Objective/Subjective

McGrath notes that Augustine interpreted the genitive in the phrase “righteousness of God” in Rom 1 objectively, so that it was understood as the righteousness that God gives in saving sinners (in “making” them righteous). Ambrosiaster, as I pointed out in an earliet post, interpreted the genitive subjectively – the righteousness is God’s own faithfulness to His promises. As McGrath points out, these were so far from being seen as incompatible interpretations that “it is not uncommon to find both interpretations within the same work.” On this combined interpretation, God fulfills His promise (thus displaying His own righteousness) by giving righteousness to sinners (or, more broadly, by acting to establish righteousness in the creation).

How does it happen that these interpretations now get polarized? Perhaps it’s the fault of those defending the objective interpretation – Paul is referring to God’s own righteousness and not to the gift of righteousness. Or perhaps it’s from the side of those who see the objective interpretation as a threat to traditional Protestant doctrine. Whatever the case, there is no grounds in logic, or in history, to see these as mutually exclusive alternatives.