness of God must be against him... But suppose you can tell the sinner this: the very quality in God that he dreads most — God's righteousness — is the very quality that is for him, not against him. That will indeed be good news.
The whole force of the verse rests on the little word "God's." One writer sets it against what the law required:
Next, notice that it is God's righteousness, not man's — divine righteousness revealed in the gospel, not human righteousness required in the law. There is no question here either of infusion or of imputation. Infusion is completely wrong. Imputation is a precious truth, and Romans 4 presses it: there the apostle shows from the case of Abraham that the believer's faith is counted for (or as) righteousness.
Another puts the same distinction plainly: man has no righteousness to offer.
It is not righteousness of man, for he has none. How can he have any if he is guilty — under judgment? And if he had, it would be righteousness of man, not of God.
So the word describes something true of God Himself. It is not a standard He hands out.
It is not human righteousness, which would have come by the law. It is God's own righteousness. It is not man being consistent with the relationships God placed him in as a creature. It is God being consistent with His own nature and character, whether He had revealed that character before or not. It is God being consistent with Himself when He takes up the place of Justifier of ungodly sinners.
Commentators differ over how far the language of imputation fits here. Kelly calls imputation a precious truth taught in Romans 4. Another writer notes that Romans 4 speaks of righteousness counted to the believer, but never calls it God's righteousness (C. E. Stuart).
One writer traces this revelation to the cross and to what came after it:
On the cross Christ was made sin for us, and there bore all the believer's sins. In this position He perfectly glorified God... God has revealed His righteousness by giving Christ, who glorified Him, a place with Himself in divine glory.
The two halves of the phrase do two different jobs — one shuts a door, the other opens one.
The first of these phrases, "from faith," excludes the law; the second, "to faith," brings everyone who has faith within the scope of God's righteousness... God reveals His righteousness from faith. So if there is faith in any soul, He reveals it to that faith, wherever it may be. It was therefore in no way limited to one nation.
A second writer draws out what each mention of faith stands against:
The righteousness which the law demanded from men was to be by (or, on the principle of) works. Faith reaches the righteousness of God which the Gospel reveals. Again, the Gospel reveals God's righteousness to faith, while the law revealed all it brought to sight. The first occurrence of the word, faith, stands in contrast to works, the second to sight.
The same line from Habakkuk 2:4 appears in three letters, with the emphasis on a different word each time. (The ESV reads, "The righteous shall live by faith." The writers quoted here use the older wording, "the just.")
Romans dwells on the truth of justification, and so emphasizes "the just." Galatians deals with living the Christian life by faith and not by works of law, and so emphasizes "shall live." Hebrews emphasizes the means — "by faith."
The quotation is not only about being declared righteous. It also shapes the life that follows: "the believer must prove by a life of faith that he has this righteousness" (H. L. Rossier).
- Revealed, not required. The law demanded righteousness from man. The gospel reveals a righteousness that is God's own.
- Revealed as good news. The quality the guilty fear most is the very one the gospel shows to be on their side.
- Revealed in Christ. God shows His righteousness by giving Christ, who glorified Him at the cross, a place in divine glory.
- Revealed by faith, to faith. "By faith" rules out law and works; "to faith" reaches anyone who believes, of any nation.
- Revealed, then lived. Habakkuk's word settles who is just, and then calls that person to live by faith.
For there is revealed wrath of God from heaven upon all impiety, and unrighteousness of men holding the truth in unrighteousness.
Paul has just announced God's righteousness in the gospel, and here he gives the reason it was needed. Two questions follow: what makes this wrath different from God's earlier judgments, and who stands under it?
Two things are now made known, and commentators are careful not to blur them.
This is what made the gospel so sweet and precious, and, what is more, absolutely necessary, if he would escape certain and eternal ruin. There is no hope for man otherwise; for the gospel is not all that is now made known. Not only is God's righteousness revealed, but also His wrath. It is not said to be revealed in the gospel. The gospel means His glad tidings for man. The wrath of God could not possibly be glad tidings. It is not yet carried out. It is "revealed," and this too "from heaven"… So it is in view of eternal things, not of the things that touch present life on earth.
The phrase marks a shift away from the visible, national judgments of the past.
It is not governmental wrath, such as bringing the Assyrian against Israel, or leading them captive to Babylon — a thing of this world, while God was hidden still behind the veil. It tells us that God's nature cannot live with evil. God's wrath was revealed against everything that does not fit His nature — wrath from heaven against all ungodliness. And where the truth was known, so that men might seem nearer to God, as the Jews were, wrath was against them too if they held that truth in unrighteousness.
The sentence has not fallen yet, and still nothing about it is left in doubt:
Notice, the wrath is revealed, not hidden, and the revelation is just as complete as if He were sitting on the great white throne.
Commentators differ on how to read the sentence. Some see two groups named, divided by where the comma falls:
It appears to me that the usual punctuation here spoils the sense. As I understand it, the force is this: "all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men that hold the truth in unrighteousness." This is a most important distinction. It brings in the whole Gentile world as guilty, as the apostle proves later… So we have two great classes: ungodliness everywhere, and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
Others find one charge here, not two groups:
If one can find a person who has no truth to hold, he cannot come under this revealed wrath. "Impiety" is what men are condemned for: a heart away from God, and so it misuses whatever truth it has. That is the charge; and it is broad enough to cover the whole race of fallen man. There are not two classes in this statement, as some have thought.
Kelly reads "hold the truth in unrighteousness" as holding it firmly. He rejects the newer "hold down" and "hinder" — the sense the ESV carries with "suppress":
Firm orthodoxy may go together with a life that disregards righteousness. Holding truth down hardly makes sense. Hindering it adds no worthwhile idea to the phrase. Holding the truth is a solemn warning for professing Christians now, as it once was for Jews.
On that reading, correct belief is no shelter:
To hold the truth in unrighteousness would be no security… A man may know God's revealed mind exactly. But if that knowledge brings no renewal of the heart, if it leaves him without life towards God, it must all be worthless. A man is only so much the worse for knowing the truth, if he holds it ever so firmly along with unrighteousness.
Verse 18 states the charge; the rest of the chapter supplies the evidence.
About the Gentiles, the apostle gives two reasons for this wrath. First, the testimony of creation (vv. 19, 20). Second, that they knew God and did not wish to keep Him in their knowledge, but preferred idolatry (vv. 21-24)… This does not mean that they knew God as He is in His nature. It means they should have known Him as Creator. Unless a person is blind, a Creator is seen in the creation.
- Revealed — God announces this wrath now and has not yet carried it out. The announcement is as full as the final judgment seat itself.
- From heaven — not a blow on earth like the Assyrian invasion or the exile. This is God's own nature, which cannot live with evil.
- Against all — every sort of ungodliness falls under it. Commentators differ over whether Paul names two classes or one charge wide enough for the whole race.
- Held, not just heard — truth held firmly, alongside unrighteous living, brings no safety. The older reading warns those who hold right doctrine; newer versions render the phrase "suppress."
- Without excuse — creation gave its testimony, and men still refused to keep God in their knowledge. This is why the gospel's righteousness of God was needed.