Download Romans 3:21-26

Romans 3:21-26
Justification By Grace Through Faith Explained
Where this passage falls within the general outline
I. General introduction to the letter (1:1-17)
II. The revelation of universal sinfulness (1:18-3:20)
A. The moral degeneration of all humanity (1:18-32)
B. The principles of God’s righteous judgment upon sin (2:1-16)
C. The spiritual emptiness of rabbinic Judaism (2:17-29)
1). Failure to properly understand and follow the Law (2:17-24)
2). Failure to properly understand circumcision (2:25-29)
D. Defense of God’s faithfulness and the moral guilt of the Jews (3:1-8)
E. The indictment of all as thoroughly sinful (3:9-20)
III. The revelation of the impartation of God’s Righteousness (3:21-5:21)
A. Justification by grace through faith in Christ alone (3:21-31)
1). Justification by Grace through Faith explained (3:21-26)
NASB Text of the passage:
“But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested,
being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God
through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no
distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being
justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ
Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through
faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance
of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I
say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the
justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
Romans 3:21-26
Interpretive Insights:
God’s righteousness is provided by the death of Christ (3:21-26):
Overview of the passage:
This passage contains one of the most precise explanations of the Gospel
in the entire New Testament. It presents in a logical and systematic way how
an individual receives deliverance from the guilt of sin, and the righteousness
necessary to inherit eternal life. Included in this careful explanation of the
Gospel are many profound truths that are the foundation for evangelical
protestant theology.
Up to this point in Paul’s letter he has been discussing how every
individual is guilty before God of sin and rebellion to Him and His ways.
Now that Paul has completed his case for why man is in peril of judgment,
and why human merit cannot save anyone from that judgment (even if one
pursues that merit through attempting to obey Biblical teachings), Paul
moves on to explain the nature of how one can attain the only righteousness
that is sufficient before a absolutely holy God.
It is crucial and fundamental to understanding the Gospel to understand
that human merit can in no way measure up to the righteous expectations of
God. It is equally crucial to understand that the Gospel is built upon the
premise that it is God who saves us by His work, rather than we saving
ourselves. This is the distinction that separates the truth God has revealed
from all humanly conceived religions.
At the beginning of this letter (1:16-17), Paul said that the Gospel is about
the attaining of God’s righteousness, rather than human righteousness. In
this passage Paul spells out precisely how that is accomplished, and therefore
the good news regarding how we can escape the judgment of God.
Specific Interpretive Observations:
Paul begins this portion of his epistle with the words “but now”. Although
many take this to be a temporal reference indicating that Paul is referring to
the new era in salvation history inaugurated by the coming of Christ; it is
much more natural to see these words as a reference to the next logical
sequence in Paul’s argument. This is further demonstrated in Paul’s use of
the contrastive particle but which is meant to convey that Paul has ceased to
write about the revelation of wrath and is moving on to discuss the
manifestation of God’s righteousness. In doing this Paul is addressing the
difference between how human beings in their fallenness tend to address the
gulf between themselves and God on the one hand, and on the other how God
Himself has actually dealt with it. The contrast is between being under the
Law which brings only a recognition of sin with the power of the Gospel
where the guilt of sin is forever removed. Paul’s point is that the human
predicament has been radically transformed because of God’s saving work in
Christ.
Therefore as Paul begins this section he is consciously returning to the
theme he introduced in 1:16-17; that the Gospel is the power of God because
through it is possible to receive God’s righteousness.
The next question that needs to be addressed is in regard to what Paul
means when He refers to “the righteousness of God” (vs.21a)? Some explain
that Paul has in mind a righteousness that has its source in God. Others see
this as a “God-kind of righteousness”. Still others interpreted this expression
to mean God’s saving activity. In examining both the structure of the
grammar and the way Paul develops His discussion of this righteousness it
becomes clear that what Paul is talking about is a righteousness so
intimately related to God that it is a righteousness characterized by the
perfection belonging to all God is and does. It is a “God-righteousness”. A
righteousness that comes from God, in that it has its origin in Him
(something Paul affirms elsewhere in another epistle-I Cor.1:30).
Other references to “the righteousness of God” make it clear that this is
precisely what Paul has in mind when he uses this phrase:
“For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish
their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”
Romans 10:3-4
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us,
that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
II Corinthians 5:21
“and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the
law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness
which is from God by faith;”
Philippians 3:9-10
As is made clear later on in this letter, the righteousness we receive through
justification is the righteousness and obedience of Christ (Rom.5:17-19). It is
the righteousness of the God-man which completely meets all the demands of
God’s justice.
Before going on with Paul’s train of thought it is important to determine
how the next two words in the English translation are to be interpreted. The
next two words are “apart from” and they create an ambiguity of sorts. They
are a translation of the single Greek term choris, which means independent
of, or without relation to. It is an adverb that is used to signify a strong
distinction. The problem is that this phrase “apart from” could be understood
in two different ways. The question is which word or phrase does this
expression modify? It could either be connected to “the righteousness of God”
(meaning it refers to the type of righteousness being discussed); or it could be
connected to “manifested” (meaning the way it was manifested). In English it
this question would be easily solved by word order; however in Greek word
order can be changed for the purpose of emphasis. Those who suggest that
“apart from” explains the way righteousness is manifested interpret this as a
reference to the change in the way God relates to His people, in the New
Covenant era. From this perspective the Law does not refer to God’s specific
commandments that are to obeyed but to His covenantal dealings with His
people. However, it makes more sense to see these words as modifying the
expression “the righteousness of God” and thereby being used to further
clarify Paul’s meaning in regard to this central aspect of his thesis in the
letter. This entire phrase is used in continuation of what Paul had written in
verse twenty (i.e. in contrast to how the Law brings condemnation) and
means that this righteousness from God is defined as being one that is not
gained through obedience to the Law. It is a contrast between two different
relationships to the Law, defined by either dependence or non-dependence
upon it. The critical issue at the heart of this discussion is that either we are
justified by a righteousness that is our own or by someone else’s
righteousness that is credited to us. Traditionally the Roman Catholic
Church has challenged the idea that salvation is by faith alone by arguing
that the NT never specifically says that justification is by faith alone.
However it is traditionally countered that by saying that justification is
independent of the law (vs.21), is a freely given gift (vs.24), and does not
involve the works of the Law (vs.28) that it is using different words to say
precisely this very thing.
Paul is making a distinction between the righteousness that truly saves,
and the righteousness that people tend to rely upon to save them. True
righteousness has its source in God, and is not earned by an individual living
in compliance with the Law of Moses. Contrary to what the Jews (and other
religious groups) taught, the righteousness that comes from God is accounted
to the human soul completely apart from obedience to the Law.
Why is manifested used instead of revealed as it was in 1:17-18? Who does
the manifesting? (vs.21)
Paul next writes that the righteousness of God apart from the Law “is
revealed” (vs.21). The Greek word that is translated as revealed is
pephanerotai (perfect indicative passive, 3rd singular). The perfect tense in
Greek refers to an action that occurred in the past, but has an ongoing impact
up to the present. The passive voice indicates that the subject of the verb is
being acted upon; in this case the subject of the sentence is the righteousness
of God. The definition of the word itself means to make known, to manifest
or to show. The way in which this word is used in the following contexts
demonstrates the idea that the word is intended to convey:
“And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might be manifested to
Israel, I came baptizing in water.”
John 1:31
Here John the Baptizer is saying that he did not recognize Jesus to be the
Messiah, however once John had baptized Jesus, in fulfillment of his Divinely
ordained mission, this truth was made “clear” or “evident” to him, and
ultimately to the people at large.
“Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the
Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness
and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will
come to him from God.”
I Corinthians 4:5
In this usage Paul is talking about how God will cause the hidden truths of
the human heart to be “known” or “revealed” at the time of judgment.
“But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for
everything that becomes visible is light.”
Ephesians 5:13
Finally, in this passage the idea is that light shined upon things that were
previously in the dark, and thus were “revealed”, whereas before they were
hidden. The point then of Paul’s use of this term is that this righteousness,
which saves, comes from God and was previously hidden from the
understanding of mankind under the Old Covenant. However during his
time God’s righteousness was being clearly revealed through the preaching of
the Gospel of Christ, and this revelation of that righteousness remained clear
in the minds of the people to whom Paul wrote (the implications of the perfect
tense). So Paul is indicating that the Gospel he was called to preach is a
further step in the progressive revelation of the outworking of God’s
redemptive plan.
But why does Paul employ a different word for this unveiling of God’s
righteousness than he did in his theme verse, 1:17? Some suggest that there
is no significant difference even though Paul uses two different words, in two
different tenses. Another view is that there is a contrast intended here
between the ongoing revelation of God’s righteousness in the Gospel and the
completed manifestation of His righteousness in Christ’s person and work.
This seems likely sense this same word is regularly used by Paul for the
incarnation and what it accomplished; the nearest parallel to this verse that
indicates this meaning is:
“who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our
works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in
Christ Jesus before time began, but has now been revealed by the appearing
of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and
immortality to light through the gospel”
II Timothy1:9-10.
In order to bring a balanced perspective to the question of the relationship
of the Law to the Gospel, Paul goes on to write that the Gospel (the vehicle
through which man may receive the righteousness of God) was anticipated
and predicted by the Old Testament. Therefore Paul explains that contrary
to the charge of his critics the Gospel is not something which is at odds with
what God had previously revealed. The Law and the Prophets (a common
way of referring to the entire Old Testament) were a “witness” to the truth of
His Gospel. The word for “witness” is martureo, a present passive participle
that means to give testimony about what one knows or has seen. The use of
this word in the form of a present participle indicates that The Old
Testament gives an ongoing testimony to the truthfulness of Paul’s Gospel.
The Old Testament taught the same Gospel as Paul through imagery and
prophecy. Paul wanted his readers to understand that the Gospel which God
had entrusted to him was an expansion and fulfillment of ancient truths that
God had been preparing His people to receive. Paul wants his readers to
understand that just because this is a righteousness that is gained
independently from the Law this does not mean that this way of attaining
righteousness is in contradiction to what the OT taught. The OT repeatedly
pointed to the future work of God that would result in the salvation of His
people through atonement.
“’Behold, the days are coming,’ says the Lord, ‘That I will raise to David a
Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute
judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved,
and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called:
THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.’”
Jeremiah 23:5-6 cf.Isa.45:25
A little later in the epistle Paul will refer to the reality that that Abraham
was himself justified by faith (Gen.15:6) to demonstrate the unity of His
Gospel with the teachings of the OT. Abraham understood this truth in a
shadowy form and looked forward to a fuller revelation of it later. And there
are other examples of this pattern (such as Noah) that are not cited by Paul
here but are by other authors of the NT:
“By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with
godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he
condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness
which is according to faith.”
Hebrews 11:7
According to the author of the book of Hebrews Noah was not righteous
because of what he did but because of his faith in what God said that
compelled him to do it. That the OT attests to the validity of his gospel is
fundamentally important to Paul. This statement is made against the
backdrop of the charges made by Judaizing opponents of Paul’s who
contended that his Gospel of justification by faith was an innovation.
Therefore, he repeatedly takes his readers through this line of reasoning to
demonstrate His fidelity to the inspired truths of the Old Testament.
The main idea of this verse (vs.21) is that the Law does not impart
righteousness, rather it was intended to point the way to where that source
might be found.
Having explained that the righteousness which saves is one that does not
come from the Law, Paul continues with his explanation of that
righteousness in verse 22a with the words “even the righteousness of God”.
The word “even” is the translation of a Greek particle, which in this passage
is used to indicate that the author is providing further definition, meaning
that Paul is transitioning to the next thing he wishes to say about the
righteousness that comes from God; specifically that it comes to a person
“through faith in Jesus Christ” (vs.22b). This clause begins with the
preposition “dia”, which refers to the means by which something is
accomplished. In other words it refers to intermediate agency; meaning that
faith serves as the vehicle through which the gift is given. This reality points
to the fact that faith does not involve merit, as in earning God’s favor. It is
only the means through which the gift is given as opposed to a quality that
actually earns a reward. The nouns of this phrase are in the genitive case.
This case carries with it a variety of subtly different meanings. In this
particular verse the genitive could be understood in one of two ways. Either
it is an objective use, or a subjective use of the genitive case. If it is an
objective genitive it would mean “the faith of Jesus Christ” in the sense of
believing in the objective facts about who Jesus was and what He did. On the
other hand if it is a subjective genitive it would mean that it is a
righteousness that comes through the faithfulness of Jesus that wins
righteousness for us. Because the next phrase expounds upon those who
exercise faith rather than upon the one in whom they place faith in, it is best
understood as an objective use of the phrase. Therefore Paul is writing that
the righteousness of God comes to an individual as a result of their belief in
the truth of who Jesus is, and what He accomplished.
The interesting thing about translating the word faith is the peculiarities
of English regarding this word. The English language has both French and
Germanic roots. Sometimes this dual origin of our language gives the
impression that there are greater distinctions in words than there actually
are. This can be the case in regard to the concept of belief. The root of the
English for believing is from one language, while the root for the noun (faith)
has its source in the other. In Greek every form, whether noun, verb,
adjective, or participle is built on the same root word, “pisteuo”. Therefore,
faith simply means to genuinely believe that something is true, or that an
individual is worthy of being trusted. Because the idea of faith has been so
routinely abused protestant theologians have carefully define three basic
elements that the Bible expresses as being essential to the nature of true
faith. They are:



Intellectual Assent: this refers to a comprehension and acceptance of
the details of the Gospel.
Appropriation: the active reception of Christ as Lord and Savior.
Commitment: which means to entrust oneself to someone, in this case
one’s eternal fate to Christ.
During the Reformation another way of expressing this three-fold
understanding of saving faith emerged that is still based upon the Latin
terms that were used when the reformers debated these issues with the
Roman Catholic Church:


Notitia: knowing the informational content of the Gospel.
Assensus: intellectual consent that the Gospel is true.

Fiducia: the voluntary personal choice to place confident trust in
someone or something.
None of these on their own is to be considered sufficient to be understood as
saving faith, all three are essential to it. Whereas the two explanations
above are almost identical a third evangelical articulation of these same
elements of faith is promoted that is expressed in slightly different way that
those above:

Knowledge: comprehension of the facts of the Gospel


Approval: consenting to the truthfulness of the Gospel
Trust: Choosing to personally depend on Christ for salvation
In this verse we find two forms of the word for belief that are combined to
clarify important elements of the Gospel. First, that the way one receives
this righteousness is through faith; and second that it is the only condition
for receiving salvation, and that it is not on any other basis, such as being a
Jews. There is emphasis in this usage, and the participle is used in an
absolute sense in that it is not necessary to indicate what or whom is believed.
Therefore faith is the sole avenue through which this righteousness comes to
the individual. The content of what must be believed is in Jesus Christ and
in the promise of salvation that can be obtained through Him. It is important
to note that Scripture never says that we are saved on account of one’s faith
in Christ, because faith is not meritorious in and of itself.
Prior to this passage, references to faith in this letter are found only in the
introduction (1:1-17), and in regard to the implications of the absence of faith
(3:4). Basically faith is absent in the discussion of sin and condemnation.
Paul next writes that this righteousness which comes by faith is, “to all
and all who believe; for there is no difference”. The word Paul uses for
“difference” is diastole, and literally it means to send things in two ways, and
thus has the idea of dividing or distinguishing; therefore it refers to any sort
of discernible distinction that differentiates one thing from another. But
what sort of distinction would Paul be referring to in this passage? This is
clearly answered in Paul’s next words, “for all have sinned and fall short of
the glory of God”. The word “for” is used to demonstrate the reason why
there is no distinction; and that reason is twofold:
- Positively: all have sinned
- Negatively: all have fallen short of God’s glory.
As always to correctly understand Paul’s point it is necessary to properly
understand all the terms he is using to make his point:

“have sinned” is a translation of the Greek word hamartano, which
literally means to miss the mark, or fail in one’s intended purpose.


The basic idea is that one has deviated from the intended standard. As
the New Testament develops this concept we learn that it means
failure to live up to God’s standard in thought, attitude, action, or
nature. The aorist tense suggests it is referring to sin in its entirety,
rather than to one particular manifestation of it.
“fall short” is a translation of the Greek word hustereo, which means to
lack, come short of, to be behind in, or to come below expectations. A
metaphor that explains the image that Paul is painting is that of an
archer who has missed a target because the arrow has fallen far short
of the target which the archer has aimed at.
“glory” is a translation of doxa, from which we get the English word
“doxology”. In a literal sense this word was used to describe anything
radiant or with a bright glow. Metaphorically it was used to describe
those things, which would bring honor, praise, or recognition to
someone’s reputation. In this passage glory refers to the wondrous,
majestic moral holiness of God. When man was originally created in
the image of God there was a sense in which man shared in the Divine
glory. As Paul develops the truth of the Gospel it will become clear
that this glory is being recovered in salvation. Paul states this more
directly when describing to the Corinthians the nature of the
transformation that will result from our redemption (II Cor.3:18).
Because of our sin we fall short of the glorious nature of God, but in
Christ we are restored to it. Therefore Paul is saying that due to our
sin we come short of conformity to the glorious nature of God.
Understanding this helps us then have a better grasp on the nature of
how we fall short in sin. It is not simply that human beings do not
achieve enough personal righteousness, but rather that it is entirely
missing due to Adam’s sin and humanity’s fall. In addition the fact
that Paul uses this word in the present tense indicates that this falling
short is an ongoing reality which points to our personal responsibility
for the failure as well.
From how Paul uses these words it becomes clear that Paul is saying that
the reason there is no distinction between people is because every single
person has failed to live up to the revealed standards of God. The implication
is that because of our sin, human beings are all equally unfit to be in God’s
presence. The distinction that Paul was once again resisting was the idea
that some are acceptable to God because of their own righteousness while
others are not. By this point in the letter it is clear that Paul regarded the
idea that a person can genuinely become righteous by their own resources to
be an absurd myth. The only reason this myth persists is because people fail
to grasp the true character of the righteousness that God requires of those
who will dwell in His presence.
Throughout the Scripture we are told that God views the transgression of
His Law with profound displeasure. Further we are told that His wrath is
aroused against all those who sin and that none can expect immunity from
the penalty that is due sin. Finally that penalty for law-breaking is death.
Therefore acceptance with God can only be achieved in a way that is
consistent with the Law and His holy nature. This creates what is seemingly
an irreconcilable dilemma. If only those who are completely sinless will enter
heaven, and if everyone is guilty of sin, how can anyone be saved. It is
precisely this dilemma that the Gospel resolves.
Paul explains that the Gospel sets forth how a sinner can be “justified
freely by His grace” (vs.24). In order to properly understand what Paul is
saying it is important to clearly define the terms he is using.
The two English words “Being Justified” is a translation of the Greek term
dikaioo, which means to “declare righteous” in a judicial sense. Because this
word is in the passive voice it means that the believing sinner is the one
justified by someone else (in this case God), and does not justify himself.
Because it is in the present tense the idea is that this is a linear process, not
something that happens at just one moment in time.
Something that is not clear in English is that the terms “righteousness”
and “justification” both share the same lexical root. Although all these words
share the common idea of what is just or right (according to some objective
code) the specific words that are associated with this root can and do have a
fairly wide range of meanings. Therefore if one is to have a precise definition
of these words it must be determined from the particular context and how
that author uses it in that context.
If we examine the usage of the word “justify” in both Testaments it is clear
that it is used in ways that are incompatible with the idea of making someone
objectively righteous. Instead it demonstrates over and over that the idea is
a judicial pronouncement about someone’s legal standing, or how they are
perceived by others:





(Deut.25:1) This verse is not saying that the judge is responsible to
make people righteous, but rather he is to declare someone righteous
based upon the evidence put before Him.
(Prov.17:15) This verse refers to a judge declaring a wicked person
righteous, which is an evil falsehood; it is not talking about
transforming a person who is evil into one who is righteous.
(Matt.12:37) The point here is not that simply saying something makes
one righteous, but rather what one says is evidence as to whether or
not one will be pronounced righteous in the judgment.
(Luke 7:29) Human being cannot be thought to actually make God
righteous.
(Luke 10:29) It would not make sense to say that this person wanted to
make himself righteous before the Lord, this is clearly a case where the
individual is feeling guilty and wishes to say something that gives the


impression he is righteous (i.e. a self-pronouncement that he is
righteous).
(Luke 16:15) In this verse the narration expresses specifically that the
person is not righteous (i.e they were lovers of money and were
deriding Jesus Himself), and therefore in attacking Jesus they could
not have been making themselves righteous.
(Rom.3:4) Again the subject is God and this passage simply cannot
mean that God is in need of being made righteous.
Therefore Justification is a legal term used to designate the process
through which an individual becomes righteous in God’s sight, but of itself
does not indicate how this is done. The construction of this sentence and the
flow of Paul’s argument in this context clarifies that it is precisely those who
have sinned that are justified. Therefore in the context of salvation it is
those who are in fact guilty of sin who are declared righteous by God.
Therefore it is suggested that the participial form of justified forms a
dependant clause referring back to the “all” of verse 23, and adds a further
explanation of what it means that there are no distinctions from verse 22.
However, some object to this saying that if being justified directly follows
the thought that all have all have sinned. They contend that to do this
makes the number who are saved equal to the number of those who have
sinned and implies a universal salvation, which the rest of the epistle clearly
contradicts. To avoid this conclusion it is suggested that the preceding words
(22b-23) are parenthetical and that this statement completes the thought
begun in 3:22a (to all who believe…).
However there is no indication in the text to take the previous section as a
parenthesis. Also the group as a whole are identified in context as those who
are saved (rather than as a general reference to humanity) therefore there is
no hint of universalism being taught here even in this suggested
interpretation.
The definition of Justification is further clarified by the way it is used in
contrast with condemnation (Rom.8:33-34). To condemn does not mean to
make someone wicked, it simply means to render the verdict that they are
wicked in light of the objective evidence that proves it.
The amazing truth in the Gospel is that the way God justifies the
believing sinner allows for both God’s mercy and His justice to be properly
fulfilled. God can only express His mercy and forgive our sins because His
justice has been fully satisfied on our behalf by Christ’s atoning death.
The following parable further illumines our understanding about the
nature of Justification:
“Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they
were righteous, and despised others: ‘Two men went up to the temple to pray,
one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed
thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men —
extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a
week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' And the tax collector, standing afar
off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying,
'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house
justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be
humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.’”
Luke 18:9-14
In previous portions of this letter Paul has referred to the concept of
“justification”. It is found in the following places:
“for not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law
will be justified.”
Romans 2:13
“May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a
liar, as it is written, ‘That You might be justified in Your words, and might
prevail when You are judged.’”
Romans 3:4
“because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for
through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.”
Romans 3:20
These references are important in understanding Paul’s train of thought.
And this is because the Gospel he taught has never ceased to be
misrepresented and distorted by various ones who claim to be in the Apostolic
tradition. According to traditional Roman Catholic teaching “justification”
means to make one righteous. Therefore they see justification as a process
that God slowly accomplishes through life, and therefore is never certain
until life is over; however the Protestant claim since the Reformation has
been that the term means to “declare righteous” as has been demonstrated
above.
Next Paul writes that this justification is “freely by His grace”. The word
“freely” is a translation of the Greek word “dorea” which is used as an adverb
in this verse. It refers to something that one receives as a gift, or apart from
what someone is owed. Paul uses this same term to describe how he
preached to the Corinthians as a “gift”, because he worked in the area in
another capacity in order to earn his keep, rather than be paid for his
ministry (II Corinth.11:7). Paul is saying in this verse that the mode of
justification is that it comes to the believer as a free gift, the origin of our
justification is that it flows from the grace of God, and the means by which it
is accomplished is through the redemption in Christ. The emphasis
throughout this section is that being declared righteous by God does not in
any way result from what we are or do. In fact Paul has demonstrated that
everything that we are and do actually should compel God to do exactly the
opposite, namely condemn us.
The other word which is paired with “freely” is “grace”. This is perhaps
one of the most crucial terms in the Christian vocabulary. It is a translation
of charis, which means that which is not earned, but is given in spite of what
is earned. The English word charisma comes from this word and means
possessing a charm that is beyond what can be learned or practiced. In the
New Testament the term is used to describe not only something unearned,
but (in reference to salvation) mercy and kindness expressed where only
judgment and punishment were deserved (Eph.2:1-10). Grace (particularly in
the writings of Paul) is the very essence of God’s saving work in Christ. It is
set up as an antithetical contrast to a salvation gained by any sort of merit or
achievement. Therefore grace is by its nature a gifting by God to those who
do not deserve His favor. Paul uses this word not so much to describe a
characteristic of God’s nature but to refer to the way God has acted in Christ
unmotivated by anything outside of His own sovereign purpose. Paul uses
the word grace in the dative case here to indicate that it is the
instrumentality of God’s Justification of believing sinners.
As Paul continues to teach about the nature of Justification he writes that
it is accomplished “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (3:24b).
The English word “redemption” is a translation of apolutrosis. The root of
this word is “luo”, which means to loosen or release. The ending of the word
denotes the means by which something is done, and therefore came to be
used for the payment that brought about the action. Thus the word means to
redeem someone by paying the required price, to secure deliverance or
liberation procured by the payment of a ransom. This concept is based upon
imagery taken from the Roman slave market system. In our natural state,
human beings are viewed as “slaves of sin” (Romans 6:17), who were in
bondage to sin as their master (Romans 7:14), and Christ came to pay a
“ransom” (Mark 10:45) in order to free those whom He therefore purchased
with His own blood (I Peter 1:18), that they might be His (I Cor.15:23).
In the modern era there are many who suggest that redemption refers
only to release and does not include the idea of the payment of a ransom.
Support for this view is sought in the O.T. where the idea of a ransom is
said to be absent from the discussion of redemption.
The noun that is found in Romans 3:24 is found only once in the
Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament). It is found in
Daniel 4:27. It is claimed that the meaning is only of release:
“Therefore, O king, let my advice be acceptable to you; break off your sins by
being righteous, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor. Perhaps
there may be a lengthening of your prosperity.”
Upon closer examination the text actually does speak of a ransom of sorts.
Nebuchadnezzar’s words refer to redeeming himself from the consequences of
his sin through almsgiving. The alms therefore are viewed as a sort of price
by which the King could redeem himself from his sins. Not only this, but if
we examine the use of this word group throughout the Septuagint we find
that though the idea of deliverance is emphasized, these words do include the
idea of ransom as the means by which the deliverance is effected; the lutron
word group in the Septuagint always denotes a price paid. When God is the
subject the idea of payment may be less clear but it is never totally absent.
Therefore as the authors of the NT drew upon their knowledge of this concept
from the Septuagint they had in mind the idea of deliverance by the payment
of a price. So throughout the New Testament “redemption” refers to the
forgiveness of sins based upon the ransom price of the shed blood of Christ.
Though redemption includes the idea of deliverance, there are other words
that do the same which have no other nuance. Therefore since this word
group is chosen it indicates that a more precise term was chosen by the
disciples specifically to express the concept of a deliverance that was
purchased on the basis of a price that was required to be paid. In addition,
even though in this verse the reference to blood is connected grammatically to
propitiation rather than redemption; there is still a clear emphasis on the
cost that makes our redemption possible.
Originally the word described the process of buying back a slave and
giving him his freedom through the payment of a ransom. However in the
New Testament the imagery is not of a purchase that is made in order to set
the slave free, instead it pictures the transfer of slavery from one master to a
new one. We see this in I Cor.6:20 where the word agorazo is translated as
bought and does not carry the idea of final freedom for the one redeemed,
instead it refers rather to the fact that the one purchased has become a slave
of God, because of the price that was paid for them. So throughout the New
Testament it is clear that in every instance (either in the immediate or near
context) that redemption retains the idea of a ransom that is paid in order to
secure release from one’s previous master.
In Galatians 3:13 & 4:5 the word used is “agarazo” which carries the
connotation of the added dimension of the state that results from the
purchasing, being purchased out of their state of slavery to sin. Not only that
these verses teach that the redemption involved Christ purchasing His people
from the curse of the Law. Although born under the Law, Christ was
immune to its curse because of His perfect obedience. However the
deliverance of His people required that He take their place as a cursed
individual and by doing so pay the price of punishment due their sins. Thus
in the New Testament those passages which teach about redemption
demonstrate that there is definitely a substitutionary idea involved. Christ
pays the debt of the sinner by taking His place.
“knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or
gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers,
but with the precious blood of Christ,
as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.”
I Peter 1:18-19
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might
bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit”
I Peter 3:18
Release from the power of sin is the triumphant result of redemption.
Through His work on the cross Christ broke the power of sin over all who
would be united to Him and secured their freedom from it.
There are three aspects of redemption that are clearly presented in the New
Testament:
1. That the believer has been purchased out of the state of sin: the
imagery is of slavery, a captivity from which the individual himself
cannot break free. Therefore God pays the price which we cannot.
2. The price which is paid: the payment of a price is a necessary
component of redemption. The price is equivalent to the debt incurred,
and carries the idea of substitution, bearing what we should have born.
3. The resultant state of the believer: the point of the redemption is that
the individual is no longer under the dominion of sin and instead
belong to their new master God.
The reference to redemption harkens all the way back to the liberation of
Israel from Egypt (Deut.7:8; 9:26; 15:15; 24:18), the ultimate fulfillment of
their redemption of God’s people is of course realized in Christ.
However at this juncture it is fair to ask the question, to whom was this
ransom price paid? One answer that was more popular in the past than it is
in the present is that the ransom was paid to the devil. This was taught by
Origen, a church father from the late second and early third century. This is
almost universally rejected (with the exception of those with a
sensationalistic bent) because there is no evidence anywhere in the New
Testament that would suggest that the devil was either entitled to such a
payment nor that Christ made it to him. Instead it is logical to understand
that the ransom was paid to God whose justice and holiness had been
violated by man’s transgression of His Law:
“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man
Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time”
I Timothy 2:5-6
“who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed
and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.”
Titus 2:14
The contrast between the nature of justification coming as a gift with the
reality that it was made possible by redemption suggests that the latter
includes the idea of a price being paid. The reference to how we are justified
through redemption also emphasizes the costly means by which this
acquitting verdict is made possible.
Paul writes that this redemption is “in Christ Jesus” (vs.24). This phrase
is used more than 80 times by the Apostle Paul, and when combined with
other verbal formulas that mean the same thing the total uses rises to 216.
The idea that is being conveyed in this phrase is Christ is the sphere in which
this redemption is accomplished and that it was completed in the past. This
indicates that Paul is writing about the provision of the redemption rather
than referring to the availability of that redemption in the present.
Elsewhere in Romans Paul teaches us that the abolition of the
condemnation that we were previously under is a result of our being in Christ
(Rom.8:1), and this is the essence of forensic justification. The idea of being
in Christ is clarified in other portions of Paul’s writings as referring to being
in union with Him having been immersed into Him by the Spirit of God:
“For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that
one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we
were all baptized into one body — whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or
free — and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.”
I Corinthians 12:12-13
Most religious systems (as Paul’s own pre-Christian experience) believe
that one is pronounced righteous at the end of one’s life when one is judged
before God. In contrast to this we learn in the Gospel that God pronounces a
person righteous at the beginning of their spiritual pilgrimage. Since this is
so it cannot be on the basis of works, because they have not yet been done.
Having the knowledge of our justification by grace is what enables a person
to have assurance of our acceptance with God and therefore frees us from the
anxiety of wondering if we have done enough to be accepted by Him.
This concept is further reinforced by how “justification” is said to be
accomplished. The process (or pronouncement) is said to be a gift. It is given
as something unearned. Such language would be ridiculous if to justify
meant to make one righteous through obedience to the Law, for that would
result in a righteousness that was earned. Further the fact that we receive
justification is said to be an expression of unmerited favor (i.e. grace) given in
spite of what one deserves. Finally justification comes through Jesus Christ
purchasing the individual by the price of His blood from the moral debt of sin
(that requires death-Rom.6:23). Justification by Grace alone, through faith
alone is one of the defining doctrines of evangelical Protestantism. Apart
from this doctrine there is no Christian Gospel, which is why Paul wrote:
“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the
grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there
are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel
contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we
have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel
contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.”
Galatians 1:6-9
It is true that Justification anticipates an eschatological fulfillment, when we
are actually pronounced righteous at the final judgment, however it is also an
accomplished reality at the moment one exercises genuine faith in Christ’s
atoning work on their behalf:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him
who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has
passed from death into life.”
John 5:24
As Paul continues to explain the nature of how we are saved from sin, he
shifts his focus from how people receive God’s justifying work to God’s
initiative in providing it. The phrase “Whom God set forth as a propitiation”
is the main clause of the sentence, and all the rest of verses 25-26 are
dependent upon it. Paul begins verse 25 with the words “whom God”. The
pronoun “whom” refers to Paul’s reference to “Christ Jesus” in verse 24. The
point in these words is to stress that it is God the Father who takes the
initiative in the process of redemption, not man. The point being that it was
God giving His best for man and not the other way around. God himself
initiates and sets in motion this grand plan of redemption, and He does this
in a way that satisfies the demands of His own righteousness. Therefore this
is in contradiction to the idea that some have in their minds that Christ is at
odds with the Father when it comes to the salvation of mankind. In other
words the Father did not have to be won over by the Son; instead the
Godhead was united in the redemptive plan. Next, Paul writes that Jesus
Christ was “set forth” by the Father God. This expression is a translation of
the Greek word protithemi, which basically means to set something before
the eyes of someone. Because this word is used in the middle voice it draws
attention back to the one who is setting doing the setting forth (in this case
the Father) and carries the idea that the Son is set before the Father to
accomplish a purpose that He has for the Son. The same word in the same
form is used elsewhere by Paul and it is translated in a way that makes both
the meaning of the word and its reflexive usage more clear:
“having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good
pleasure which He purposed in Himself”
Ephesians 1:9
Paul is saying that in a sense God the Father made a public display of His
redemptive program in Christ. Under the Old Covenant the atonement was
made behind the veil in the holy of holies unseen by the eyes of the people,
whereas in Christ the propitiation was made openly for all to see. The word
retains the idea of purpose which it has in the context above and therefore
conveys the idea of giving a purposeful public display.
What is lacking so far in Paul’s explanation of the Gospel is how the death
of Christ was something that could reconcile the relationship between God
and man, and this is the subject that he addresses next. Paul tells his
readers that God the Father set forth His Son Jesus Christ “as a propitiation”.
This English word is a translation of the Greek term hilasterios. There is a
great deal of debate about the precise meaning of this word. The debate is
over whether this term is best translated as expiation or propitiation. To
expiate is to clear one of wrong-doing. Propitiation includes this idea but the
essence of the concept is that God in Christ averted His own wrath from
sinners.
In order to establish which of these is correct requires a rather detailed
examination of how this word group is used in both the Old and New
Testaments. First of all in classical Greek this word was used to refer to the
act of appeasing the Greek gods by a sacrifice so that they would cease to be
angry and instead be favorably disposed toward the worshipper. Although
this is not debated it is suggested by some that this meaning should be
ignored when it comes to its New Testament usage. The heart of the
argument is that this idea of an angry deity fit in well with Greek mythology
but is inconsistent with the loving nature of the God depicted in the
Scriptures. However when one examines all that the Scriptures say about
this concept it becomes clear that God does in fact possess a wrath against
sin which must be appeased.
The Bible frequently and clearly gives testimony that God is both capable
of wrath and that His wrath is aroused in response to human sin:
“You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If you afflict them in any
way, and they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry; and My wrath will
become hot, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives shall be widows,
and your children fatherless.”
Exodus 22:22-24
“They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them.
They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to
it, and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of
Egypt!’ And the Lord said to Moses, ‘I have seen this people, and indeed it is
a stiff-necked people! Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath
may burn hot against them and I may consume them.
And I will make of you a great nation.’”
Exodus 32:8-10
“The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together,
against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, ‘let us break Their
bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us.’ He who sits in the
heavens shall laugh; the LORD shall hold them in derision. Then He shall
speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure”
Psalm 2:2-5
“Behold, the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger,
to lay the land desolate; and He will destroy its sinners from it.”
Isaiah 13:9
“in that you provoke Me to wrath with the works of your hands, burning
incense to other gods in the land of Egypt where you have gone to dwell, that
you may cut yourselves off and be a curse and a reproach among all the
nations of the earth?”
Jeremiah 44:8
“Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words
which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets.
Thus great wrath came from the Lord of hosts.”
Zechariah 7:12
“He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe
the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
John 3:36
“and said to the mountains and rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of
Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great
day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?’”
Revelation 6:16-17
The wrath of God stresses the seriousness of sin. In Paul’s Gospel, sin is
not a triviality that a benevolent God in His kindness can merely over look.
On the contrary God loves righteousness and absolutely hates sin (Prov.6:1619; Jer.44:4; Zech.8:16ff.).
Another argument that is advanced against the idea that the meaning is
propitiation is that this is not the way the term is used in the Septuagint (the
200 BC translation of the Old Testament).
The question is whether or not this suggestion is true. The most common
usage of this word in the LXX (Abbreviation for the Septuagint) is for the
Hebrew word “kapporet” which meant the place where sins are atoned for or
blotted out; and referred to the mercy seat or golden lid of the Ark of the
Covenant. The noun form occurs 22 times, and occurs in Hebrews 9:5, where
it is translated as “mercy seat”. The compound verb form is (Greek form)
found far more often and about 80% of the time it is used for the Hebrew
kipper to cover. Ironically this more popular form in the LXX does not occur
in the NT. The verb form hilaskomai is used only 12 times and has the
meaning of showing mercy or forgiving someone; it is found in Lk.18:13-14 as
a cry for God to show mercy, and speaks of this as the way in which someone
is justified. This word which is found in the book of Romans is used in three
other places in the New Testament where it is translated as “propitiation”:
“Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might
be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make
propitiation for the sins of the people.”
Hebrews 2:17
In this context it has a distinctly priestly indication. The concept here is
related to sacrifices that are made which provide reconciliation between an
offended God and His sinful people. This speaks of Christ acting as both the
high priest who makes the offering and as the offering itself which satisfies
the wrath of God. The reference here to Christ as High Priest emphasizes
His role as the representative of those He came to save. In addition in this
passage there is specific reference made that the objective in propitiation is to
address the issue of human sin.
“In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son
to be the propitiation for our sins.”
I John 4:10 (cf. I John 2:2)
In this passage the emphasis is upon the love of God that motivated Him to
send His Son as the propitiation for sins.
The OT idea of propitiation must be understood in context with the way
sin is viewed in the OT. Any offense against the covenant Law of Yahweh
gives rise to objective guilt, which sets in motion a retributive response from
Him as a necessary punishment of the offender. The cause and effect of sin
and calamity can only be halted by Yahweh through channeling the
consequences of the sin away from the one who sins to an animal that dies in
the sinner’s place. Propitiation is the way God does away with human sin,
not symbolically as in Lev.16, but actuality removing it from His presence by
executing the penalty that is due because of it.
As was noted above a form of the Greek word used here in Romans 3:25 is
used 21 of its 27 times in the LXX to refer to the mercy seat, and is translated
the same way in its only other NT occurrence (Heb.9:5). This suggests that
there is a significant connection in the mind of the authors of the NT between
what Christ did on the cross and the place where atonement was made in the
OT. Paul may be framing his thought in this way because from a New
Testament perspective Christ is the New Covenant fulfillment of the
sacrificial system that was administered by the Levitical Priesthood.
Through the use of this word Paul indicates that Christ has become in a
sense the place where the satisfaction for sin is made.
One thing that is not clear about this word is whether propitiation is used
as an adjective, or a noun in Romans 3:25. Since the noun form is far more
common and there is no contextual evidence to indicate it is an adjective it is
best to see this as a predicate noun which modifies the pronoun “whom”.
In the NIV this word is translated as “atonement”. By contrast the Word
“atonement” is not found at all in the NT in the three best word for word
translations (NAS, NKJ, ESV). The Hebrew word for atonement in the OT
means “to cover over sin” and thus satisfy the deity to whom the atonement is
directed. The idea of covering which is the root idea does not merely refer to
concealing something. Instead it suggests the imposition of something that
changes its nature or appearance. It is therefore employed to signify the
cancellation of sin or overlaying it with something. Although this is a similar
concept it is distinct from propitiation because it does not necessarily include
the idea of averting wrath. Therefore “atonement” is not a proper translation
of this nor any other particular word found in the New Testament.
Though it is important to distinguish the meaning of the words atonement
and propitiation, it does not mean that the concepts are unrelated. The New
Testament teaching on propitiation is built upon the OT concept of
atonement. On the Day of Atonement the sacrifices were intended to fulfill a
two-fold purpose: to satisfy God’s justice, and to cleanse those who came to
worship Him. In Leviticus chapter 16, there are two distinct portions of the
ritual for the Day of Atonement that demonstrate pattern of Atonement that
would later find its ultimate fulfillment in Christ. First, there was the idea of
substitution wherein through the laying on of hands the sin of the people was
transferred from the guilty to the innocent (a goat) as a sin-bearer. Second,
the sin-bearer is sent away never to return, in a sense taking the sin of the
people away with him. The animals that were offered on the altar provided
atonement for sin and the means of communion between God and His people.
Atonement by substitutionary blood was always necessary in approaching
God. Yet we know from the book of Hebrews that:
“For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very
image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer
continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would
they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would
have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a
reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and
goats could take away sins.”
Hebrews 10:1-4
The reason the OT sacrifices were inadequate is because they were not able
to effect the complete removal of sin. The book of Hebrews makes it clear
that it was Christ who was the ultimate offering for sin who alone could
remove it forever from those to whom His blood was applied. This means
that the propitiatory sacrifice is a substitution because those who previous
were under His wrath are no longer so because of the death of Christ which is
made on their behalf. Because those who believe need no longer fear His
wrath.
Another question in regard to propitiation is what its relationship to faith?
Faith is the responsibility of the individual that is necessary if the benefit
resulting from the propitiation is to be applied to them.
So we see that in these few verses judicial pardon (law court), purchased
liberation (slave market), and the fulfillment of the need for sacrificial
atonement (the altar) are all used to describe the richness of God’s gracious
act in Christ.
Paul next includes three prepositional phrases that clarify the nature of
this propitiation. The propitiation was in His blood, it was through faith, and
it was to demonstrate His righteousness. First, the propitiation is said to be
“by His blood”. This of course refers to the sacrificial death of Christ, and
sets forth the means by which God’s wrath is appeased. It is in the sphere of
Christ’s death that the righteous requirement of death for sin is paid.
References to the shedding of Christ’s blood as a way of speaking of His death
most likely rest upon Leviticus 17:11:
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the
altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes
atonement for the soul.”
Blood is presented as the essence of physical life, and the shedding of it is the
surrendering or loss of life. Through the sacrificial system the offering of
blood for sin was so engrained in the minds of the Jews and the proselytes
that to speak of the death of Christ in this way evoked the image of sacrifice
in a way the word death would not, and demonstrated that His death was
specifically an act of atonement. This is seen in how blood and death are
used as synonyms by Paul in Rom.5:9-10.
The second prepositional phrase is, “through faith”. This phrase expresses
how the propitiation is applied to the individual. The satisfaction of offended
justice is applied to the individual through the agency of that person’s faith in
Jesus’ act of sacrifice. Faith is not linked grammatically to blood but to
propitiation. The reference to faith harkens back to verse 22 where Paul
refers to faith in Christ in a general sense without a particular object being
employed. In this verse Paul clarifies precisely the end toward which the
believer places his /her trust in Christ.
The third prepositional phrase is “to demonstrate His righteousness”. The
word “demonstrate” is a translation of the Greek term endeixis which refers
to proof, a sign or an omen that something is so. The demonstration in mind
here is that God was not unrighteous when He passed over sins committed in
the past. This relates to the ages before Christ and mirrors what Paul said in
Acts 17:30:
“Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men
everywhere to repent”
In another of his letters Paul uses this same term, and in that case it is
translated “sign”, meaning something which indicates or points out
something else:
“and not in any way terrified by your adversaries, which is to them a proof of
perdition, but to you of salvation, and that from God.”
Philippians 1:28
The inherent meaning in the word is that of objective evidence. Therefore,
Paul is continuing to use legal terminology as he paints a picture of the final
tribunal that will try the souls of all men. According to Paul, the propitiation
that Jesus accomplished was orchestrated by the Father to demonstrate (or
act as evidence) that God is righteous.
There are two clauses which parallel one another and modify the verb
translated as “set forth”. The first of these focuses upon how the propitiatory
sacrifice of Christ enabled God to maintain His righteous character while
postponing the punishment of sins in the past; the second shows how this
same sacrifice preserved God’s righteous character as He justifies believing
sinners in the present.
The natural question here was why would anyone question God’s
righteous character? And therefore why is such a demonstration even
necessary? The reason this is necessary lies within the criticism that was
leveled against Paul and his Gospel by those Jews who wanted to insist that
obedience to the Mosaic Law was a necessary aspect of how one was justified
before God (as do many contemporary Christian groups). The rationale of
these Jews was that if God forgives those who are unrighteous without
requiring them to earn their acceptance with God then in effect He is letting
guilty people go unpunished and thus would Himself be guilty of injustice.
This is because justice demands that the guilty be punished just as it does
that the innocent go free. To not do so suggests that evil is either condoned
or ignored, and either is unjust.
The next portion of Paul’s discussion addresses that issue when he writes,
“because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously
committed”(vs.25).
The English word “forbearance” is a translation of the Greek term anoche,
which means to hold back, to delay or pause; and therefore to forbear. This
word refers to God withholding punishment when He would have been
justified by inflicting it. So it indicates that for a time God suffered with and
tolerated the sin of His people, but did so with an end in mind.
But to what is Paul referring? When exactly did God pass over sins?
Although that question is not directly answered in these verses, it is clear
from the context (the reference to the list of sins cataloged in the OT
quotations cited earlier in the chapter), that the previously committed sins
were those which occurred before the death of Christ. The reason that God
postponed the full penalty for sins was His anticipation of the payment for
those sins that would be made through the offering of Christ.
The expression “passed over” (vs.25) is a translation of the Greek word
paresis, which means to pass over in the sense of letting someone go
unpunished or to release someone from a debt or an obligation. It does not
mean forgiven, only that the sin was not addressed. This is why God might
be accused of being unrighteous (and probably was by the evil one), because
God did not execute judgment upon the sins of His people, but essentially
ignored them. The word translated as “previously committed” is in the
perfect tense and suggest that not only have these sins taken place, they
continue in some sense. The idea seems to be that implications of those sins
continued long after they were committed.
The teaching of this verse then is that the death of Christ satisfied the
requirements of God’s righteous judgment, and in doing so exonerated His
reputation for not punishing the sins of His people under the Old Covenant.
Therefore Paul is teaching here that the OT sacrifices could not bring
forgiveness and implies by saying this that all along these sacrifices simply
foreshadowed the forgiveness that would come through Christ. This was
possible because God patiently bore with the sins committed under the Old
Covenant. God was therefore looking ahead to the death of Christ as the true
sacrifice for sins.
In verse 26, Paul continues this train of thought and writes, “to
demonstrate at the present time”. In this phrase Paul adds that the
“evidence” (see verse 25) that in fact God is righteous was manifested during
their lifetime, after centuries of God over-looking the sins of His people.
This phrase is a purpose clause introduced by the preposition pros, which
further elaborates on the purpose behind the offering of Christ. The
expression “this present time” is a translation of the Greek word kairos,
which refers to a set period of time or a season with the nuance of that which
is favorable or fit for something. It could be translated as “at this present
season”, and is used in contrast with the past. It denotes not just a moment
in time, or the passage of time, but a time pregnant with significance; the
appointed or opportune time. It is used in reference to that time in the past
when God was forbearing with sins.
The next phrase is another purpose clause formed by using an article with
the infinitive, which is also an accusative of general reference.
The profound truth within this verse is that it explains how God has
harmonized two apparently contradictory aspects of His character. God is
just and righteous; therefore it is in His nature to render to everyone
precisely what he or she deserves, and to punish all wickedness. The
righteousness that Paul has in mind here relates specifically to how He
chooses to act in saving sinful men rather than as a reference to His
righteous nature in general. This is because the flow of thought relates
directly to His justification of sinners in His role as judge.
Of course it is a part of God’s nature that He is irreconcilably opposed to
sin. Yet it is also true that He loves His people and is intent on reconciling
them to Himself.
These two orientations would seem to be irreconcilable. The contradictory
tension between these two attributes of God has spawned many diverse
theories of how a person can be saved. These solutions to the dilemma
compromise either one or the other of these truths about God’s nature in the
development of their scheme of salvation.
Only Biblical Christianity contains the true and balanced solution. That
is because no one but God could resolve this problem, and He did so by being
faithful to both aspects of His nature through the cost of the cross. In this
way God could be just and still express His phenomenal compassion and save
His people.
What this verse reveals is that God executes His wrath in absolute
equitable justice upon all sin. However for the believer God’s righteous Son
pays the penalty of death for their sins (II Corinth.5:21), and in doing so
demonstrates the Father to be genuinely righteous (because no one gets away
with anything). Yet at the very same time, because of this payment the
individual who trusts in Christ is declared righteous on the basis of the
imputation of Christ’s righteousness to him (Rom.10:9-10). Thus God’s loving
goal of saving His people is also accomplished. The phrase “just and justifier”
is used in a concessive sense, and means “just even in justifying”. In the selfoffering of Christ, God’s righteousness is vindicated and the believing sinner
is justified. This is reminiscent of the language of Isaiah:
“Tell and bring forth your case; yes, let them take counsel together. Who has
declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I,
the Lord? And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior;
there is none besides Me.”
Isaiah 45:21
The qualification that must be met in order to qualify for this great salvation
is to be one who “has faith in Jesus” (vs.26b). This expression does not
simply mean one who believes, but refers to one for whom belief is a
characteristic of life.
It is interesting to note that Paul is not addressing forgiveness in this
epistle, but is addressing how to be righteous in God’s sight. This is because
Paul has chosen to explain the Gospel with forensic language to emphasize
the need of being acknowledged as righteous in God’s sight in light of the
reality that by nature all people are unrighteous and guilty and thus will be
condemned in God’s court.
Paul has addressed in this passage what is the real obstacle of our
salvation. How does a righteous God forgive sinners without He Himself
becoming unjust. Through the cross God demonstrates forever that God is in
fact supremely just (because each and every sin is punished) and supremely
gracious (because sinners are completely forgiven in spite of the reality that
they are still sinner). The point here is that the cross was the ultimate
vindication of God’s righteousness.
The tension in Scripture is not the same as in our day. In our thinking we
find it difficult to understand how God can be just in punishing sinful people;
in the Scriptures the questions is how can God justly forgive anyone?
The application of this principle is to understand that the salvation
process takes place within the tension that we are both sinner and righteous
at the same time.