Justification by Grace Through Faith Explained

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.6:16-19; 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 self-offering 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.