GORDON CONWELL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Exegesis on Romans 3:21-26The Dual Justification of God and Man at the CrossJohn Dao 5/9/2011

Dao 1

I.

Introduction. There is no doubt in any scholars mind about the importance of the book of Romans in Christian thought. It has had profound impact on some of the greatest Christian thinkers throughout history. Arguably, Christianity would not be what it is today without the powerful influence of Romans. Nowhere else in the New Testament canon is such a full exposition of the gospel and message of Jesus Christ. Pauls reason for the letter was threefold: To raise support from the believers in Rome for his missionary journey out to the Iberian Peninsula, to bring healing to some divisions within the church, and to act as an apologetic to Pauls take on the gospel.1 Paul wrestled with the implications of Christs life and death on the worldview of Jew and Gentile alike and formed a theology from the narrative of the Gospels. However, one of the greatest challenges to Jewish worldview is Pauls insistence that both Jew and Gentile alike fall under the same condemnation and may receive the same salvation promised to the Jews. The idea that Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained righteousness while Israel, who pursued righteousness, has not obtained righteousness2 was an affront to the traditional Jewish worldview. Together they cried out, How can God be just in doing this? In a way, the entirety of Romans is a defense of God in face of his accusers with Paul acting as the defense attorney. The occasion for this exegetical study is to examine more closely why Paul believes God is just despite the Jews complaints. One of the clearest examples of Pauls thinking about the righteousness of God is contained within Romans 3:21-26, the text of this study. In fact, Morris

1 2

Kaiser, Walter C., ed. NIV Archaeological Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Romans 9:30

Dao 2

acclaims this text as possibly the most important single paragraph ever written.3 Luther himself called it the chief point, and the very central place of the epistle and of the whole Bible.4 Boundaries and coherence of the text. Pauls use ofi e at the start of this section

offsets it from the rest of Pauls argument in Romans. It clearly marks the transition from the previous line of thought as well as marking a transition between two different realities.5 The idea ends in verse 26 because Paul transitions into a new movement in the argument with the use of a rhetorical question in verse 27 (Where then is boasting?).6 Verses 22b-26 also appear to be one rather long sentence as Paul grammatically strings on dependent clause after dependent clause, furthering the coherence of the passage. In its immediate context, Romans 1:18-3:20 contains Pauls building argument against humanity. He weaves together Old Testament prophets and Psalms in a striking indictment of both Jew and Gentile and the condemnation and ensuing wrath deserved. Pauls readers could almost hear Ezekiel 18:257 shine through in what he is arguing here. Having established that it is first and foremost Jew and Gentile who are unjust, he naturally goes on to further the second point of Ezekiel 18:25, that not only are Jew and Gentile unjust, but God is just. Romans 3:21-26 is a development of the argument presented in Ezekiel 18:25, continued in Romans Chapter 9-11 as Paul continues to defend God from the apparent betrayal of Israel by God by his acceptance of Gentiles (though even he himself has a hard time wrestling with the issue).Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans (PNTC). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Pg 173. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. 5 Dunn, James D.G. Word Biblical Commentary Vol 38A: Romans 1-8. Dallas: Word, 1988. Pg 162. 6 Romans 3:27 7 Yet you say, The way of the Lord is not just. Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?4 3

Dao 3

Structurally, Paul makes two main claims in Romans 3:21-26. The first one is that God declares people righteous because of their faith in Christ and secondly, God demonstrated he can declare the unrighteous as righteous and still remain just because of what Christ has done on the cross. Verse 21 introduces a dramatic shift from the morose indictment of 1:18-3:20. Leaving the reader of the epistle utterly deprived of hope of salvation8, the only question they would immediately have would be Who then can be saved? Paul, being one step ahead of the argument at all times, gives reason for the hope that he has. Verses 22-24 expound the first claim that God is able to turn the unrighteous into the righteous through the grace afforded to sinners by faith in Jesus Christ. Verses 25-26 explains both how this is possible and why God chose to do such a thing. The rest of Chapter 3 (verses 27-31 not covered here) talk about the consequences of the claims laid out by Paul in v21-26. Personal Translation of Romans 3:21-26. 21 But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been made manifest, being attested to by the Law and the Prophets. 22 Moreover,9it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus10 Christ to all11 who believe. For there is no distinction 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being freely justified by his gift of grace through the redemption which has come about in12Christ Jesus, 25 whom God

Romans 3:20 states that the only way the Jews knew how to become righteous (through observance of the law) is in actuality ineffective in bringing that which it was thought to bring, and if true, would no doubt leave Jews feeling helpless and silent (verse 19) because they have nothing to say in their defense. 9 The second successive e can signify an amplification. Zerwick, Max, and Mary Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1966. Pg 466. 10 Some texts omit u. 11 Some variants have epi pantaj or eij pantaj kai epi pantaj. For a full discussion, see Appendix A. 12 Zerwick & Grosvenor. Pg 466. h e= can be taken to mean which has come about in .

8

Dao 4

made publically available13as a mercy seat appropriated14 through faith15 in his own blood to be16 proof of his righteousness because of the overlooking of previously committed sins 26 in the forbearance of God, to be17 proof of His righteousness in the now present appointed time in order to18be himself the one who is just and the one who justifies the faithful of Jesus.19 II. Commentaryi e i o u u e e u o u o i w

Romans 3:21 w .

is a powerful turning point in Pauls development of the story of God. He leaves the reader in the previous verse with a sense of despair, that not only is no one righteous, but there is no known way to become righteous because the law is ineffective. But now denotes a dramatic change from what was and is the starting point from which Paul can launch into what God has done. Everything up until this point has been background information needed to make sense of the narrative. Grieb writes that Romans 3:21-31 is the first rhetorical climax of the letter and the most important telling of the story of Gods redemption of the lost and enslaved world through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.20

to make publically available or to intend . Bauer, Watler, Frederick William Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Third Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. 14 Zerwick & Grosvenor. Pg 466. The sense of a is of something apprehended. 15 Many ancient sources do not have thj in the phrase a [ h ] i . See Appendix B. 16 i can be used in place of i (BDAG definition 8a) 17 is a phrase which refers back to something already mentioned. Here it would refer back to the previous e= . (Zerwick & Grosvenor. Pg 466.) 18 i= here has a causal nuance. (BDAG) 19 A few manuscripts contain u u. See Appendix C. 20 Grieb, A. Katherine. The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God's Righteousness. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Pg 35.

13

Dao 5

We also see Paul emphasizing that this new righteousness being made manifest is apart from the law (i o ) while at the same time being attested to by the law. Paul is careful to state

that this righteousness is not the law, nor does it come from the law, yet regardless is referred to in the law and the prophets, namely the entire Old Testament.21 Paul handles talking about the law with great care, making sure not to dismiss it outright as being worthless, but rather redefining its intent in light of this new revelation. The law simply points to a need (redemption from sin) and the fulfillment of that need in Christ. His respect for the Law is evident in its prolific use throughout his letter. It forms the basis of his thought and argument. Yet, the emphasis on i o is not to be missed as it forms the

core of this argument.22 Paul just finished saying that no one can be justified through the law, so if this new righteousness being made manifest was from the law it would not be of much use. However, there may be an underlying alternate motive to Pauls placing i o so early in

the sentence. Chapter 2 dealt with the Jews and the Law and Romans 3:2 states that one of the key benefits of being a Jew is that they have been entrusted with the very words of God, namely the law. The law, as much as circumcision (the mark of one bound to the Law), is a mark of Gods chosen people. It is part of their core identity as the Sons of Israel. For Paul to say apart from the law, it is as if to say apart from Gods people, that the Jewish people no longer have a monopoly on righteousness because of their favored status as possessors of Gods Word. Now, it is available to all, both Jew and Gentile because it is no longer through the law. We see this theme of equity run straight through this passage and occurring in Romans multiple times. There is something to be said of the way Paul describes this new righteousness. He describes it as being made manifest or as being revealed, the implication being that it was once hidden. This righteousness of God being revealed now has existed before the creation of the world but has been kept

Kaiser, Walter C., ed. NIV Archaeological Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Pg 1967. States that for Jews of the time period, The Law and the Prophets were just a way of referring to what we now call Old Testament Scriptures. 22 Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

21

Dao 6 hidden up until the present time. Paul seems to understand that God has had this planned out from the very beginning but was waiting until the right moment to act. It makes complete sense that Paul would think this, as the Law and the Prophets both testify to it but it has gone undetected until now. Paul has realized that, because the Scriptures testify to it, it must have been from the very beginning. This explanation reinforces Pauls use of But now in a more temporal sense23 as he watches Gods plan unfold through the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. But what is this righteousness? Most commentators agree that u u being used here

is a subjective genitive. Romans 3:1-8 deals with a subject of theodicy, that is a defense of Gods righteousness being juxtaposed with our unrighteousness. Verse 26 also makes it clear that the righteousness being talked about is Gods righteousness.24 However, it is not the kind of righteousness that pays back what is due in this instance; else all of humanity still stands condemned by the law. Rather, it is completely opposite of what one might expect. Instead of the coming wrath Paul predicted, what is talked about is redemption, atonement, and justification which come about as a result of Gods righteousness as His personal character to set things right. It is bound up in the eschatological promise of salvation of his people, as the Psalmist David proclaims.25 It is this righteousness being revealed, the equivalent of salvation being revealed. There is now a new way to gain salvation and that is through faith in Christ Jesus. Romans 3:22 a e= h, u e u a i u u i= a u u . u

Whereas how the righteousness of God may have been made manifest was a bit vague in v21, verse 22 clears up any confusion.u e u a i u u seems to be

a direct commentary on Habakkuk 2:4 quoted in Romans 1:17, the theme verse for the structureMoo. Pg 221. Byrne, Brendan. Romans (Sacra Pagina). Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996. 25 Psalms 98:2 is but one example: The LORD has made known his salvation; he has revealed his righteousness in the sight of the nations.24 23

Dao 7

of Romans. It is those who possess the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ who will live. More than this, this righteousness, this salvation comes to all who believe ( i=u u a

), furthering the theme of equity between both Jew and Gentile. Paul makes clear

that whereas the law could not bring righteousness, righteousness comes through faith. However, this is nothing new to Paul, as we will later see this is setting up for a discussion of Abraham in Chapter 4. u a e= righteousness and in culpability for sin.Romans 3:23 a a h] i u= u h o u u h continues the pattern of equity, both in access to

Again, we see the word a

shows up, further increasing the sense of equality among

Jew and Gentile alike. To Paul, all are equally guilty of sin, and yet because of this, all need access to salvation. It is clear from 1:18 to 3:20 that not a single person is righteous and Romans 3:23 is a summary statement for that entire section borrowed in large part from Isaiah 59. Paul stresses that it is not our righteousness that saves us as we do not possess any, rather like David says in Psalm 143:1126, it is by Gods righteousness that we gain salvation. Brendan Byrne points out that there is a faint allusion to Genesis 1:26-28 in u=u h o u u

which talks about humanity being made in the image of God.27 Where once we were creatures which could fully reflect the glory of God because of our being made in His image and likeness, so now because of sin do we lack that same glory.28 Romans 3:24u u a h| u; u a a h a; w h e; w|

For your name s sake, O LORD, preserve my life! In your righteousness bring my soul out of trouble! Byrne. Pg 125. 28 Mounce, Robert H. New American Commentary Vol 27: Romans. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.27

26

Dao 8

The difficulty in translating the participle

u

is notable, as it does not seem to

follow directly from v 23.29 Reading it as directly following v 23, it seems to imply all are being freely justified while falling short of the glory of God. It is probably best to assume that Paul would trust that the reader would understand that justification is by faith in Christ Jesus.30 Perhaps the best understanding is Cranfields. He proposes that being justified is dependent on v 23 to the extent that it has the same subject (all) but is a continuation off the main theme in v2122. It is not necessarily everybody who is being justified, but anybody.31 What is important, however, is the use ofa . This justification process is freely

given as a gift of grace and the entire reason God is able to do such a thing is because of Jesus Christ. In a sense we can already see the catch in how God could afford to give out forgiveness so freely: it has already been bought and paid for by Christ.a h| u; u a

is a

powerful construction to emphasize the generosity and graciousness of God in bestowing this righteousness. Here h| u; u ais a Dative of means32 which tells of how God justifies and when a it does make clear Pauls intention to

used in conjunction with another adverb like

communicate something about God. It stresses the unconditional nature of Gods grace and love.33 He gives it through faith, as verse 25 will point towards. Another important note is the first use of the verb dikaiow meaning I justify or I make righteous. Paul goes on later to describe in more detail what he only touches upon here, the nature of justification and just how we can be justified in face of the charges against us. We

Hedlam, Arthur C., and William Sanday. The Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh: T & T Clark LTD, 1902. Mounce. Pg 115-116. 31 Moo. Pg 227. 32 Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. 33 Dunn, James D.G. Word Biblical Commentary Vol 38A: Romans 1-8. Dallas: Word, 1988. Pg 168.30

29

Dao 9

already have an idea when Paul uses the word a;

w

34

that he is using ransom language. He

is alluding to the fact that somehow Christ bought us back from slavery (a theme he continues later in Romans). There can also be a double meaning, because the word is also used in a legal sense of being acquitted of all charges. This is good news considering the depth of sin brought to light in the beginning of Chapter 3! Romans 3:25-26 o[ e; u, u o h h e; o e; i u h u. u; u e o[ a h u a o i[ w w| u h a[ h ] i o a[ w|, i o i; e; a w| u; u i[ e; u; o h| a; i h| i i u

u; u e;

The whom here refers back to Jesus Christ. There is intense debate, however, in just what exactly God presented him as. The Greek word i[h

has been argued about as either

meaning expiation (a covering for sin) or propitiation (An appeasement of divine wrath).35 However, I find both options problematic theologically. Propitiation puts forth a God that not only can be appeased and needs to be appeased, but also one that turns from an angry God into a forgiving one with the death of his Son.36 This sounds a bit too much like the detestable practices of child sacrifice used to appease gods like Molech and Baal which makes me think this is not the image Paul wanted to conjure up of Christ. If what Paul is trying to do is prove Gods just nature, there really is nothing just about killing the only human being to have never sinned so that sinners might walk free. Quite the opposite, actually.

The word is used of a slave being bought back by payment or ransom and set free. It can also be used of an acquittal. (BDAG) 35 Mounce. Pg 116. 36 Hooker, Morna D. Not Ashamed of the Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Pg 43

34

Dao 10

Neither do I like the translation expiation. It implies that in order for the forgiveness of sins to be possible, Jesus needed to die to cover or wipe them away. The only problem with that is that God has been forgiving sins since long before Jesus died. Jesus himself forgave sins while he was still on Earth living among us. If Jesus died simply to cover and forgive sins, he died needlessly. I do prefer the translation mercy seat because the noun i[h

is the Greek

translation for the Hebrew kapporet37, which was the cover on the Ark of the covenant and the place where yom kippur (Day of Atonement) would occur. It was the day when the high priest would go and sprinkle the blood of a bull or goat to make atonement for the peoples sins once a year. The parallels seem clear. Jesus, as the eternal high priest in the order of Melchizedek, made the atonement ritual using his own blood and thus fulfilled the requirement of law completely so no more ritual sacrifice is necessary. Hebrews 9:13-1438 picks up on this metaphor as well. This also can explain the use of the verbe

in this sentence. As Jesus died on the

cross, the Gospels attest to the temple curtain being torn in two. Behind the curtain, of course, was the holy of holies and the Mercy Seat, the place of atonement that was restricted to only the high priest once a year. Suddenly, God has made a new mercy seat to be publically available for the forgiveness of sins. No longer must you go through the High Priest, but now through Christ you have unmediated and unlimited access to God himself. Jesus was publically presented as a mercy seat, a kapporet, a i[h . Also, it is only through faith in Jesus that sins are forgiven. It is

37 38

Hooker. Pg 43. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Dao 11 only when you come to the new mercy seat can you make atonement and receive the free gift of grace which justifies sinners.

That brings us to the phrase a [ h ] i

e;

w| u; u i[

. This free gift of

justification comes through faith in Jesuss blood. This is the blood sprinkled upon the mercy seat to make atonement. Faith in the blood implies faith in the power of Jesuss blood to bring about life39; however this is only for past sins. The price paid on the cross was to demonstrate [Gods] justice at the present time because in his mercy to humanity, hes postponed our sins unanswered. It is not until we receive the Holy Spirit through the Resurrection of Christ that the fullness of grace is felt. Paul goes on starting in Romans 12 about life in the Spirit, dying to sin, and living to Christ. Jesus died for previous sins and was raised to life for future ones. Curiously, Paul doesnt say that Jesus died to justify us, but rather to justify God (who then justifies us in v 26). This was to clear Gods name from accusations of injustice. This is Pauls goal in Romans, to clear Gods name and to prove him just. Just as when Job brought his accusations to God, Elihu rebuked Job for trying to justify himself rather than God. When Habakkuk brought his complaints to God, asking him how much longer he was going to let the wickedness of Israel go unpunished, he was challenging whether or not God was just based off his forbearance on sin. But God has finally revealed his answer to the accusations of injustice in Jesus Christ. Paul knows this and thus endeavors to show how Jesus Christ becoming a mercy seat fulfills the requirement on God to be just. Paul views Jesus as the answer to the problem of Gods tolerance of evil. Jesus is a theodicy. III. Conclusion

39

Hedlam, Arthur C., and William Sanday. The Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh: T & T Clark LTD, 1902.

Dao 12

The establishment of God as righteous is absolutely critical to the faith. If God at any point showed himself to be unrighteous, then it shows he is capable of such a thing. There would be nothing to stop an all powerful God from taking back the very salvation he had promised. This is why Paul fights so hard to defend Gods righteousness. Paul asks in Romans 3:6 that if God were unjust, how could he judge the world? What we saw in Romans 3:21-26 was the answer to this question of Gods righteousness. Man stands accused before God because of his disobedience and sin while God is accused on account of his not dealing with our sin in the manner which was deserved (death). Both are accused, but God is innocent and Man is guilty of trespass. Jesus's death does not clear God's name from wrong like it does Man, but rather shows that God was just all along in his dealings with Man and that Man was further in the wrong for his accusation. This is a dual justification: Both God and Man are justified. Since all men already stand condemned, the only hope is for a new righteousness that has been revealed apart from the Law which we can have access to through faith. This "New Righteousness" is the atoning work of Christ on the Cross and his Resurrection. Now those who repent and believe in Christ receive the Holy Spirit so that even when they sin, there is no eternal condemnation in Christ (though there will be real consequences). It is by the Spirit through which we are sanctified. Harold J. Ockenga once wrote that now that righteousness of God has been revealed whereby guilty man may be declared righteous, there can be no excuse for man remaining unrighteous.40 When there is now a clear way to righteousness, we are no longer held by the standard of the law but of grace. It is no longer

40

Ockenga, Harold John. Every One That Believeth: Expository Addresses on St. Pauls' Epistle to the Romans. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1942. Pg 61.

Dao 13

the sinner who faces eternal condemnation (as we are at best sinners saved by grace) but rather the one who refuses grace and rejects the truth. This grace is so freely given that there is no excuse to rejecting it, and yet many do because faith itself is a gift from God. But God as well is justified, for he has dealt with our sin in a manner which has also brought us justification. He could have just wiped out Man and have been done with it back in Eden and thus remained just, but He chose this route. God has punished every single sin committed prior to the death of His Son (and thus why we need continual new mercies every morning) by casting onto Jesus every single sin committed up until that point. By being baptized into his death, we too share in the punishment of every single prior sin and are justified. Jesus died the death of a million sinners so that God could once and for all condemn Satan and call into account the sins of Man. Jesus died in order to justify God as the only one who can judge the world, but God raised Jesus to life so that through his life we also might live because of faith. In a sense, what we have is a "double imputation", that is our sins are imputed to Jesus in his death and his righteousness is in turn continually imputed to us in his everlasting life in which we now share. We swap roles because Jesus does bear our burdens for us as God Himself pays for our sins. As a consequence to this, God shows himself to be the only one capable of judging Man and thus establishes himself once and for all as Lord over the Earth and all that is in it so that no one may challenge his rightful place as King of Kings. This is such a pivotal passage for any Christian to really, truly and fully understand. It contains the entirety gospel in miniature: sin, grace, righteousness through faith, redemption, atonement, justice, mercy, Jesus and the cross, its all there. So much theology is packed into

Dao 14

six verses it is no wonder so many consider it to be one of the most important paragraphs ever written.

Dao 15

Works CitedBarth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. London: Oxford University Press, 1933. Bauer, Watler, Frederick William Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Third Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Byrne, Brendan. Romans (Sacra Pagina). Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996. Diebler, Ellis W. A Semantic and Structural Analysis of Romans. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1998. Dunn, James D.G. Word Biblical Commentary Vol 38A: Romans 1-8. Dallas: Word, 1988. Grieb, A. Katherine. The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God's Righteousness. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Hedlam, Arthur C., and William Sanday. The Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh: T & T Clark LTD, 1902. Hooker, Morna D. Not Ashamed of the Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Kaiser, Walter C., ed. NIV Archaeological Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Kirk, J. R. Daniel. Unlcoking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans (PNTC). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Mounce, Robert H. New American Commentary Vol 27: Romans. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995. Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Nestle, Erwin, Barbara Aland, and Kurt Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Ockenga, Harold John. Every One That Believeth: Expository Addresses on St. Pauls' Epistle to the Romans. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1942. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Zerwick, Max. Biblical Greek. Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 2005. Zerwick, Max, and Mary Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1966.