Romans
Chapter Three.
3:1-8. Jewish Objections. In these verses Paul anticipates the
objections of the Jew who contests his conclusions. The arguments raised were typical of those he
often met. Paul's reasoning here is not
easy to follow - his answers are partial and incomplete and are marked by a
hurriedness. These are problems he discusses more fully in chapters 9-11.
3:1. The first objection. What advantage then hath the Jew? Chapter 2 concludes in proving the Jew guilty
before God and completely undermines any confidence the Jew would have in his
Jewish nationality, or in circumcision.
We might then, have expected Paul to reply that the Jew has no
advantage, and indeed in verse 9, Paul returns to the argument of chapter 2, by
asserting that Jews are no better off than the Gentiles, for all are under
sin. However, Paul did not lack
appreciation of the unique place the Jewish people had in the redemptive
purpose of God. To deny this, would
amount to a repudiation of the Old Testament and scandalize every Jew who
valued his nation's history. Paul is
ready to acknowledge what God had freely bestowed upon Israel.
3:2. The
advantage of the Jew was great from every viewpoint, but their chief or
principal advantage was that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. This was their most distinctive
advantage. They were made stewards of
the savings ('logia') or utterances of God.
These oracles are the Old Testament Scriptures, but especially as
containing God's law, covenants and promises.
3:3. The phrase
'without faith' is passive form of 'apisteo', "unfaithful,
disbelieve." N.E.B. and R.S.V. have
"unfaithful." Some were
unfaithful to the Divine oracles entrusted to them. Verse 3 contains not the words of an
objector, but a point that arises from the previous verse. What if some Jews (actually 'many') proved
untrustworthy, shall their unfaithfulness nullify the faithfulness of God to
His word of promise to Israel? Not at all, for God will certainly be true to
His word. The word, 'some' ('tines'), is
important. Not all Jews are unfaithful,
for there is a believing remnant, and God shall finally work out His purpose in
bringing Israel
to faith. The Jew who repents and
believes the Gospel, enters into the good of God's promises in Christ.
3:4. God must be true. Lit. 'become true'. He must be true as to the fulfilment of His
promise. Anything else is
unthinkable. God must be seen to be
true, though every man is discovered a liar (Psa.116:11). Then shall come true, also the words of Psalm
51:4. "When thou speakest thou
shalt be vindicated, and win the verdict when thou art on trial." It is Israel and not God who shall be
found false. In that the Jew possesses
the oracles to which God is bound to be true, gives him great advantage. He above other men has the background and
conditions most conducive to the faith of the Gospel, but it also makes his
unbelief the less excusable.
3:5. A fresh objection. The 'diatribe' continues and the heckler
retorts, "but if that is the case, then we conclude that our
unrighteousness serves the purpose of showing forth the righteousness of
God." This objection is prompted by
Paul's statement that mans unfaithfulness exhibits more clearly that God is
faithful and true. Our unrighteousness
commends God's righteousness. If our
wickedness serves to show the justice of God, is it just that He should inflict
wrath upon us for the sin that does bring into greater relief His justice? The heckler seems to be saying that if God's
justice is magnified in condemning sinners, then it is good that there should
be sins to be condemned and God has no right to inflict wrath on sinners. Paul apologizes for speaking in human terms,
and resorting to human logic and argument to refute these objections.
3:6. The suggestion
that God is unjust cannot be maintained for a moment. If it is an unrighteous thing for God to
visit wickedness with wrath, how then shall He judge the world? That God must judge the world is
indisputable. To deny this fact, is to
deny man's moral responsibility, and usher in moral chaos. The Judge of all the earth shall do right.
(Gen.18:25).
3:7. The third objection. In a final attempt to maintain the advantage
of the Jew, the objector makes a third attack on Paul's teaching. He takes as his starting point, the words of
Paul in verse 4. The Jewish opponent
argues that “if by his unbelief and falsehood (being found a liar), God's
truthfulness abound to an increase of His glory, why then, am I still condemned
as a sinner?” The objector would argue
that his sin is not sin for it promotes the glory of God. If such really was the case then the whole
moral order must break down. The
objector may be a Jew, who maintains that Jews by their falsehood only
emphasize God's truth and, therefore, ought not to be punished as sinners. The word, 'lie' ('pseuma'), may have
especially in view, the falsehood of the Jew and his unfaithfulness to the
truth of God. Paul here argues with the
man, especially the Jew, who would claim immunity from God's punishment of his
sin.
3:8. Paul stops
short at the argument with the man who flouts all moral demands. He will not argue with the man who reasons at
the expense of his conscience. The
condemnation of such men is just (Gore).
There were those who found support for this perversion of moral order in
the teaching of Paul. They possibly
seized upon his doctrine of justification by faith alone to support their false
position. Again, the condemnation of
such men is just.
3:9. The Law or
the Old Testament testifies to the sinfulness and inexcusableness of Jew and
Gentile. "What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all." R.S.V. The Greek original is difficult and there are
other possible translations. The general
meaning appears to be, "since it is conceded that there is an advantage in
being a Jew, are not we Jews better off than Gentiles?" Paul replies, "No, not at
all." For whatever advantage the
Jew has, it does not give any immunity from God's wrath upon sin. Here, the Jew has no such privilege as will
give him exemption from God's wrath upon sin.
Paul's willingness to admit that the Jews were a privilege people did
not in any way mitigate the indictment he has already made - that all men, both
Jew and Greek, are under the power of sin.
The universality of sin is put beyond any doubt by the words of Paul in
this verse.
3:10-20. The Indictment of the Law. The Law is here to be understood in the
wider sense, meaning the Old Testament.
Paul puts together a number of Old Testament Scriptures. They were especially applicable to the Jew.
Romans.
3:10-12. - Psalms. 14:1-3. Romans. 3:13. - Psalms.
5:9; 140:3.
" 3:14. -
" 10:7. " 3:15-17.
- Isaiah. 59:7-3.
" 3:19. -
Psa. 36:1.
3:19. The
quotations from the Law (O.T.), in the first instance, apply to ungodly
Israelites. The testimony of the Law is
first of all, to those under the Law, i.e. the Jews. The sin and guilt of the Jews is indisputable
and proved from their Scriptures. In
establishing the guilt of the Jew, the final defendant, is convicted and the
whole world is brought under the judgment of
God. The testimony of the Law is
final and indisputable in respect of the guilt of Israel. The sin of the Gentiles was obvious, and
there had been no dispute concerning it.
But the sin of the Jew had to be established in the face of much Jewish
opposition. The testimony of the Old
Testament to the sinfulness of the Jews is also a testimony to the universal
sin of men. In the matter of sin, the
Jew is not distinct from other men.
Every mouth shall be stopped in the attempt to defend oneself (See
N.E.B.). The whole human race can offer
no excuse for sin and stands exposed to the judgment of God. This is the situation or predicament in which
Paul sees the human race. It is this
that constitutes man's need of the Gospel.
The sinner is exposed to the judgment of God, and from this situation he
needs deliverance.
3:20. The Law
cannot help a man, neither can a man help himself by works of the Law. There is no acquittal under Law, for it
brings the knowledge of sin and therefore our peril. Plainly that which brings the knowledge of
sin does not justify, but condemns.
Pauline
Hamartiology :
Sin. The noun is
'hamartia', and the verb 'hamartano'.
'Hamartano' means, "miss the mark," was used in the physical
sense of missing the mark or target. It
was bad shooting. But it came to mean,
to fail of one's purpose, to neglect, and was used of both intellectual and
moral failure. Hence, it could mean,
intellectually mistaken or moral failure, to miss the mark of virtue. - Kittel.
The use of 'hamartia in the LXX to translate a number of
Hebrew words, intensified its religious and moral meaning. It translates such Hebrew words as,
'chattath' (note Judges 20:16) (miss the mark), 'Psha' (rebellion), 'awon'
(iniquity), 'ashom' (guilt). 'Hamartia',
occurs about 46 times in Romans. Sin for
Paul is disobedience, and is therefore, inexcusable (5:19). An important feature in Romans is the way
Paul personifies sin. As a demonic
force, sin entered the world through Adam, and has established its tyranny over
all men. (See 5:12 and 3:9). Sin is an invader, dictator, tyrant,
legislater, generally, 'lissimo'.
'Hamartia' is feminine in gender, so Bn. suggests, "Queen
Sin."
The following points show how Paul personifies sin:-
* Entered the world. 5:12. * Death and Resurrection of sin. 7:8-9.
* Reigned. 5:21. 6:12. * Seizes a base for operations. 7:11.
* Slave owner. 6:6, 14, 17, 18. *
Deceived. 7:11.
* Its weapons. 6:13. *
Sin dwells. 7:17.
* Pays wages. 6:23. *
Its campaign/ prisoners of war. 7:23.
* It's law. 7:23.
This conception of sin as a tyrannical power, is most important for the
understanding of Romans. It is vital to Paul's thought as to salvation
and also his doctrine of Atonement. This
is one of the most important clues to Paul's theology in this epistle.
The Second and
Central Topic.
* The righteousness
which is through faith. 3:21 - 4:25.
* "The marrow
of theology" (Godet). The
righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel.
3:21-26.
Its distinctive characteristics:-
a. Independence of law. A
new and radical idea of righteousness, for the Jew associated righteousness
with the Law. But this righteousness is
on an entirely different basis to that of keeping the Law.
b. Fulfilment. The Old Testament bore witness to the New
Age of righteousness.
c. Catholicity. The New Order of righteousness is available
to all believers without distinction.
Its universality is one of the
most distinctive features.
d.
Soteriological. God's
righteousness is His activity and power operating for the salvation of men.
The whole passage turns on the Divine activity and the
salvation of men is placed on a Divine basis.
e. Freeness. God's activity in justifying is His gracious
gift to the undeserving
f. Sacrificial
means. The terminology points to the
sacrificial nature of the death of Christ.
* Blood. * Propitiation or Expiation. *
Redemption.
g. The human
response. Faith of Jesus Christ, is the instrument by which we
participate in the
righteousness of
God.
3:21. "But now." ('nuni de'). This can have a logical or temporal force:-
a. Logical.
"The situation being such."
The historical situation of the Jew and Gentile has been
described. They are alike, sinners exposed to God's
wrath. But now things are different -
for
God has
intervened to save men.
b. Temporal. Now, in the present Christian dispensation,
which has been inaugurated by the work of Christ. Both meanings may be present, for the two
ideas overlap. Through the Cross God
began a New Age, a New Order, a New Situation.
Apart from the Law.
It is quite independent of the Law.
God could manifest His righteousness through the Law to condemn, but not
to save.
"A
righteousness of God." It stands in contrast to the wrath of
God. The background to the Gospel, is
the wretchedness of men as under the power of sin, and is exposed to God's
judgment. This manifestation of
righteousness is the effective intervention by God in Christ for saving
sinners. God saves men by giving them a
new status of righteousness before Him.
"Hath
been manifested."
Perfect tense. This indicates the
completeness and permanence of the manifestation of the 'dikaiosune' of
God.
Note, "revealed" in 1:17, is in the present tense.
"Being
witnessed by the Law and the prophets." The manifestation of God's righteousness is
apart, distinct and independent of the Law.
Even if a man kept the legal requirements of the law of the Old
Testament that would not enable him to share in the righteousness of God, which
is received on the principle of faith.
However, this apartness or independence from Law does not mean that the
Law has no word concerning the Righteousness of God. It was attested by the Law and the prophets.
Paul couples the Law with the prophets and so comprises the whole of the Old
Testament revelation. The older
revelation bore witness to the New Order and the Gospel was the fulfilment of
the Old Testament Scriptures. The
writers of the New Testament place emphasis upon the fulfilment of the
Scriptures in the Person and Work of Christ.
“Fulfilment” was one of the
keynotes of apostolic preaching.
3:22. The N.E.B.
translates 'dikaiosune theou', "by God's justice," (3:21), but here
translates the same words, "God's way of righting wrong." The R.V. and the R.S.V. have,
"righteousness of God." This
righteousness is on the principle of faith in Jesus Christ "unto all them
that believe." This should be
compared with 1:17, "by faith to faith." This righteousness is through faith in Jesus
Christ (faith is personal reliance on Him) and it is unto all them that believe
or trust in Him. It is accessible to all
through faith in Jesus Christ and all who believe become recipients of it. It is on the principle of faith for all men
without distinction of race or any other distinction, "for all have sinned
and come short of the glory of God."
The fact of universal sin breaks down every distinction among men.
3:23. That all men
have sinned makes them without distinction.
The saving justice of God comes to men in their need as sinners. If it was offered to men because of what they
achieved then it would not be available to any of them. But because it is manifested on the principle
of faith it becomes available to all men. (See 11:32. R.V.).
The word, 'hemarton', aorist, "sinned." The words, "all sinned," are a good
summary of chapters 1:18 - 3:20.
"The
glory of God." This may mean:-
* The approbation,
approval, and praise of God. (Dy.).
* God's intention
for men. (See 2:10). Glory is God's intention for men but sin has
kept that intention from realization. So
the glory is the gift which makes men share in the Divine nature and becomes
ours in justification by faith. (Bn.).
* The glory with
which Adam was created and which he (and all mankind with him) lost through
sin. (Bt.). It is man's original state
as created in the likeness of God. - Knox.
(See 1.Cor.11:7). Because of sin,
man is falling short of this true character and the destiny which belongs with
it. Men fall short of what God
intended them to be. God created man in His own likeness and
image, but sin has deprived men of realising the presence and communion of
God. This is what theologians call 'the Fall',
though it means here, that all are falling short, that is, all are lacking,
devoid of, deprived of , the glory of
God.
3:24. "Being
justified." These words refer to
"them that believe" in verse 22. 'Dikaioo'.
In classical Greek, literally it signifies, to treat justly,
or to do justice to a man, either to condemn a guilty person, or to acquit an
innocent person. K., Roman Catholics
have argued, it means "to make righteous." However, modern Catholic Biblical Scholars
are less inclined to insist on this meaning.
Bt. a Methodist, actually favours, "to make righteous", but
recognizes that "righteous" does not mean virtuous, but "right,
clear, acquitted," in God's Court.
Bt. argues that this does justice to the causative force of the Hebrew
word, 'hitzdiq', which 'dikaioo' translates in the LXX. Some prefer the meaning, "to make
right." We were wrong with God, but
are now made right with Him, and are given a new relationship, status, or
standing.
Modern Biblical scholars make much of the Old Testament background and they note
that righteousness is a salvation word.
Therefore, to justify, means to save.
This is on right lines, but we must not overlook the forensic background
to the word justify. It expresses the
verdict of the Judge. It means to
pronounce righteous, to acquit. This
meaning is demanded in Romans, where the background is the revelation of the
wrath of God, and the pronouncement that all men are under the judgment of
God. Ryder Smith argues from 5:9, that
justification is not associated with deliverance from wrath. But in 1:17-18, Paul definitely sets the
revelation of God's saving righteousness in relation to man's peril under God's
wrath. That all men are exposed to the
wrath of God, constitutes their great need of righteousness through faith. To arrive at the meaning of the word
'justify', it is important to see what state is remedied by justification. Paul has in mind the universal sinfulness of
men. The whole world stands under the
judgment of God. Now this is the
situation that God's justifying grace seeks to remedy.
Observe :-
1. Justification is
the opposite of condemnation, (5:16, 18; 8:1).
In 8:1, "no condemnation" defines the new status of all
believers in Christ Jesus. This verse is
in a context where deliverance from sins power is emphasized. When Paul thinks of deliverance from the rule
of sin, it is first and fundamentally freedom from sin's doom. It is the fact that the tyrant sin is under
the judgment of God that makes its rule so disastrous. Therefore freedom from sin is based on our
deliverance from condemnation, the state of everyone under sin's dominion. Since all who are in Christ Jesus are free
from condemnation then justification signifies a new status, a new relationship
in which we are in the right with God.
Chapter 8:1 designates an absolute status that is true of all believers.
- Kelly.
2. Justification is
the opposite of accusation. (8:33). None
can lay anything to the charge of God's elect, whom He has justified.
3. God justifies the
ungodly. (4:5). This verse puts beyond
dispute the meaning of the word, 'justify'.
The impious man who is devoid of personal worth, is justified if he
believes God's promise.
4. The use of
'logizomai' suggests that to justify means to confer a new status. 'Logizomai' occurs 11 times in chapter 4,
and in the A.V. is variously translated, "counted, reckoned,
imputed."
5. God's gift. That justification is a Divine gift, and is
not earned, is emphasized in 3:24; 4:4-7; 5:15-18. Its character as a Divine gift is contrasted
with works. It is God's gift to sinners.
6. It is received by
faith. Here, it is important to define
faith. It is trust or personal reliance
upon a personal Saviour. Rom.10:10,
"with the heart man believeth unto righteousness," and also in verse
9, "shalt believe in thine heart."
It is clearly a believing disposition, an inward reliance upon Christ,
and it is concerned with certain specific facts about Christ.
"Freely." 'Dorean', as a free gift, freely, without
payment, gratis, for nothing. 'Dorean'
occurs in Jn.15:25, "without cause." 2.Thess.3:8, "for
nought." Gal.2:21, "in
vain." A.V. The new status of
righteousness is a free gift. Gratuitous
. We neither deserved nor earned
it. It is without cost, and is perfectly
free. The sinner contributes nothing to
it, but is justified without a cause.
"By His
grace." This amplifies the
word, "freely", N.E.B., "by God's free grace alone." It is for nothing, the sinner cannot contribute anything, God has contributed
all. It would not be possible to state
more clearly, the freeness of justification.
The pronoun, "His," has a certain emphasis.
"Grace." 'Charis', this word in Classical writers, has
a wide range of meanings, including, gracefulness, attractiveness, the quality
of giving pleasure, kindness, goodwill (towards others). In the New Testament 'charis' has different
uses, but a distinctive meaning, and one peculiar to the New Testament is,
"favour towards men contrary to their deserts." Unearned and undeserved favour. God's grace is His love in its overflow,
outflow and downflow to sinful men.
Grace is God's compassionate and redemptive activity towards sinners. His own active and personal favour and
kindness to those who do not merit such favour.
It is the expression of His merciful and loving will, personally
intervening to bestow undeserving men His free gift of acceptance with
Himself. Justifying righteousness is the
activity of grace.
"Through
the redemption."
This indicates the form God's gracious activity took to accomplish our
acceptance before Him. Redemption is the
means, and also the basis or ground of God's action in justifying men. 'Apolutrosis', was originally the buying back
of a slave or captive, making him free by the payment of a ransom.
Sacred
manumission. Redemption is
commonly illustrated from a practice common among pagans, known as sacred
manumission. If a slave found means of
earning money, he would deposit his savings in the temple of a god. When he saved sufficient money for the price
of his redemption he would appear before the priest and the rite of manumission
was performed, in which his owner would sell him to a god. But now as the property of the god, he became
a free man. But, far more probable,
Paul's background is the redemption of Israel
from the bondage of Egypt. Apolutrosis' originally involved the idea of
a ransom.
Most modern scholars maintain that the idea of ransom or
price is not to be pressed in the New Testament use of the word and it means
liberation, release, deliverance. On the
other hand, Leon Morris puts up a strong case for retaining the idea of price
in every New Testament occurance of the word.
He insists upon this - even in eschatological texts - and writes that
the eschatological aspect of redemption is dependent on the price paid at Calvary. In the
present context the idea of cost is certainly present. The things that men receive so freely, God
supplies at great cost to Himself.
However, we must avoid thinking of Christ's death, as a price paid, an
exchange, either to God, or (as "the Father's" thought) to Satan. That a ransom was paid to someone is not
taught here, but Christ effected our liberation at great cost to Himself. Our release meant to Him labour, suffering
and even death.
This redemption is described as "in Christ Jesus," is very significant, for the
terminology "in Christ Jesus" is used in chapters 6 and 8 with
reference to our union with Him. It is
in Christ Jesus that we share in his liberation. However, the liberation was effected at the
cross as verse 25 proves.
3:25. "Whom
God set free." 'Protithemi', may
mean:-
* display
publically,
* plan, purpose, intend.
Both these meanings find support in the context. Godet favours, plan, purpose and intend, as
more in keeping with the meaning of the word elsewhere in the New
Testament. Godet said, "The
fundamental idea of the passage, is the contrast between the time of God's
forbearance in regard to sin, and the decisive moment when at once He carried
out the universal expiation. God had
foreseen this final moment and had provided Himself beforehand with the victim
by means of which the expiation was to be accomplished. This meaning suits the context well. The N.E.B. has "designed." Most scholars support the meaning,
"display publically." This
also suits the context well, and seems to be confirmed by the twice repeated,
'endeixis', "showing." The
emphasis is upon the shewing or demonstration of God's justice.
Propitiation. 'Hilasterion'. The noun occurs twice in John's first
epistle. The verb 'hilaskomai' in
Heb.2:17; Lk.18:13. "Hilasterion' occurs here and again in
Heb.9:5, where it is translated "mercy seat." The meaning in Rom.3:25 has been much
discussed. Three differing views have
been supported :-
* Mercy-seat. In the LXX 'hilasterion' is the translation
of the Hebrew 'kapporeth', the golden lid of the ark in the Tabernacle. Darby has "mercy-seat", and
recently other scholars have decided for this meaning. Also W.T.Manson. Davies (Paul and Rabbinic Judaism). A strong case has been made out and it is
argued that the whole passage reflects the Day of Atonement. Leon Morris rather disposes of these
arguments and maintains 'hilsterion', has the definite article, or some
equivalent when used to designate the mercy-seat. When used without an article, as in Romans,
then it does not mean mercy-seat.
Mercy-seat seems hardly to meet the demands of the context. It does not convey a sufficient dynamic
idea. What is required, is a dynamic
activity, and action which can be intelligently related to the whole scheme of
Divine righteousness. The context suggests an activity putting forth of saving
power, an active intervention of God in righteousness for salvation.
* Propitiation. This is certainly its meaning in pagan
Greek. The various forms of the word
used of propitiatory offerings to propitiate, appease or placate an angry
god. All are agreed about this. Both in Classical and Koine Greek the idea is
propitiation, and Paul's readers, as also Paul himself, must have been very
much aware of this meaning. It is doubtful
if Paul's readers could contemplate the word without associating with 'hilasterion',
the idea of propitiation. However, in
recent times, Dodd and others have maintained that Paul would draw his
understanding of the word from the LXX,
and that the LXX does not use the word in the same sense of propitiation. They say its usual meaning in the LXX is
expiation. The verb, 'hilaskomai' is
used to translate 'kaphar', "to atone." (The Bible and the Greeks).
Leon Morris has recently taken up the case again for
propitiation. He pays tribute to Dodd
for his work in showing the difference between the pagan and the LXX use of
these words. The pagan idea of bribing
an angry god is absent from the Bible.
But Morris attempts to show that the wrath of God upon sin, is a very
real thing in the Bible and notes that in the Old Testament that 'hilaskomai'
and other members of this word-group are
constantly used in contexts that concern the turn away or averting of God's
wrath. Morris holds that in Rom.3:25,
'hilasterion' means "propitiation may not be a very good word to describe
this (averting of God's wrath), but we do not seem to have a better one."
* Expiation. The word means an act whereby, guilt or
defilement is removed. Dd. Expiation
best expresses the Septuagint use of the word.
Also the emphasis upon Divine initiative in our passage favours
expiation. What stands out most in these
verses is not the activity of Christ in propitiating God, but the activity of
God affecting salvation for men through the death of Christ.
This emphasis favours expiation.
The thought can hardly be that God required to be propitiated, but
rather that He required a propitiation or expiation to effect the outflow
of His grace to sinners.
Our two best modern translations (R.S.V. and the N.E.B) may
be justified in using 'expiation' and if
taken in the sense of removing guilt so that God's wrath is averted,
then no objection can be taken to the meaning expiation. Vine writes, "'Hilasterion', here,
signifies an expiatory sacrifice."
Paul's understanding of righteousness is based upon the Old Testament,
and this Old Testament background as to the meaning of righteousness, favours
expiation. The mention of 'blood'
suggests expiatory sacrifice rather than mercy-seat. In the shedding of blood, He became the
expiatory sacrifice.
The sinner cannot be justified unless guilt is removed so
that he no longer stands exposed to wrath.
Note the emphasis these verses give to the initiative and activity of God
in respect to His purpose that He might freely justify all believers. The central idea is not the satisfaction of His righteousness, but
the manifestation of His
righteousness. God's saving activity,
the manifestation of His righteousness, is centred in the sacrificial death of
Jesus Christ. God set forth Christ as a
propitiatory offering in which He has judged sin. The righteousness of God is the effectual and
final revelation of the judgment and mercy of God in the death of His Son. He justifies freely by His grace through the
redemptive work of Christ, showing the sinner the freest mercy. This is, at the
same time, the manifestation of His righteousness, which knows no compromise
with sin. Thus, the death of Christ, is
central to this new order of righteousness as:
Redemption, Propitiation, or Expiation, (i.e. expiatory sacrifice).
"Through
faith." The A.V. is here
unsatisfactory. The R.S.V. "an
expiation by His blood, to be received by faith." The object of faith is not the Blood, but the
Saviour whose blood was shed to make expiation.
Faith has a personal character and is the instrument by which we enter
into a personal relationship with Christ.
The object of faith is not the propitiatory work of Christ, but Christ
Himself who made the propitiation. Faith
has no merit in itself and is not to be thought of as a meritorious qualification
or human achievement. Rather it is the artery or channel through which the
grace of God comes to us. It is the instrument through which we
experience justification. However it
deeply affects the human personality, for it is the human response to God's
grace and involves personal commitment to Christ. It is, then, a personal encounter with God,
in which the sinner accepts the justness of God's judgment upon sin. He does not flee, but accepts the justness of
the judgment and finds his assurance in that sin has been judged in the Cross.
"By His
blood." "Haima',
Hebrew, 'dam'. Blood means death. It is not the blood circulating through the
body, but the blood poured out in death.
This is strongly suggested from chapter 5:6-20. It means more than bleeding, which implies
life, but it is shed blood or death. The
context here points to a sacrificial death, effective through faith. Connect "by His blood" with propitiation
(or expiation). In the Old Testament,
expiation (atonement) was made by blood.
On the great day of atonement, it was not the burning of the carcase,
or fat,
or incense, but the blood that made atonement, (Lev.17:11).
Literature : 'The Death of Christ.' by James Denny.
'Apostolic
preaching.' by Leon Morris.
'Paul
and Rabbinic Judaism.' by Davies.
"To show
His righteousness."
Bauer defines 'endeixis' as "proof". The Cross is the proof or demonstration of
God's righteousness.
"Because
of the passing over of sins done aforetime." This does not refer to sins done before
conversion to Christ, but to sins committed prior to the Cross. 'Paresis' is "passing over, letting go
unpunished." But a few scholars
still favour the meaning, "pardon", or "remission." A.V.
Such understand it to mean that in anticipation of the Cross.
They were saved 'on credit' in view of the Cross. This is certainly true, but is unlikely to be
the meaning here. Therefore, 'paresis',
is to be understood as in the R.V, the R.S.V. and the N.E.B. In the past there had been certain manifestations
of God's wrath upon sin, in the Deluge, at Sodom
and Gomorrah,
but not such as to universally establish His righteousness beyond caprice. There had not been an adequate revelation of
God's wrath upon sin. It appeared to
some that God had generally been indifferent to sin.
Not until Calvary, when God
spared not His Son, was it shown beyond all doubt, that God's forbearance with
sinners was no condoning with sin. At
the Cross, the veil of the seeming callousness of God with respect to sin was
torn aside and His righteousness displayed.
God was righteous, and had been all along. But now He was seen to care
and men had mistaken His forbearance for indifference, there is no longer any
ground for this misunderstanding. The
costliness of redemption proves His concern that sin be adequately judged. In the time of His forbearance, God withheld
judgment upon sin. He had shown
tolerance to all men, and mercy to those who trusted Him. In all this, there had been no indifference
to sin, for God acted in view of the Cross.
It is in the expiatory sacrifice of Christ, as never before, the
righteous character of God is vindicated in His condemnation of sin.
This would seem to suggest that while the central idea is
the demonstration or manifestation of His righteousness is not to be excluded
completely from the passage, the Cross was the vindication of the righteousness
of God. God must be true to Himself,
and, in being true to Himself, He is righteous.
The righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel is His saving activity
through the work of Christ, so that He acts in perfect consistency with Himself
in saving the believer (the sinner). It
was necessary that the supreme outflow of His grace be in no way a condoning of
sin. If the Cross is to be the instrument
of grace it must also be the supreme manifestation of righteousness.
This passage reveals the central place of the Cross in God's
saving purpose. Sir Robert Anderson, in
his stimulating book, "The Gospel and its Ministry", wrote, "A
past eternity knew no other future; an eternity to come shall know no other
past." The period of human
existence before the Cross, was that of God's forebearance, or 'anoche', which
Bt. defines as :
* Holding back, delay, pause. *
Forebearance, clemency.
The Cross proved that, in suspending judgment, God had not
acted unrighteously, nor had been indifferent to sin. He, in His forbearance, had not acted
unrighteously, for His forbearance and passing over of sins, had been perfectly
consistent with His righteousness.
3:26. Note the
emphasis on the Divine initiative and activity.
The whole passage is occupied with what God has done. He is the Source of all, and behind all and
is concerned in the whole work.
Salvation is securely based upon God's work of righteousness.
"For the
shewing, I say, of His righteousness at
the present season."
The Cross divides time in one sense, but in this, it unites time, for it
displays the consistency of the whole Divine activity. If the Cross proves God's righteousness in
judging sin, it also proves His righteousness in graciously justifying the
believer. God's righteousness has been
displayed in the way He dealt with sin.
God set forth Christ as a propitiatory offering. In the Cross, there was an uncompromising
putting forth of His righteousness as the Judge. Thus God is able to freely justify the
believer, at the same time maintaining His justice in the form of propitiation
which knows no compromise with sin. The Death
of Christ was an act of Divine judgment, in which God displays His
righteousness in condemning sin and justifying the believer. The righteousness of God in the death of
Christ has two sides: judgment and grace.
Two things about God's righteousness:-
* God is just. 'Dikaios'.
God is the righteous Judge. It is
the function of the judge to condemn or to justify. The character of God, has been revealed in
the Cross.
* The
justifier. God is just in justifying
the believer. He has opened the way
through the Cross, by which He righteously acquits men. The Cross demonstrates His righteousness in
graciously justifying sinners. If God
pardoned men apart from the Cross men might have thought the Divine Majesty
condoned sin. God does not wink at
sin. When we survey the Cross, we
discover what a vast sacrifice was required before we could be forgiven. God does not acquit at the expense of
righteousness, but in virtue of it. The
sinner who believes in Christ is justified fully and forever, but he is not
allowed to feel that it is a light thing to be forgiven.
The believer learns in the redemptive work of Christ, the
costliness of his deliverance and the dreadfulness of God's judgment upon
sin. He discovers that he is acquitted
because sin has been fully judged. The
very righteousness of God that condemns sin becomes his confidence and
assurance. The whole relationship
between God and the believer rests on a Divine basis. It is not now a matter of forbearance, the suspending
of judgment, but the display of God's righteousness in effectively condemning
sin, and at the same time, acquitting the believer. Our acquittal, is a matter of the strictest
justice. The passage has clearly a
forensic setting. It reveals God as the
Judge. This is vital, for we never get
to the bottom of man's need until we get down to acknowledge sin, guilt and
judgment.
The 'and' in
3:26, may have the force of, "and yet." This is possible, but on the other hand,
there may be no tension between the two statements, God's righteousness and His
justifying activity. Both being included
in God's righteousness. - Knox.
"The
righteousness of Christ."
Calvin in his commentary writes about the righteousness of God, but on
coming to chapter 3:22-26, in which the redemptive work of Christ has such a
central place, he writes, "You now see how the righteousness of faith is
the righteousness of Christ."
Calvin wishes to show that the righteousness of God is Christo-centric,
but though his intention was good, yet the phrase was unfortunate. Some of the Puritan theologians used the
phrase in a way that Calvin had not intended.
John Owen and others taught that while the death of Christ removed the
curse of the Law, it was the personal righteousness, the holy character and
life of Christ, which is imputed to us for righteousness. Among the leaders of the 'early Brethren
movement' this problem came up again, B.W.Newton, revived the Puritan doctrine
of justification. It was taught that the death of Christ
removed our sins, but His keeping of the Law in a perfect manner, provided for
us, a perfect righteousness. But this
view was rejected by most Brethren. Such
a righteousness was legal and earthly, but the righteousness of faith is
associated with the Risen Christ. The
righteousness in which the believer stands before God, is founded on the death
of Christ, and displayed in His resurrection.
It is true that the obedience of Christ is central to the
Atonement; it is His obedience to death.
His death was the great work of righteousness. (See 5:18 R.V. -
"One act of righteousness.").
That He should die for our sins, was an act of perfect obedience to God
His Father - an act of righteousness.
God delivered Him up for our offences, and raised Him again for our
justification. Dr. Wolston used to say
that justification is not connected with a living, nor a dead Christ, but with
a Risen Christ. J.N.Darby wrote,
"He came down in love, He went up in righteousness. (Jn.16:10). It is certainly right to speak of Christ as
our Righteousnes (Rom.10:4; 1.Cor.1:31),
for as having died and been raised again, He is our Righteousness. But this is something very different to
"the righteousness of Christ" which takes us back to His earthly
sojourn and His keeping the Law perfectly.
3:27-30. Boasting is Excluded.
The righteousness of faith, excludes boasting:
* as to works
(3:27);
* as to racial
exclusiveness (3:30).
The passage sums up the new position that the righteousness
of faith provides :
* Faith excludes
human boasting.
* Faith maintains
the Sovereignty of the One God.
* Faith establishes
the Law. (3:31).
Boasting. 'Kauchesis',
"glorying," R.V. The Jew boasted in God - he proudly believed
that he had a special relationship to God.
But it was the work of the Law to close every mouth (3:19) - for the Law
cancelled every special claim by proving all to be sinful. However, it is the doctrine of righteousness
through faith which fully and finally excludes boasting by eliminating all
boasting in respect of our privileges or achievements. The Gospel gives to the justified a new
ground of boasting in God, (5:11). N.
discusses the seemingly contradiction between 3:19 and 3:27. He suggests that while the Law can actually
bring our boasting low, it cannot remove it in principle.
The Law makes a man see that he has not measured up to God's
demand, and since he is such a failure, he has nothing to boast about. However there is always the possibility that
a man may do better. The works of the
law consist of man's own righteousness and that in principle makes room for
human boasting, though in actual fact, the Law shuts every mouth, for all have
deplorably failed. But the righteousness
through faith, removes in principle, all ground of boasting as to works and
every other cause. (See N.).
Law. The word
'nomos', law, occurs twice in this verse. 'Nomos', was frequently used by the Greeks,
meaning, 'principle, the rule of
governing one's actions'. Many favour
that meaning here, (see R.S.V.). Others
favour, 'system of regime'. Br. gives instances where 'nomos'
almost comes to mean, 'Jewish religion'.
Dy. favours, 'religious order or system'. (See Bt.).
3:28. The
fundamental reason why human boasting is excluded. Admittedly keeping the Law does not exclude
it - but faith does. As we insist that it is only by faith that men are
justified boasting has been excluded.
The meaning 'faith only' is justified here ('sola
fide'). The argument clearly demands the
meaning 'faith alone'. Long before
Luther's time commentators, including Origen, (the oldest commentator on
Romans), saw clearly that Paul's argument was 'sola fide'. In the matter of our justification, works
have no place, but it is received on the principle of faith alone, for it is
wholly the work of God. But though we
are justified by faith alone, yet faith is never alone.
3:29-30. God is one.
The nations of antiquity had each their own distinctive gods
and men thought of Jehovah as the God of
Israel. However the Old Testament revelation had made
known that Jehovah was one, real, and universal God. The Jew understood this but he was slow to
apply the truth. They had become
fanatical believers in the doctrine of the unity of God, there was but one God and that God was
one.
Paul now insists upon the inescapable logic of their monotheism. If God is one then He is God over all men,
both Jew and Gentile. Since He is God of
the Gentiles as well as the Jews, then He must have one way of salvation that
is available to all men. The truth of
monotheism, the one sovereign God, requires and is maintained by the doctrine
of justification of faith. Since God is
one, He must justify or save on a ground that is available to all men. The principle of faith sets aside the
distinctive claim of the Jew and makes righteousness accessible to both Jew and
Gentile. God could not have established
a way of salvation which belonged exclusively to one nation. But faith makes salvation available to all
men, and this alone, is consistent with the truth that God is one.
3:30. "By faith" - "Through faith." Are these two things to be
distinguished? W.E.Vine thinks so. However, "by faith" is used in Gal 3:8,
with reference to the Gentiles. It is
probable that Paul did not intend any distinction. The language is rhetorical. The main point of Paul's argument, is that
there is one way of righteousness for the Jew and Gentile alike.
No comments:
Post a Comment