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.