Romans 13:1-7

 

Romans 12 began with a very direct and personal appeal; Paul called for his readers to give themselves up to God so that they could be remade on the inside. It was a call for a spiritual, inward renewal. And yet the renewing of the mind flows outward and in the next verses, we see the results of this change in our relationships—first, to those within the church, then to people in general, and then even to our enemies. And now we finally come to the outer ring of this circle. This intensely personal spiritual sacrifice has an effect on the most impersonal aspect of our lives; what began in a tryst between the soul and God ends in the public arena of civil life. In these verses, Paul shows that our Christian life, our Christian commitment, should make a difference in the way we behave in regard to the government. This is righteous living in civil life.

But to understand Paul's argument here, we have to take a roundabout route. Jesus told a famous parable about two men who built houses, one on rock and the other on sand. And only the house with a solid foundation was able to stand the storm. There is a spiritual point to the parable but it is built on a practical, physical reality--when you build a house, you need to have a foundation, and the house cannot—in the end—be any better than the foundation. You can build a palace or a shack, a hospital or a casino, you can build a building of any type or any purpose, but you always need some kind of foundation. I'm not a carpenter so I can't fully say—there are probably some very specific exceptions to this rule. A tent, for instance, does not truly have a foundation, but that is because a tent is not a permanent building—and even a tent has to have some solid ground to drive in the tent pegs.

The type of foundation you use for a building will differ vastly based on (1) the area you are building, (2) the type of building, (3) and your budget. In some terrain, you may have to be content with a bad foundation and just hope for the best. The poor will probably always have a worse foundation for their house than the rich. Still, there is for all this driving need for a foundation.

I began by talking about a parable of Christ, but this is not a specifically Christian principle. People all over the world have foundations who know nothing or care nothing about the gospel. For the matter of that, in the parable, Jesus is not really establishing a principle so much as pointing to an already established principle in order to make a point. 

So why does every building need some kind of foundation? Why can't you make a house with a second floor but no first floor? Why can't you have a tower with a peak but no base? Because that's just the way the world works. This is just the nature of physical reality; that's how things are. But why are things that way? Why does this world have the properties it does? “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” (Colossians 1:16-17)

This world has the properties and physical rules it does because it was created by God. To say “that's how things are” is just another way of saying: “The will of God.” Of course, the obvious response is this world is very clearly not what God intended; this world is not the world God made. We live in the ruins of a fallen Eden. But consider this verse we talked about in a previous lesson: “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.” (Romans 8:20) The creature—that is, the created order, the physical reality, the cosmos—was made subject to vanity, that is, it was cursed, it broken and became the world we know today. This is what we call the Fall. But the point I want to remind you of this fall didn't simply happen; it was the result of man's sin, but it was an action of God. It is God who placed a curse on the world in judgment and with that judgment comes hope. But for our purposes here, what I want to emphasize is the fact that although, in one sense, this world—this world of suffering and pain and death and futility—is not the world God intended, God is still the one in control of it. And therefore, even in the midst of this broken, sinful world, it holds true that reality comes from God and it is because of God that it has the properties that it does.

And so with this principle of a foundation—this is something that comes from God. If you in a mode of anger and cruelty dynamite the foundation of your neighbor's house, that would not be God's will, and yet it would be within God's will that the house would then fall down. Even sin and its consequences exist within the framework of God's creation.

Furthermore, this means that even those who do not follow God, even those who actively oppose God, still must work within this reality of God's will. You may be constructing a building whose sole purpose is to oppose God's work and lead men into sin. And yet you still must lay a foundation for it as surely as the wise man in the parable. If a man, in his hatred of God and God's creation, chose to try to ignore this principle and build without a foundation, his fate would be like that of the foolish man.

The case of the foundation is a physical principle. But this holds true also with non-physical things. So, there are places in the Bible—especially in Proverbs—which talk about the importance of fiscal responsibility, working hard, avoiding wasteful spending, and the danger that comes with indebtedness. There are people who practice fiscal responsibility without being Christians—some may save their money specifically for selfish or prideful reasons. Some use fiscal responsibility as an excuse to avoid giving money to God's work or people in need. But it doesn't change the basic principle involved.

In short, because we live in a world that is made by God, there are certain rules and principles that God has put in place which we must follow whether we are Christians or not or face the consequences.

And now we come back to our text. The central statement of this passage is the second half of verse 1: “There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Or, as the NET Bible translates it: “For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God.” 

I do not believe this is a blind fatalism that simply accepts whatever is because it is. Instead, I think we have an analogy in what we've talked about so far. I submit to you that just as this reality requires a stable base or foundation for a physical building, so it requires a government as the base or foundation for a social unit. Some small communities may exist without a formal government, just as a tent can be pitched without a definite foundation, but the very nature of social structure calls for a government, just as the very nature of a building calls for a foundation. Governments are ordained of God in the sense that this world, as God created it and continued to maintain it even in its fallen condition, calls for and necessitates government just as it calls for and necessitates gravity and the laws of physics. This does not mean all governments are morally good or even practically efficient, any more than every foundation is built with good motives or with good cement. But the general principle remains—God has ordained and established government as the foundation of society. 

And Paul may even mean that God has providentially set up whatever given government exists, just as God has providentially arranged all the other elements of our life. That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to change and improve the government, any more than we shouldn't seek to change and improve our given personal situation. But it does mean that we recognize a higher purpose and plan in the seemingly meaningless events of reality.

I realize this has been a somewhat roundabout approach, but I want to firmly establish this foundational principle. When we deal with government—when we deal with our civic or political life—we are not dealing with something incidental or unrelated to our Christian life. The power that be are ordained by God. Even if the governing officials are not Christians or even are actively opposed to Christianity, still, the very fact that governing officials exist at all is because of God.

Paul's way of thinking in this passage is very foreign to the way we think; that is why I wanted to start by establishing the principle. But Paul does not start with a principle; instead, he begins with an injunction. Remember, we are still under this general heading of the righteousness of God in our lives. Romans 12 begins with an exhortation to give ourselves over to God, and from that follows a list of commands and advice about how we should live. We saw that throughout Romans 12--and Romans 13 also begins with a command: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” Weymouth translates that: “Let every individual be obedient to those who rule over him.”

Paul is calling for his readers to be obedient and respectful to those who are in a governmental position over them. To put it another way, Paul is calling for them to be good citizens. Clifton Allen comments: “In fact, one cannot be a good Christian and not a be a good citizen.” (The Gospel According to Paul, 124) But Paul doesn't just stop with this general advice; in verse 6 he encourages Christians to pay their taxes—to help actively to support the government financially.

Though this passage is the most in-depth discussion of this topic in the New Testament, we do find the same general idea elsewhere. For instance, in Titus 3:1, Paul tells Titus to exhort his people thus: “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.” Or, again: “Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.” (1 Peter2:17)

To many people, this all seems very strange and counterintuitive. For us, a distrust of and distaste for our authority figures has become a truism. Everyone believes that the government is corrupt, hypocritical, inefficient, and malicious—the only debate being about which party is at fault for this. This talk about honoring and respecting governmental officials, submitting to them, obeying them—that all sounds strange and even immoral to most of us.

How can Christians respect, obey, and support a government that is becoming increasingly divorced from and opposed to Christianity and morality? But if this seems to be a problem for us, it was equally a problem for Paul. Because the Roman government in Paul's day was no better than our own government today. When Paul wrote Romans, the chief governing figure was Nero—a man who makes any of our modern politicians seem like paragons of sanctity and sanity by comparison.

Barclay comments that it would be easy to say that the reason Paul wrote this way was that, at this point, the Roman government had been a friend to Christianity—more often than not, it was the government that protected the church from the persecution of the Jews. However, even later—even after the Roman government began a systematic war on the church and tried to drown the gospel in calculated cruelty, Christians kept on saying the same things. He quotes Justin Martyr (who would be executed by the Roman government in the 2nd century): “Everywhere, we, more readily than all men, endeavor to pay to those appointed by you the taxes... as we have been taught by Jesus. We worship only God, but in other things we will gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of all men.” (Quoted in Barclay, 172)

Paul's advice was written under a godless and maniacal emperor and it was carried on during times of active persecution. That is one side of the reality. The other side of the reality is this: when the apostles first began preaching the gospel in the days following Pentecost, the Jewish leaders ordered them to stop, and this was their answer: “But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.” (Acts 4:19) The apostles saw it as self-evident that when God's word and the word of duly-appointed governmental official conflicted, then God's word took precedence.

These are the two sides to keep in mind. When the Bible says that we should obey and submit to the government, that doesn't mean only when the government is good; it doesn't mean to only respect and obey the government when our own party is in power. On the other hand, it also doesn't mean we must blindly and unquestioningly obey everything the government says.

Because, remember, all of this traces back to Romans 12:1, and the exhortation to give ourselves over to God as a sacrifice. There are practical, prudential reasons for obeying the government—which Paul does talk about here—but that is fundamentally not why we do. We obey because of God. The government is ordained by God. They are ministers of God. Verse 5 says “ye must needs be subject” or, in other other words, there is a necessity of submission and obedient, and this not merely because of the consequences of disobedience, but “for conscience sake”--because it is what is right, and this is ultimately because it is right in the sight of God. There is a passage in 1 Peter 2 that parallels this one, and Peter begins it with these words: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake.” (1 Peter 2:13a) Tertullian said: “Caesar is more ours than yours because our God appointed him.” (Quoted in Barclay, 172)

Our obedience to and respect for the government is founded on our allegiance to God. That is why we can obey and respect governments that we dislike and did not choose—because the basis is not in ourselves and not in the government, but in God. And conversely, we can still oppose and criticize the government because our allegiance is not to it but to God. We can picture it like a child whose parents leave him with a babysitter. Because the child respects the authority of his parents, he will respect the authority of the sitter they chose. But equally, because he respects the authority of his parents, he will not listen to the babysitter if they go directly against the commands and wishes of the parent. 

So, we have the principle: governments are part of the inherent structure of the world as designed by God. And we have the exhortation: as Christians, we must therefore submit to, respect, and obey the government but not at the expense of our submission, respect, and obedience to God. Quimby wrote: “[T]his teaching of Paul cannot be made to mean: Never object to any law, never agitate for repeal or change, never seek reforms. But it meant then, and it still means most properly: Never flout decent public order! Along that path lies anarchy and chaos. It is anti-God, for god is the God of order.” (Quoted in Beacon, 251)

But is that all we can do? Do we just have to accept the government as it is or can we seek to change it?

Certainly, there is one thing we can do: “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” (1 Timothy 2:1-2) Tertullian wrote: “Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection for the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest—whatever, as a man or Caesar, an emperor would wish.” (Quoted in Barclay, 172) Praying for governmental leaders follows upon the idea of respecting them. You ask: should we still pray for governmental leaders when they are bad men who oppose God's work? Can God bless those who oppose Him? To which the answer comes from the passage we looked at in our last lesson: “Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.” (Romans 12:14) But beyond all that, it is something we can do to lead to a change in government. Tennyson said: “More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.” 

But is there anything else we can do to change the government? Specifically, as Americans, should we vote and be involved in the political processes of our nation? Obviously, this is an issue that the Bible does not address because it was not even an option for Christians in the first century. But there are a few verses that point to an answer. 

“And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?” (Acts 22:25) “Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.” (Acts 25:10-11)

Paul—the man who told the Philippians that our citizenship is in heaven, whose writings give us the concept of separation from the world—was nevertheless perfectly willing to use the rights and privileges that came to him as a Roman citizen. Those rights which the government gave him, he used. That is why I think it is probable that if the government had given him the right to vote, he would have used that too. 

Paul gave slaves much the same advice as he gives the Romans here—that slaves should submit to and obey their masters, as we are to submit to and obey the government, if not for exactly the same reason. But he also said this: “Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.” (1 Corinthians7:21) To be a slave did not prevent one from being a Christian; and if a Christian was a slave, Paul exhorted them to be a good slave—BUT he also encouraged them to obtain their freedom if they had that option. It is plausible to suppose, then, that he would have encouraged the citizen to seek for greater freedom and a better government if they had that option. It should be noted that there were some in the early church who did hold positions within the government—at the end of Romans, Paul sends greetings from one of his companions who held a high position in the government of Corinth.

However, with all that, there is a qualification we must make, which is Romans 14:15-17: “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.  Let not then your good be evil spoken of: for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” I know this sounds a little strange out of context, and we will get to Romans 14 in due time, but the general idea is this—we have to be very careful that even in doing something legitimate, something good that we do not bring unneeded division into the church or place unnecessary stumblingblocks before other people.

We sometimes say that a Christian shouldn't care for the things of this world. That isn't necessarily true. There are good and legitimate things in the world. Food and politics can both have their place in the life of the Christian. But they are not the most important things—the kingdom of God is not meat and drink and it is not a political platform—it is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost and anything else because fatal at the point when it cuts us (or others) off from that.

And I bring all this up because I do feel like this is an issue that the Christian church in America—and especially Wesleyan and Evangelical churches—struggle with. I think that sometimes we have allowed politics and political issues to become too important, to the point that they subjugate more important things. When we make belonging to a particular party or voting for a specific candidate as an implicit test of fellowship or synonymous with virtue, I think we have gone too far. When we—deliberately or not—make the church an unwelcome place for people, not because of their sin, but because of their politics, I think we have gone too far. 

So, we have established the principle of government and the exhortation to submit to the government. But why—why should we submit to the government? And in answering that, we will also get light on why God ordained government.

Because that is the first answer—as we've already seen—that government is ordained by God. This is verses 1-2. 

But verse 2 also introduces another reason: Paul says that those who resist the government resist God and then adds: “they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” The word damnation literally means condemnation. Darby translates it: “they who [thus] resist shall bring sentence of guilt on themselves.” The idea is that disobedience to the government will be condemned and punished. Does this refer to punishment from the government or from God? Very possibly Paul means both. He has just said that resisting the government is one with opposing God, and we know from Romans 1 how well that usually ends. But then he will go on to talk about the reality of the judgment and punishment which is brought by the government against evil-doers.

In the previous passage, Paul instructed his readers to bear wrongs patiently and not seek revenge. It is not our place to avenge every wrongdoing. Wrong is never, never right, but it is not our job to right every, every wrong. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against the sin of man, but the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. But the parallel to all that is here in verse 4 where Paul says that the government “is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

The government does not create morality, though it may create specific applications of moral principles for its own situation. But the government does have a responsibility to enforce morality—to punish the evil and protect the good. This is the primary role of government—at least the primary role Paul is interested in here; it is the arbiter of justice and morality. God has said: Vengeance is mine. But in at least a limited sense, He has entrusted the responsibility for that vengeance into the hand of the government.

This is the main thing Paul says throughout this passage. In verse 3 he says that rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. He goes on to say that if you want to be safe from the government, to be on good terms with it, the way to do is by doing good. Because, as verse 4 says, if we do evil we have reason to be afraid of the power and authority which the government holds to condemn and punish.

This goes back to what I said earlier about foundations. A foundation may be built for bad motives or methods, but if it is a foundation at all, it must strive to hold up the house. If the foundation does not fulfill that basic role, the structure will not long endure. And so it is with governments—governments may be corrupt or inefficient, but if they exist at all, they must be a terror to evil works and not to good. A government that didn't—a government that freely protected and encouraged crimes of all kinds and actively punished honesty and kindness—that government would not long endure. Different governments have specific areas of blindness and prejudice—looking back at Paul's day, we marvel at some of the things the Romans allowed and the things they condemned. People a thousand years in the future looking back at ours may marvel likewise at ours. Some people living today rather marvel at the choices the government makes. And the case can be made the failures of the Roman government led to the fall of Rome and that the failures of our government may lead to the collapse of our society. But that is not the point I want to make here. My point is simply that this is the basic, foundational role of the government and it is ordained, set up, appointed, put into place by God.

Again, we come back to verse 5: “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.” Even as a matter of practical, common sense, we are better off obeying the government and living a peaceful life. And that may not seem like a very spiritual thing to bring up. But we have to remember that being a Christian does not excuse you from using common sense. Common sense largely means recognizing the law of cause-and-affect; it means understanding and remembering that our actions have consequences. And this is something that the Bible also emphasizes. God may often call us to do something that seems dangerous or foolish to the world, and God sometimes protects His children from the consequences that would naturally follow. But that doesn't change the basic rule. Our entire moral life is built on the foundation of common sense, of understanding that actions have consequences. There would have been no courage or faith in the three Hebrew children refusing to bow if they had not clearly known about the physical effects of fire.

Even if we have to disobey the law because of our faith, we have to be aware of the probable consequences. St. Paul, according to tradition, would learn personally the truth of the statement that the government beareth not the sword in vain. But that is not the main point here. Here, there is just the general reality that being a Christian does not excuse you from using your head, and that, generally speaking, all other things being equal, you will have a more peaceful life if you obey the government when you can.

The power of the government to punish evil and protect good leads to a practical reason for obeying the government, but it also leads to a moral reason. This is the end of verse 5: “Ye must be subject... for conscience sake.” As I said earlier, this points to the fact that the government is established by God and so our faithfulness to God entails a loyalty to the government. But I think it also it includes this idea—that we support the government because it is doing a good thing. The suppression of evil and the punishment of crime may not sound very romantic or idealistic, but it is something that (in this fallen world) is necessary.

Being a doctor may be a dirty, even a bloody job—and there is a case to be made that the modern medical industry is corrupt and inefficient, just as there is a case to be made the modern government is corrupt and inefficient—but in the end, treating illness is a good thing, a service that the world needs, a service without which we would be in a worse place. And because it is a good thing, it deserves support.

And in saying that, we have already touched on another reason for supporting the government. But to get that point into focus, we need to look at the words of Jesus, which were probably in Paul's mind when he wrote this passage. Some of Jesus' enemies had come to try to trap him with a question—they asked him whether or not people should pay taxes to the Roman government. This was Jesus' answer: “Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's. And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.” (Luke 20:24-25) Paul echoes this thought in the final verse of our passage: “Render therefore to all their dues.”

If you hired a workman to come in and pour the concrete for your foundation, he might be, in his personal life, a bad man. He might be uncouth and unpleasant to be around. His attitude might be so bad that you would choose never to employ him again. But if he did the work, you would pay him—you would give him what was his due for doing the work he was to do, regardless of other factors. This is the principle of justice or fairness; it is rendering therefore to all their dues.

That is obviously a basic human principle; justice is one of the four cardinal virtues of pagan philosophy. But is it a Christian ideal? Well, Paul told the Philippians to think upon, meditate upon, treasure up, and esteem highly 'whatsoever things are just.' In several places, he calls upon this principle of fairness to explain why churches ought to support their ministers.

But there is actually a stronger example which we have already talked about here in Romans. “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans6:23) The foundation of the gospel (and of the first half of Romans) is this principle of justice—the principle rendering therefore to all their due. We know that the ungodliness and unrighteousness of man rightfully deserved the wrath of God which was revealed from Heaven against them. It is only with this reality firmly in mind the rest of the gospel story makes sense; there can only be wonder in the forgiveness of a debt if we understand that debts, under normal circumstances, must be paid. Unless we are convinced of the reality of justice, we will never be able to stand in awe of mercy.

So we have this principle—the principle of paying what is owed, the principle of justice. And the reality is that we owe something to our government, even if the government is not an ideal one and not the one we personally would have chosen. William Barclay writes: “[N]o man can, in conscience, opt of the nation. As a part of it, he enjoys certain benefits which he could not have as an individual; but he cannot reasonably claim all the privileges and refuse all the duties.... A man has a duty to the state and must discharge it even if a Nero is on the throne.” (173)

Paul sums up the bottom line of his appeal in verse 7: “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” This is a call for the Christian to pay their debt to the governing powers—to give obedience, respect, and even money as it owed.

Notice that all of this is very personal. There may be something significant about the opening of verse one—this appeal is addressed to 'every soul' or 'every person' as the NET Bible renders it. This is an appeal to the individuals within the church.

Because I think we need to keep this point in mind as we read this passage. Paul was not writing a scholarly treatise on political philosophy; he was not addressing the floor of a governmental party. I think there are some points here that might be helpful in creating a political program or in guiding a political protest, but that is not the main point. 

Paul is addressing individuals and is speaking to them regarding their personal actions and attitudes. Because the truth is this—we are almost always going to be living under a government of some kind and that government will never be perfect. It may be better or worse, but it will always have some problems and some virtues. We can, perhaps even should, attempt to make it better where we can, but we also have to recognize that there always going to be issues. We cannot always change the government—we can never change it completely. What we can change is our own attitude—we can choose to live, as much as we can, a life of obedience and respect. 

There's a saying that the rain falls upon the just and the unjust. And that expression is based on a Bible verse. But the interesting thing is that nowadays when people use the expression they mean that both kinds of people experience trouble. But the Bible uses it to mean that both kinds of people experience God's blessing. Because in Bible times, rain was seen as a good thing since it helped crops to grow. We generally speaking see rain as an inconvenience and a cause for complaint.

The government is like the rain—for better or for worse, it is inevitable. We will always be living under a government like we are always living under the rainfilled heavens. The question is whether we are going to grumble and complain about it, or instead chose to find the good in it and work on despite the inconvenience.

And if we do that, then it will have another consequence. We have referenced a similar passage from Peter; Peter gives essentially the same advice regarding a Christian's attitude toward the government. But he also gives this reason behind his admonition: “For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.” (1 Peter 2:15-16)

Peter's main concern seems to have been this—if Christians had chosen to ignore their responsibility to the government on the basis of their religion—if Christians were noted for careless and criminal behavior, then the watching world would write them off as mere criminals, using their religion as a cover for their own selfish motives—something some professing Christians have been guilty of. Our best shield and defense against that is by living careful and respectful lives even in respect to the government.

The song Obedience says 'Obedience is the very best way to show that we believe.' The song means obedience to God, but even obedience to human law may be a witness. Many people are loyal to the law and the government, either out of fear or philosophy. But those people have trouble standing against the government when it is in the wrong. Many people are disloyal to the law and the government, but they end up hypocritically benefiting from the good of the government or creating a fruitless anarchy. And many more talk a lot on one side or the other without actually accomplishing anything at all. The Christian attitude is starkly different from any of those. It may not be popular with the world, but it is certainly unique enough to call attention to itself. For herein—here in the commonplace, prosaic world of civics and politics—is the righteousness of God revealed through those who live by faith.