INTRODUCTION Adam and Eve, created in an absolutely pristine environment, did what is now in hindsight the most unthinkable thing and disobeyed the only prohibition that they were given. By choosing to satisfy their basic appetites the couple cast the world into a chaos and confusion that has lingered eternally. Their collective action resulted in the introduction of an etymology in which man is forever caught in a whirlpool of selfishness and humanism, where God has become totally and uniquely irrelevant and insignificant; Man became the epitome of himself a being that held no regard for the God of heaven like sheep gone astrayeveryman to his own way. It was God in his sovereignty that set in motion a divine initiative for a redemptive work in history. The books of Exodus through to Deuteronomy are records of the inception and initiation of this action plan to bring man back to himself. It is in these books of the Old Testament that we get a masked picture of the initiative of salvation, sufficient for that time. The centre of this miraculous and historic unfolding surrounds the establishment of the tabernacle of God that was erected at the centre of the camp of Israel. The meticulous nature with which the instructions for this temple were communicated and the care that was given in following the instructions to the T were not only a matter of architectural or engineering significance or excellence, but more importantly, it was a representation of the desire of God to bring back to himself man whom he created and to dwell in his fullness in their midst. It was a demonstration of what would then be revealed in its fullness in the pages of the New Testament. Chapters 26 40 of Exodus testify to the great detail given by God in the construction of this tabernacle a tabernacle finally completed in chapter 40 of the text. Of prominence in this tabernacle was the Holy of Holies, the quintessential representation and resting place of the presence and power of God on earth among his chosen people Israel. It is within the holy of holies, that the high priest made temporary atonement for himself and for the nation of Israel, via the blood

of bulls and rams for sins and transgressions, and it is there before the Ark of the Covenant that God would forgive the sins of his own. Fast forward to the New Testament centuries later and we are presented with a fuller picture of the redemptive work of God in history. Through His son Jesus Christ, God brought to completion his divine prerogative to restore man to himself a salvation that is both complete and continuous. It is in the words penned in Romans 3: 21 26 more than any other location in the book of Romans that the theological intersections of this divine initiative are elucidated by the great orator Paul. Rarely does the bible bring together in so few verses so many important theological ideas: the righteousness of God, justification, the shift in salvation history, faith, sin, redemption, grace propitiation, forgiveness and the justice of God.1 As such the importance and significance of the act of the son of God and the son himself may represent a reformation of the transcendental starting point in this parenthesises called time and redemptive history. The advent of Christ, his death, burial and resurrection represents the establishment of a new covenant under which justification and redemption were no longer garnered through temporary sacrifices as the blood of animals but through the incomparable atoning blood of the Lamb of God. The practices of the Old Testament were brought to fruition in the New Testament, convened by and through Jesus Christ himself.

JUSTIFICATION: THE FREE GIFT THROUGH FAITH3:21 . 3:22 3:23 [ .2 ] 3: 26 , , , , , 3: 24 3:25

1 2

Douglas J. Moo, The NIV Application Commentary, Romans, (Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 125.

Charles John Ruppert, GNT, Online Greek New Testament, [resource on-line], available from http://wesley.nnu.edu/gnt/, internet, accessed 14/04/08.

3:21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 3: 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 3:25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished 3: 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (New International Version), NIV.

There are many versions and translations of the original Greek manuscripts part of which is outlined above. The poetical King James Version is very often the version of choice for most readers of the Bible, primarily because it may have been one of the first versions to have been published but also for its poetical language. However, this version may not satisfactorily represent a proper interpretation of the text in Romans outlined above. This version is rather hard to read and uses an antiquated language. There are a number of versions that will be used in this paper the primary one being the New International Version of the Bible (NIV). This is not saying that other versions will not be employed. However, the intention of this paper is to give as close as possible an accurate interpretation of the spirits intention in the text as well as to do justice to the original Greek manuscript. As such this version of the Bible will be used along with translations that may help our cause in this paper in our look at the third chapter of Romans. The book of Romans is the longest and most theologically significant of Pauls letters. The gospel as the righteousness of God by faith occupies centre stage for the first part of the book (1:18 4:25).3 Paul paves the way for this theme by explaining why it was necessary for God to manifest his righteousness and why humans can experience this righteousness only by faith. Sin, Paul affirms, has gained a stranglehold on all people, and only an act of God, experienced as a free gift through faith, can break through that stranglehold. Gods wrath, the condemning outflow of his holy anger, stands over all sinners and justly so. For God has made himself known to all people through creation; their turning from him to gods of their own making renders them without excuse (Romans 1). As such Paul makes a claim that only God can change the tragic state of affairs, and this he has3

D. A Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 2005), 391.

done by making himself available, through the sacrifice of his son, a means of becoming righteous, or innocent, before God. This justification can be gained only through faith. It is with this in mind that Paul penned the words and theological nuances in this the third chapter of his letter to the Romans. Verse 21 26 may represent the heart and the centre of the main division of which it is a part. In fact it may be said that it is the heart of the whole section that spans Romans 1:16b 15:13. Paul continues his earlier discourse which he began in chapter 1, and the gospel he presents expands on the theme of justification by faith. Paul in his discourse takes a detour from the main line of his argument in chapter 1 to show why Gods intervention in Christ was needed and then resumes his argument in chapter 3. An examination of this pericope in chapter three shows that the language of righteousness (3: 21, 22, 25, 26), justify (24, 26), and just (v. 26) dominates this paragraph. All these English words come from the Greek root HMOEM and as such develop one basic theme. Paul in this assertion alludes to the idea that there is a new and different way of being seen as righteous in the eyes of God; this idea of righteous therefore is intimately linked to the idea of justification in light of the discourse. The term justification or justify does not mean to subjectively change into a righteous person but instead means to declare righteous, specifically, to declare righteous upon the act of faith based upon the work of another, the divine substitute Jesus Christ.4 Justification then involves both the forensic, legal declaration of the righteousness of the believer as well as the grounds and basis of their acceptance. The fact is that the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to the believer accounts for the resulting perfection of the relationship between the believer and God. As Romans 5:1 states, therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. The righteousness of God that has been imputed to men is as a4

Chad Brand et al, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, (Nashville, Tennessee; Holman Reference, 2004), 970.

result of God, in the court yards of heaven declaring men to be righteous. Thus we are judged to be not guilty by a decisive divine decision of God himself. But there is much more that is significance about this text than meets the eye. Poignantly this passage stands out in its proclamation of the fact that the one decisive, once for all, redemptive act of God through which was declared righteous and just, the revelation both of the righteousness which is from God and also of the wrath of God against sin, the once for all revelation which is the basis of the continuing revelation of the righteousness (1:17) and of the wrath (1:18) of God in the preaching of the gospel, has now taken place. It shows unequivocally, according to Cranfield, that the heart of the gospel preached by Paul is a series of events in the past. It includes all that God did before the advent of Jesus as well as the elements of the ultimate exaltation of Christ; elements because the cross by itself would have been no saving act of God. This gospel includes the crucifixion, the resurrection and the exaltation of the Crucified. It is a series of events which is the event of history; the decisive act of God which is altogether effective and irreversible.5 It is through the crucifixion, resurrection and exaltation of the crucified that Gods righteousness has been revealed. This righteousness which is Gods method of bringing men into right relation to Himself, is a definite righteousness, is available to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ and is a righteousness apart from the law. Of particular note is the phrase But now () followed by the perfect tense. It could

be understood as either (1) logical or (2) temporal in force and may be the source of some contention.6 Cranfield in his analysis states that in light of the contention of some

commentators that RYRMhas a purely logical force in this verse must surely be rejected and its temporal significance firmly maintained. It emphasizes the fact that the contrast marked by - so

C.E.B Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Limited 38 George Street, 1985), 199 200. 6 Bible.org, Net Bible First Edition, Software package, 1996 2005, Biblical Studies Press

5

far from being merely a contrast between two ideas, that of justification of justification

and that

- is a contrast between the impossibility of justification by works, on

the one hand, and on the other hand, the fact that in the recent past a decisive event has taken place by which justification which is Gods free gift - is now -

QIRL As such

this phrase may be accepted as referring to a new phase in salvation history.is formally a statement about

but it also is a statement

about the Old Testament; for it affirms that the righteousness which is of God is not only attested to by the Old Testament but that the Old Testament is a witness to this righteousness. Paul capturesbeautifully the continuity and discontinuity in Gods plan of salvation and this is the relation. God in Jesus reveals His righteousness in Christ apart from the law of Moses. Like the old wineskins of Jesus Parable (Mark 2:22) the Mosaic covenant simply cannot contain the new wine of the gospel. This is the discontinuity. However, the continuity is expressed in the idea that the entire Old Testament (the Law and the Prophets) testifies to this new work of God in Christ. The cross is no afterthought, no plan B; it has been Gods intention from the beginning to reveal his saving righteousness by sending His son as a sacrifice for us.

God s righteousness has been known can literally be translated has been manifested the verb being in the perfect tense in contrast to the present tense in chapter 1:17. This according to Gaebelein, draws attention to the appearing of Jesus Christ in the arena of history or more specifically, points to the fulfilment of Gods saving purpose in him.8 This righteousness justification that is now imputed onto man is a free gift given to man by God through faith in Jesus Christ. The translation faith in Jesus Christ appears in all modern translations but there is a contending view that is being adopted today, a genitive construction faith of Jesus Christ7 8

Ibid, 201.

Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor s Bible Commentary with The New International Version of The Holy Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan Publishing House, 1977), 41.

(

).9 The NIV takes this genitive to be objective, that is, that Jesus Christ is

the object of the noun of faith. But it can equally be a subjective genitive according to Moo, with Jesus Christ being the subject of faith.10 Gaebelein concurs with the subjective genitive view of the phrase when he asserts that the word(pistis) evidently means faithfulness. Evidence of

this is seen when one takes a glance at the book of Mark 11:22 which seems to make it is clear that the pistis of God may mean faith in God, as the situation there requires. What should settle the matter therefore is the precedent in Galatians 2:16, where we find the identical phrase through faith of Jesus Christ followed by the explanatory statement, we believe in Christ Jesus. As such both phrases, faith in Jesus and faith of Jesus may not oppositional ideologies but may actually speak of the same thing. Consequently according to Gaebelein, the NIV translation should be regarded as legitimate and preferable.11 The point therefore is that salvation and justification comes only through faith in Jesus and not by works. The idea of such divine attributes being gained by works is a doctrine that is polemically denied in the bible. It was Paul himself that stated in Ephesians 2: 8, For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast. Salvation therefore is fundamentally a miracle and initiative of God towards the liberation of men from sin and oppressive systems that have kept men from fulfilling their duty to God and living a life of worship to the Christ of history and eternity. Even though the advent of Christ has removed the necessity of justification through the insufficient law, it does not mean that such justification through faith in Christ took place without the impetus of the law. This may be the assumption that is gleaned by the use of the phrase, an adverbial phrase that modifies

(a present indicative passive). However,

9

Douglas J. Moo, The NIV Application Commentary, Romans, 127 Ibid Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor s Bible Commentary with The New International Version of The Holy Bible, 41.

10 11

according to Cranfield, this may not be the meaning here, since it is clear that Paul did not think that the law was absent at the time of the manifestation referred to. On the contrary passages like Galatians 3: 13 and 4: 4 suggest that he thought that it was deeply involved in the gospel events. According to him, the words are most naturally understood in relation to in verse 20 as indicating that the righteousness of God ( and) of which verse 20

and 21 speak is manifest as something which has not been earned by mens fulfilment of the law.12 As such should be understood in the same way as it is understood in 1: 17, that it is

a status of righteousness that is a gift from God. This status of righteousness has been made available to all men on the earth as a result of the universality of sin. Sin in many respects is the central identifying feature of this fallen race. As such Paul states that there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. All are under sins power and all fall short. In like manner all are declared righteous or justified by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. The execution of the declaration of justice on the behalf of the guilty is described by, by means of redemption.

JUSTIFICATION THROUGH REDEMPTION Redemption means to pay a price in order to secure the release of something or someone. It connotes the idea of paying what is required in order to liberate from oppression, enslavement or another type of binding obligation.13 In the Old Testament two word groups were used to connote redemption. The verb gaal and its cognates mean to buy back or to redeem. In the book of Ruth for example, (Ruth 2:20), Boaz acts as kinsman-redeemer to secure the freedom of Ruth from poverty and widowhood. Boaz purchases the land of Elimelech and in so doing, redeems Ruth12 13

Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans, 201. Chad Brand et al, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, (Nashville, Tennessee; Holman Reference, 2004), 1370.

and takes her to be his wife. When gaal is used of God, the idea is redemption from bondage or oppression, typically from ones enemies. Padah, another Old Testament word, is primarily used with regard to the redemption of persons or living things and may refer to general deliverance from trouble or distress. In the New Testament, the words lutron and agorazein are used in reference to redemption. The former meaning to redeem, to liberate, or to ransom and suggests the heart of Jesus mission. His life and ministry ended in his sacrificial death. The latter is used often to express Gods redemptive activity in Christ. For example, Gods redemption of fallen humanity is costly and believers are liberated from the enslaving curse of the law.14 In our text, according to Cranfield, the interpretation of is

controversial. While some like Warfield and Morris assert that the thought of PYXVSRa ransom paid, is present in the word here,15 others maintain that it means simply deliverance,

emancipation, without any reference to the payment of a ransom.16 Cranfield in his discourse comes to the conclusion that an absolutely confident assertion of either view can hardly be justified; for, on the one hand, the possibility that Paul used here without any thought of a

ransom paid cannot be ruled out in face of the evidence of the Septuagints use of PYXVSYWUEMand other derivatives of PYXVSRand on the other hand, in view of the fact that in the use of the wordPYXVSRand its derivative in Greek literature, there is a marked consistency in the retention of the

ransom idea.17 Additionally, he makes the claim that the word

is often used in

connection with the manumission of slaves (in which a payment was involved). This is an idea that

14 15

Ibid, 1371.

B.B. Warfield, The New Testament Terminology of Redemption, in PTR 15 (1917), 201 49. L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of The Cross, (London), 1955. Quoted in Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans, 201. 16 Cambier, L Evangile de Dieu I pp.84f. Quoted in Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans, 201.17

Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans, 206.

would have been familiar to many of Pauls readers.18 In other words, the Greek words employed in this text with reference to the redemption of men, seems to suggest the notion of God freeing the enslaved, sinful men and women from the power and influence of sin by paying the price for our sins. This price is necessarily the blood of his son Jesus Christ. This freeing of slaves slaves to sin - involves God paying the price, to buy back man to himself and free him from the one to whom he was enslaved sin. Scripture it self attests to this idea of God paying the ransom for the freedom of men. Many scripture verses attest or seem to confirm to the view of a price being paid for the freedom of the enslaved to sin, for example, 1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23, refer to Christians being bought with a price, along with other supporting texts including Gal 3:13, Mark 10:45 and 1 Peter 1:18. As such Cranfield summarizes by saying that the possibility that Paul had in mind the thought of a ransom being paid when he used the word must leave the discussion open. What can be said about cannot be excluded and as such we however is that it

indicates that the believers righteous status has been brought about by God by means of a definite and decisive action on His own part. The fact that the phrase is linked with means, that

the slavery from which this action of God has redeemed us must be the slavery of sin in the sense of subjection to its effects, that is Gods condemnation, His wrath, the condition of having an unrighteous status before him. Morris posits something similar in his analysis of the idea of redemption. He too alludes to the notion of the release of prisoners of war or slaves or slaves under sentence of death all of which included the paying of a price. However, he alludes to a metaphorical meaning of the idea of redemption but still maintains that it is freedom after payment that gives these metaphorical meanings their meaning. Paul and other biblical authors portray Christs sacrifice as a ransom a price paid to secure the release of captives. Bu the question that one must necessarily ask is to18

Ibid, 207

whom did God pay this ransom? The answer given by many theologians was Satan. The church fathers in the Patristic period argued that because of sin, the devil had the right to keep people captive to himself. Human beings sinned, and the devil therefore had control of them. In order to secure their release, God had to pay the devil a ransom, the death of Christ. So popular was this interpretation that Gustaf Aulen called it the classic view of the atonement. But the Bible no where teaches any ransom aid to the devil. The Biblical writers repeatedly used the concept of redemption to connote that God in Christ had to liberate people from slavery to sin and that He paid the price to accomplish this. Moo calls this the points of contact between secular redemption and what God has done n Christ. Biblical writers nowhere speculate on whom the ransom was paid to. Their silence here suggests that this was not part of the analogy they were using. If one really wants to argue the point about a ransom being paid to someone, then the most probable person to whom that ransom would have been paid must be God since sin makes us debtors to him.19 Therefore according to Morris, we must look at redemption as a way of looking at the cross which brings out certain details of Christs work but which cannot be pressed in every detail.20 This latter theory is the one that seems most likely to be given the situation and context of the scriptures; God, may never or could never regard the devil, a lesser being than himself (in every sense of the word) to be worthy of any form of payment. It seems evident from the discussion, therefore, that the redemptive work of God in history emphasizes not so much the paying of a price, but the appeasement of the anger of a Holy God, by the sacrifice of his Son and the manumission the setting free of men from the power and shackles of sin - from the shackles and bondages of sin that kept them chained without hope of escape. It is the fact of God setting men free by the sacrificial blood of his Son that makes redemption the theological truth that it is. It is God liberating

19 20

Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Three, Sin and Salvation, (Minneapolis, Minnesota; Bethany House, 2004), 224.

Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1997), 179.

humanity from such a phenomenon and the custody that was cancelled thereby came about because of mans guilt, on account of which they were shackled to the results of sin, according to the divine justice. The idea of God paying the price then through the sacrifice of his son could be viewed as a metaphorical analogy geared towards communicating the idea that God took the initiative to liberate men. Such liberation necessarily would be gained through the blood of His Son, apart from whom, permanent forgiveness for sins could not be effected. From the stand point of humanity, the act of God in freeing man should be seen in just that light God liberated or set men free from enslavement and the medium of such freedom was His Son. According to Schlatter, because Paul links sin with death, the liberation from guilt is also the deliverance from the sentence of death that is based on guilt, and because our destiny of death is associated with the condition of our body, Paul could say concerning the body that it would also be freed by redemption.21 Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice so that man can be set free liberated from the curse of sin and its effects. Because of this redemptive work the blessings of God that comes with being set free, for whom the son sets free is free indeed, are made available to all who believe on the name of Christ. Those who have been set free are no longer enslaved to sin or its effects but can live a victorious life founded on the notion that Christ, through the work on the cross has liberated mankind from the powers and shackles of sin. He has spoiled principalities and powers and made a show of them openly and has led captivity captive. We have been liberated and as such can live lives that are pure and upright, without yielding to the powers of the former slave master. Paul says later in chapter 4 of Romans, For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. The benefit that redemption brings in this life, according to Ephesians 1:7, is forgiveness of sins, and this is applicable in our passage. Another aspect however, belonging to theAdolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God, Translated by Siegfried S. Schatzmann, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc, 1995), 97.21

future, is the redemption of the body which will consummate our salvation according to Romans 8: 23; Ephesians 4:30. Justification and redemption however, are not single individual events that happen in this parenthesis called time; they are left null and void if one fails to consider that in order for them to have taken effect blood had to be shed there had to be a blood sacrifice. There had to have been atonement. Jesus was this atonement.

A SACRIFICE OF ATONEMENT The NIV version states that God presented him [Christ] as a sacrifice of atonement, while the King James calls him a propitiation. There is much dissention among the ranks of the theologians about the Greek word(Jilasthrion) (translated in the NIV sacrifice of

atonement or as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin), which in form is an adjective that could be taken as either masculine or neuter22 In secular Greek culture, this word and its cognates often refer to various means by which the wrath of the gods could be propitiated.23 A sacrifice was offered or monument dedicated, acts that served to turn away the wrath of a god. Many interpreters think Paul uses the word in this sense and as such translate the word propitiation or appeasement. In the minds of other theologians this word,, may refer

to a place of satisfaction, referring to the place where Gods wrath toward sin is satisfied. More

likely, though, it refers specifically to the mercy seat, i.e., the covering of the ark where the blood was sprinkled in the Old Testament ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). C.H. Dodd, in his analysis of the word, and true to his distaste for the idea of Gods

wrath, used the word to mean expiate. This word refers to wiping away or forgiving sins (where the subject of that action is human), or where the subject is God, God being gracious, having mercy and forgiving. He22 23

Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor s Bible Commentary with The New International Version of The Holy Bible, 43. Douglas J. Moo, The NIV Application Commentary, Romans, 128.

further states that no allusion to Gods wrath is included.24 Thus Dodd was diametrically opposed to the idea of propitiation or appeasement. Morris on the other hand has shown that in many if not all of the passages in which or its infinitive is used, the idea of Gods wrath is present.25 As such Dodd failed to pay

adequate attention to the contexts of these words occurrences. Morris in another of his publications asserts that a number of translations see a reference to sacrifice and this may be justified by the use of the term blood in the passage and further by the fact that the verb cognate with the noun being discussed is commonly used in the Septuagint to say that such-and-such a sacrifice was offered to make atonement. However it must be born in mind that the verb in such expressions mean to make atonement not to offer sacrifice and further that the noun we have is not the atonement word, but is only related to it. As such he concludes that the usage of the noun shows that it means propitiation, and that those who advocate a meaning like propiatory sacrifice might be right.26 Morris therefore is against the mercy seat interpretation of the word. In his view there is no example of the word unqualified referring to the mercy seat. Moreover the same word is used in the Septuagint of other things, such as the ledge of the alter in Ezekiel 43:14. It seems clear therefore that the word is understood to signify means of propitiation or propitiatory thing. This according to him is a description that could on occasion apply to the mercy seat, but it could also refer to other things. He states: We need more that the simple, unqualified use of the word to see here reference to that article of tabernacle furniture. We should also bear in mind that the mercy seat was hidden from the public gaze (nobody ever saw it except the high priest, and he only once a year), whereas here the context stresses what is in the open. 27 Shedd supports this assertion by saying that a comparison to the mercy seat upon the face of it seems incongruous Their conclusion: Few of those who hold to this view really face the fact that an unexplained

24

Douglas J. Moo, The NIV Application Commentary, Romans, 129. Quoting C. H. Dodd, , its Cognates, Derivatives and Synonyms in the Septuagint, JTS 32 (1931): 353 60. 25 Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans, 21. Quoting L. Morris, The use of etc, in Biblical Greek, in ET 62 (1950 51), pp. 227 33.26 27

Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 181. Ibid, 182

likening of Christ to a blood-sprinkled lid would be very curious. Means of propitiation is surely the meaning.28 however, is used in reference to the mercy seat of Leviticus 16, in twenty one out of the twenty-seven occurrences in the Septuagint and in its only other occurrence in the New Testament, (Hebrews 9:5), the possibility that Paul is using it in that sense here in Romans and thinking of Christ as the anti-type of the Old Testament mercy-seat must clearly be taken seriously. N. S. L. Fryer in his analysis of the

word concludes that the term is a neuter accusative substantive best translated mercy seat or propitiatory covering,29 D. P. Bailey in his own analysis on the passage in Romans 3: 25 argues that this is a direct reference to the mercy seat which covered the ark of the covenant.30 From earliertimes Paul has often been so understood, and this view of

is upheld by many writers.

Schlatter states that the author makes a link between keporet with kipper, to atone, and as such became the name of the cover that was placed on top of the sacred ark, upon which the cherubim were positioned and upon which the high priest sprinkled blood on the Day of Atonement and states that although was now rendered neuter, its active meaning effecting

forgiveness, according to grace to the guilty is not lost.31 One objection that is held against the mercy seat interpretation of this word is that in the passage in Hebrews referred to above, the word is accompanied by the definite article; however, in this passage the word is void of it. This is not an insuperable objection, for if Paul is intent on stressing that Christ is the antitype of the Old Testament mercy seat, he would naturally omit thearticle so as to avoid identifying Christ with a material object. But more significant is the objection that any reference to the mercy seat is incongruous, since that article was withheld from public view and access. However in the New Testament, the death of Christ28 29 30

Ibid N. S. L. Fryer, The Meaning and Translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25, EvQ 59 (1987): 99-116,

D. P. Bailey, Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25 (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999). 31 Adolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God, Translated by Siegfried S. Schatzmann, 98.

opened up what had formerly been concealed and inaccessible to the people symbolic of the renting of the veil in the temple (Matt 27: 51; Mark 15: 38). As far as Romans is concerned, the word presented is a sign post suggesting a similar concept here. If Paul here recalls the furnishings of the tabernacle and the

tradition of Israels festivals, he clarifies his statement concerning the redemptive power of the death of Jesus in this way that the law already provided a process that mediated forgiveness to the community comprised of sinners, as well as the ability to remain in the divine grace. In order for an act like this to be possible, the cover was upon the ark in the holy of holies, as the symbol of the God present in the sanctuary and among his people. He was removed from the sight of everyone else and positioned in the accessible darkness of the holy of holies; but once each year to become the locus of the sprinkling of blood with which the assurance of the forgiving grace was associated. While the locus of grace was hidden and inaccessible to Israel and more so to the nations, he through whom God has granted deliverance to all is proclaimed to all and the access to him opened up to all. T. W. Manson remarks, the mercy-seat is no longer kept in the sacred seclusion of the most holyplace: it is brought out into the midst of the rough and tumble of the world and set up before the eyes of hostile, contemptuous, or indifferent crowds32 Indeed, Christ has become the mediator or the go between in the struggle of God and man where the mercy of God is available because of the sacrifice of the son. Nygren supports the mercy seat interpretation by noting that the very terms used by Paul in the passage tally with the Old Testament setting in Exodus 25 the manifestation of God, his wrath, his glory, the blood and the mercy seat. However, the idea of Christ being the mercy seat as well as our propitiation does not have to be one that is in stark contrast to the other. Perhaps there is room for both of these interpretations in the New Testament writings of Paul. The concept of propitiation is not limited to Pauls writings. In the Old Testament sacrificial system, the offering was made before the Lord and there it took effect as well: The priest shall burn it on the alter, upon the offerings by the fire to the Lord; and the priest shall make atonementFrank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor s Bible Commentary with The New International Version of The Holy Bible, 41. Quoting T. W Manson (JTS 46) 1945, 5.32

for [the sinner] for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven (Lev. 4:35). Similar passages could be found in Leviticus 16. As such Erickson asks the question can there be any doubt, especially in view of Gods anger against sin that this verse points to an appeasement of God? How else can we interpret the statement that the offering should be made to the Lord and forgiveness would follow?33 Exodus 25 gives a detailed description of Gods direction for the building of the Ark of the Covenant. In verse 17 and 22, the object of great concern is the atonement cover. It is the location upon which the Priest once every year would locate himself and make sacrifice for the entire nation of Israel for one entire year. The noun is (NDSSRUHW), translated atonement lid or atonement plate. The

traditional translation being mercy-seat (so KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV) came from Tyndale in 1530 and was also used by Luther in 1523. The noun is formed from the word to make atonement. The item that the Israelites should make would be more than just a lid for the ark. It would be the place where atonement was signified. The translation of covering is probably incorrect, for it derives from a rare use of the verb, if the same verb at all (the evidence shows cover is from another root with the same letters as this). The value of this place was that Yahweh sat enthroned above it, and so the ark essentially was the footstool. Blood was applied to the lid of the box, for that was the place of atonement. When God look down before the blood was applied, he would see the commandments that were written on the two tablets of stone that were hid within the Ark of the Covenant. This would necessarily act as a yoke around the neck of the Israelites and would be the source of the wrath and the judgment of God on the people of Israel. But just like the Passover recorded in Exodus 12, when the blood was applied and God looked down from between the Cherubims, atonement was made at the mercy seat of God and the sins of the people were forgiven for a while a period of one year. This atonement nevertheless being a temporary atonement, ...was a symbol for the time then present, when gifts and sacrifices were offered that could not perfect the conscience of the worshiper. They served only for matters of food and drink33

Millard J. Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, Edited by L. Arnold Hustad, (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Book House, 1999), 251.

and various washings; they are external regulations imposed until the new order came (Hebrews 9: 9-10). The picture of the Tabernacle given in the Old Testament was but a pre-figure of the true tabernacle that was to be inaugurated in the New Testament. This tabernacle would then be transformed from a temple made with hands to the temple of the heart. The only condition which did not change was the condition of the heart of man and the necessity for atonement. This atonement however, had to be diametrically different from the atonement made in the Old Covenant, where the blood of rams and bulls were offered. But separate and apart from this form of atonement, this atonement was a two pronged fork in its application. Leviticus 16 records this idea. In the instruction presented there, Aaron, the high priest had to select two goats one to act as a sacrifice a sin offering to be butchered for the sins of the people of Israel and the other to be a scape goat to make atonement by sending it away into the wilderness - the two goats together forming one sacrifice, one of them being killed, and the other let go, there being no other analogous case of the kind except at the purification of a leper, when one bird was killed and the other dipped in its blood, and let go free. Thus these two sacrificesone in the removal of what symbolically represented indwelling sin, the other contracted guiltagreed in requiring two animals, of whom one was killed, the other let go. It should be noted according to Edersheim, that the sins of the people were confessed not on the goat which was killed, but on that which was let go in the wilderness, and that it was this goatnot the otherwhich bore upon him all the iniquities of the people. So far as the conscience was concerned, this goat was the real and the only sin-offering for all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, for upon it the high-priest laid the sins of the people, after he had by the blood of the bullock and of the other goat made an end of

reconciling the Holy Place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar (Lev 16:20).34 The blood sprinkled had effected this; but it had done no more, and it could do no more, for it could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience (Heb 9:9). The symbolical representation of this perfecting was by the live goat, which, laden with the confessed sins of the people, carried them away into the wilderness to a land not inhabited. The only meaning of which this seems really capable, is that though confessed guilt was removed from the people to the head of the goat, as the symbolical substitute, yet as the goat was not killed, only sent far away, into a land not inhabited, so, under the Old Covenant, sin was not really blotted out, only put away from the people, and put aside till Christ came, not only to take upon Himself the burden of transgression, but to blot it out and to purge it away. Not only was the atonement of Christ a propitiatory event but it was also a substitutionary phenomenon. Several considerations indicate that Christ did indeed take our place. First there is a whole set of passages which tell us that our sins were laid upon Christ, He bore our iniquity, He was made sin for us. One prominent instance is in Isaiah 53: All we like sheep have gone astray we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (vs 6); He was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (v. 12b). On seeing Jesus, John the Baptist exclaimed, Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29). Paul said, For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). The common idea in these several passages is that just like how the goat in Leviticus 16 bore the sins of the nation and took them away from the nation it self, Christ completed that work and not only took away the sins of the world but totally annihilated it so that it was not covered but totally done away with.34

Alfred Edersheim, The Temple Its Ministry and Services, Electronic Pdf. Document

The coming of the Christ, the son of God heralded the freedom of men from the oppressive shackles of sin and shame and has given birth to the unspeakable gift of grace by which we are saved through faith. It is the faith that comes by trusting in the divine initiative of God that man is declared righteous in the court house of heaven and is redeemed by the precious blood of the lamb. This lamb through his atonement sacrifice has not only taken away the sins of the world but has also acted as the final arbiter between God and man.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bailey, D. P. Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Pauls Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25. Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999. Bible.org. Net Bible First Edition. Software package, 1996 2005. Biblical Studies Press Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie England, Steve Bond, E. Ray Clendenen, Trent C. Butler and Bill Latta. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. (Nashville, Tennessee; Holman Reference, 2004. Carson, D. A and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 2005. Cranfield C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans. Edinburgh: T & T Clark Limited 38 George Street. 1985. ________. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans. Edinburgh: T & T Clark Limited 38 George Street. 1985. Quoting B.B. Warfield. The New Testament Terminology of Redemption. In PTR 15 (1917), 201 49. L. Morris. The Apostolic Preaching of The Cross. London. 1955.

________. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans. Edinburgh: T & T Clark Limited 38 George Street. 1985. Quoting Cambier, LEvangile de Dieu I pp.84f ________. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans. Edinburgh: T & T Clark Limited 38 George Street. 1985. Quoting L. Morris. The use of etc, in Biblical Greek. In ET 62 (1950 51). Edersheim, Alfred. The Temple Its Ministry and Services. Electronic Pdf. Document Erickson, Millard J. Introducing Christian Doctrine. Edited by L. Arnold Hustad. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Book House, 1999. Fryer, N. S. L. The Meaning and Translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25. EvQ 59 (1987): 99116. Gaebelein Frank E. The Expositors Bible Commentary with The New International Version of The Holy Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan Publishing House. 1977. ________. The Expositors Bible Commentary with The New International Version of The Holy Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan Publishing House. 1977. Quoting T. W Manson (JTS 46) 1945, 5. Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology, Volume Three, Sin and Salvation. Minneapolis, Minnesota; Bethany House. 2004. Moo, Douglas J. The NIV Application Commentary, Romans. Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. 2000. ________. The NIV Application Commentary, Romans. Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. 2000. Quoting C. H. Dodd, , its Cognates, Derivatives and Synonyms in the Septuagint. JTS 32 (1931): 353 60. Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press. 1997. Ruppert,Charles John. GNT, Online Greek New Testament. Resource on-line. Available from http://wesley.nnu.edu/gnt/. Internet. Schlatter Adolf. Romans: The Righteousness of God, Translated by Siegfried S. Schatzmann. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc. 1995.