Sixth Section.—The revelation of God’s righteousness without the law by faith in Christ for all sinners without distinction, by the representation of Christ as the Propitiator (“mercy-seat”). The righteousness of God in Christ as justifying righteousness.
Rom_3:21-26
Seventh Section—The annulling of man’s vain-glory (self-praise) by the law of faith. Justification by faith without the deeds of the law. First proof: from experience: God is the God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews—proved by the actual faith of the Gentiles. True renewal of the law by faith.
Rom_3:27-31
21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested [But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God hath been made manifest], being 22witnessed [testified to, attested] by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by [by means of, through] faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned [all sinned, i.e., they are all sinners], and come [fall] short [
ὑóôåñïῦíôáé
, in the present tense] of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath [omit hath] set forth [
ðñïÝèåôï
] to be a propitiation [mercy-seat] through [the] faith [,] in his blood, to declare [for a manifestation (exhibition) of,
åἰò ἔíäåéîéí ôῆò äé÷
.] his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past [because of the prætermission (non-visitation, passing by) of the former sins,
äéὰ ôὴí
(not
ôῆò
)
ðÜñåóéí
(not
ôῆò
)
ðÜñåóéí
] through [in,
ἐí
] the forbearance 26of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus [with a view to the manifestation (exhibition,
ðñὸò ôὴí
ἔòäåéîéí
) of his righteousness at this present time, in order that he may be (shown and seen to be) just and (yet at the same time) be justifying him who is of the faith of (in) Jesus,
åἰò ôὸ åἶíáé áὐôὸí äß÷äéïí ÷áὶ äé÷éïῦíôá ôὸí ἐ÷ ðßóôåùò
̓
Éçóïῦ
].
27Where is [the] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? [By the law] 8of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. Therefore [For] we conclude [judge] that a man is justified by faith without the deeds [without 29works] of the law. [Or,
ἤ
] Is he the God of the Jews only?is he not also 30of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeingit is one God, which shall [who will] justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: [Far be it!] yea, we establish the law.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
First Paragraph, Rom_3:21-26
Contrast between the saving time of justification and the old time of sin and death.
Rom_3:21. But now,
íõíὶäÝ
.—Explanations of
íõíß
: 1. Contrast of times [at this time, under the gospel dispensation, =
ἐí ôῶ íῦí ÷áéñῶ
, Rom_3:26]; (Grotius, Tholuck, Philippi [Olshausen, Wordsworth, Hodge], and others); 2. contrast of circumstances [as things are]: earlier dependence on the law, now independence of the law [
äéὰ íüìïõ
—
÷ùñὶò íüìïõ
], (Pareus, Piscat., Meyer, De Wette [Fritzsche, Alford. In this sense the classics use only
íῦí
, not
íõíß
, but the latter is so used repeatedly in Hellenistic Greek]); 3. in soteriology the two contrasts of time and condition coincide.—Apart from the law [of Moses,
÷ùñὶò íüìïõ
]: 1. It is referred to
ðåöáíÝñùôáé
(Luther, Tholuck, Meyer, and others); 2. to
äé÷áéïóýíç
(Augustine, Wolf [Reiche, Hodge], and others): the righteousness of God which the believer shares without the law [or rather, without works of the law,
÷ùñὶò ἔñãùíí üìïõ
, Gal_2:16]. The latter view is not correct. [Comp.
äéὰ íïìïõ
in Rom_3:20, which likewise belongs not to the noun
ἐðßãíùóéò
, but to the verb to be supplied. Also Text. Note1.—P. S.]
[The righteousness of God. Comp. the Exeg. Notes on Rom_1:17. It is the righteousness which proceeds from God (gen. auctoris), which personally appeared in Christ, “who is our Righteousness,” and which is communicated to the believer for Christ’s sake in the act of justification by faith. It is both objective, or inherent in God and realized in Christ, and subjective, or imparted to man. It is here characterized by a series of antitheses: independent of the law, yet authenticated by the law and the prophets (Rom_3:21); freely (
äùñåÜí
) bestowed on the believer, yet fully paid for by the redemption price (
äéὰ ôῆò ἀðïëõôñþóåùò
) of Christ (24); intrinsically holy, yet justifying the sinner (26); thus uniting the character of the moral governor of the universe, and the merciful Father who provided a free salvation.—P. S.]
Has been made manifest,
ðåöáíÝñùôáé
. This is now the complete revelation of righteousness; as Joh_1:17 represents the complete revelation of grace and truth; and as Eph_1:19 represents the complete revelation of omnipotence. All are single definitions of the completed New Testament revelation itself. The expression does not absolutely presuppose “the previous concealment in God’s council” (Meyer). For the Old Testament was the increasing revelation of God, also in reference to righteousness. But compared with this completeness, the growing revelation was still as a veil.—Being testified to [
ìáñôõñïõìÝíç
, put first with reference to
÷ùñὶò íüìïõ
, which it qualifies] by the law and the prophets [i.e., the Old Testament Scriptures; Mat_5:17; Mat_7:12; Mat_22:40, &c.; just as we now say the Bible.
íüìïõ
has here, as Bengel remarks, a wider sense than in the preceding
÷ùñὶò íüìïõ
.—P. S.] There is therefore no contradiction between the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament is in substance a prophetic witness of the New, and therefore also of the righteousness of faith (see chap. 4., and Rom_10:6; Act_10:43; chap. 15). And not only do the prophets (Isa_28:16; Hab_2:4) testify to this righteousness, but so does the law also in its stricter sense (the patriarchs, &c.); yea, even its strictest sense; for example, the law of the sin-offering (Leviticus 16). [Augustine: Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet; Vetus T. in Novo patet. See the proof in chap. 4 from the case of Abraham and the declarations of David.—P. S.]
Rom_3:22. Through faith of Jesus Christ. The usual explanation is, through faith in Jesus Christ [genitive of the object]. Meyer produces in its favor the usage of language (Mar_11:22; Act_3:16; Gal_2:20; Gal_3:22; Eph_3:12, &c.), as well as the essential relation of the
ðßóôéò
; to the
äé÷áéïóýíç
. [These parallel passages, to which may be added Gal_2:16; Eph_4:13; Php_3:9; Jam_2:1; Rev_14:12, seem to me conclusive in favor of the usual interpretation that our faith in Christ is meant here; comp. also
ôὸí ἐ÷ ðßóôåùò Éçóïῦ
, Rom_3:26. But Dr. Lange strongly fortifies his new interpretation: Christ’s faithfulness, to us, taking
Ἰçóïῦ ×ñéóôï ῦ
as the genitive of the subject.—P. S.] The explanation of Benecke, the faithfulness of Christ, is overlooked even by Tholuck. We make it, Christ’s believing faithfulness [Glaubenstreue]. Reasons: 1. The
ðßóôéò èåïῦ
(Rom_3:3), and the coherency of the ideas,
ðéóôåýåóèáé
,
ðéóôåýåéí
, and
ðßóôéò èåïῦ
, in opposition to the ideas:
ἀðéóôÝù
,
ἀðéóôßá
, and corresponding with the ideas: righteousness of God, righteousness of Christ, righteousness by faith. 2. The addition in this passage of
åἰò ðÜíôáò ÷áὶ ðÜíôáò ÷áὶ åðὶ ðÜíôáò
; with which we must compare Rom_1:17,
ἐî ðßóôåùò
. 3. The passages, Gal_3:22; Eph_3:12; comp. Heb_12:2. As to His knowledge, Christ of course did not walk by faith, but by sight; but as regards the moral principle of faith—confidence and faithfulness—He is the Prince of faith. 4. We cannot say of the righteousness of God, that it was first revealed by faith in Christ. The revelation of God’s righteousness in the faithfulness of Christ is the ground of justifying faith, but faith is not the ground of this Revelation 5. So also the
äéὰ ôῆò ðßóôåùò ἐí ôῶ áὐôïῦ áἵìáôé
, Rom_3:25, cannot be regarded as substantiating the
ἱëáóôÞñéïí
.
Unto all and upon all.. The
åἰò
denotes the direction, the ideal dynamic determination of the
äé÷áéïóýíç
; the
ἐðὶ
, the fulfilment, the appropriation. [This must, of course, not be understood in a Universalistic sense. See Textual Note4.—P. S.] Both prepositions have been combined in various ways as identical, and explained as strengthening the thought for all (thus Rückert, and others); on the contrary, Theodoret, Œcumenius, and others, have arbitrarily referred
åἰò
to the Jews, and
ἐðß
to the Gentiles; according to Morus, and others,
÷áὶ ἐðß
, &c., is construed as a further explanation of the
åἰò ðÜíôáò
.
For there is no difference. On account of
ãÜñ
, this clause refers to the former. There is neither a difference between Jews and Gentiles, nor, in reference to the necessity of justification, is there a difference between those who have shown themselves, according to Rom_2:7 ff., doers or transgressors of the law.
Rom_3:23. For all sinned [they are all sinners; Luther: sie sind allzumal Sünder]. They sinned, in the sense that they have become sinners. Therefore aor. (II.), and not perfect. They sinned in such a way that they are still sinning. But their righteousness was altogether lost when their transgression began.—And fall short of the glory [
ὑóôåñïῦíôáé
, in the present tense. All sinned, and consequently they come short].
ôῆò äüîçò
. Explanations: 1. Glorying before God, gloriatio (Erasmus, Luther, Rosenmüller and others). 2. The
äüîá èåïῦ
as the image of God (Flacius, Chemnitz, Rückert, Olshausen; see 1Co_11:7). 3. The glory of eternal life [as in Rom_3:2], (Œcumenius, Glöckler, &c., Beza, Bengel, as sharing in the glory of God). 4. Honor before God, i.e., in the estimation of God (Calvin [gloria quœ coram Deo locum habet], Köllner). 5. The honor which God gives, i.e., the approbation of God (the genit. auct.); Piscat., Grotius, Philippi, Meyer [Fritzsche, De Wette, Alford, Hodge]. Tholuck: The declaration of honor, like the declaration of righteousness. This would give the strange sense: because they lack the declaration of righteousness on the part of God, they are to be declared righteous. It must not be overlooked that men belong here who, as inward Jews, according to Rom_2:29, have already
ἔðáéíïò ἐ÷èåïῦ
. Certainly, the question is concerning righteousness before God, because the question concerns God’s judicial tribunal. But what men were wanting since Adam’s fall, is not the righteousness of justification—for it is by this that that want is to be supplied—but the righteousness of life (not to be confounded with the righteousness by the works of the law), as the true glory or radiance of life [
äüîá
in the sense of splendor, majesty, perfection, Lange translates it: Gerechtigkeitsglanz, Lebensruhm.—P. S.]. But as the
äé÷áéïóýíç
of man must come from the
äé÷áéïóýíç
of God in order to avail before Him, so also the
äüîá
. Therefore the alternative, from God or before God, is a wrong alternative. But the supply is equal to the want: the
äé÷áéïóýíç
of Christ becomes the
äé÷áéïóýíç
of the believer, and therefore Christ’s
äüîá
his
äüîá
(Romans 8).
Rom_3:24. Being justified freely.. The participle
äé÷áéïýìåíïé
, in connection with what follows, specifies both the mode by which their want of Divine
äüîá
becomes perfectly manifest, and the opposite which comes to supply this want. The
äé÷áéïῦóèáé
does not merely come to supply the want of glory (according to Luther’s translation: and are justified [Peshito, Fritzsche, =
÷áὶ äé÷áéïῦíôáé
]), but by the
äé÷áéïῦóèáé
, the fact of that
ὑóôåñïῦóèáé
becomes perfectly apparent. The individual judgment and the individual deliverance are, in fact, joined into one: repentance and faith; hunger and thirst after righteousness, and fulness.
[Note on the Scripture meaning of
äé÷áéüù
.—
Äé÷áéïýìåíïé
depends grammatically on
ὑóôåñïῦíôáé
, but contains in fact the main idea: ut qui justificentur (Beza, Tholuck, Meyer). This is the locus classicus of the doctrine of justification by free grace through faith in Christ, in its inseparable connection with the atonement, as its objective basis. The verb
äé÷áéüù
occurs forty times in the New Testament (twice in Matthew, five times in Luke, twice in Acts, twenty-seven times in Paul’s Epistles, three times in James, once in the Apocalypse. In the Gospel and Epistles of John, as also in Peter and James, the verb never occurs, although they repeatedly use the noun
äé÷áéïóýíç
and the adjective
äß÷áéïò
). It must be taken here, as nearly always in the Bible, in the declaratory, forensic or judicial sense, as distinct from, though by no means opposed to, or abstractly separated from, a mere executive act of pardoning, and an efficient act of making just inwardly or sanctifying. It denotes an act of jurisdiction, the pronouncing of a sentence, not the infusion of a quality. This is the prevailing Hellenistic usage, corresponding to the Hebrew
äִöְãִּé÷
. Comp., for the Old Testament, the Septuagint in Gen_38:26; Gen_44:16; Exo_23:7 (
ïὐäé÷áéþóåéò
); Deu_25:1; 2Sa_15:4; 1Ki_8:32; Psa_82:3; Pro_17:15; Isa_5:23; for the New Testament, Mat_12:37; Luk_10:29; Luk_16:15; Luk_18:14 (where
äåäé÷áéùìÝíïò
evidently refers to the publican’s prayer for forgiveness of sin); Act_13:39; Rom_2:13; Rom_3:4; Rom_3:20; Rom_3:24; Rom_3:26; Rom_3:28; Rom_3:30; Rom_4:2; Rom_4:5; v. 1, 9; Rom_8:30; Rom_8:33; 1Co_4:4; 1Co_6:11; Gal_2:16-17; Gal_3:8; Gal_3:11; Gal_3:24; Gal_5:4; Tit_3:7; Jam_2:21-25; Rev_22:11. There is, to my knowledge, no passage in the New Testament, and only two or three in the Septuagint (Psa_73:13 :
ἐäé÷áßùóá ôὴí ÷áñäßáí
; Isa_53:11 :
äé÷áéῶóáé äß÷áéïí
; comp. Dan_12:3 :
îַöְãִּé÷ֵé äָøַáִּéí
), where
äé÷áéüù
means to make just, or, to lead to righteousness. The declarative sense is especially apparent in those passages where man is said to justify God, who is just, and cannot be made just, but only accounted and acknowledged as just; Luk_7:29; Luk_7:35; Mat_11:19; Rom_3:4 (from Psa_51:5); comp. also 1Ti_3:16, where Christ is said to be justified in spirit.
The declarative and forensic meaning of the phrase,
äé÷áéïῦóèáé
, may be proven (1) from the opposite phrase,
äé÷áéïῦóèáé ἐ÷ íüìïõ
, which is equivalent to
äé÷áéïῦóèáé ðáñὰ ôῶ èåῶåí íüìῳ
, Gal_3:11 (or
ἐî ἔñãùí íüìïõ
, Gal_3:10), or
ἐíþðéïíáὐôïῦ
, Rom_3:20; i.e., to be justified in the sight or in the judgment of God; (2) from the term
ëïãßæåéí åἰò äé÷áéïóýíçí
, to account for righteous, which is used in the same sense as
äé÷áéïῦí
, Rom_4:3; Rom_4:5; Rom_4:9; Rom_4:23-24; Gal_3:6; Jam_2:23, and is almost equivalent with
óþæåéí
, to save (comp. Rom_5:9-10; Rom_10:9-10; Rom_10:13; Eph_2:5 ff.); (3) from the use of the opposite word to condemn, e.g., Pro_17:15 : “He that justifieth (
îַּöְãִּé÷
, LXX.:
äß÷áéïí ÷ñßíåé
) the wicked, and he that condemneth (
îַøְùִׁùִׁéòַ
) the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord,” in the translation of the Vulgate: “Qui justificat impium et qui condemnat justum, abominabilis est uterque apud Deum.” He who would implant righteousness in a wicked man, or lead him into the way of righteousness, would doubtless be acceptable to God. So also Mat_12:37 : “By thy words shalt thou be justified (
äé÷áéùèÞóῃ
), and by thy words thou shalt be condemned (
÷áôáäé÷áóèÞóῃ
).
The corresponding noun,
äé÷áßùóéò
(which occurs only twice in the New Testament, viz., Rom_4:25; Rom_5:18), justification (Rechtfertigung), is the opposite of
÷áôÜ÷ñéìá
, condemnation; comp. Mat_12:37; Rom_8:1; Rom_8:33-34; hence the antithesis of
÷ñῖìá åßò äé÷áßùóéí
and
÷ñῖìá åἰò ÷áôÜ÷ñéìá
, Rom_5:16; Rom_5:18. Justification implies, negatively, the remission of sins (
ἄöåóéò ôῶí ἁìáñôéᾶí
), and, positively, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, or the adoption (
õἱïèåóßá
, Gal_4:5; Eph_1:5).
No human being can so keep the law of God, which demands perfect love to Him and to our neighbor, that on the ground of his own works he could ever be declared righteous before the tribunal of a holy God. He can only be so justified freely, without any merit of his own, on the objective ground of the perfect righteousness of Christ, as apprehended, and thus made subjective by a living faith, or life-union with Him. This justifying grace precedes every truly good work on our part, but is at the same time the actual beginning of all good works. There is no true holiness except on the ground of the atonement and the remission of sin, and the holiness of the Christian is but a manifestation of love and gratitude for the boundless mercy of God already received and constantly experienced.
This I take to be the true evangelical or Pauline view of justification, in opposition to the interpretation of Roman Catholics and Rationalists, who, from opposite standpoints, agree in taking
äé÷áéüù
in the sense of making just, or sanctifying, and in regarding good works as a joint condition, with faith, of progressive justification. The objection that God cannot pronounce a man just if he is not so in fact, has force only against that mechanical and exclusively forensic view which resolves justification into a sort of legal fiction, or a cold, lifeless imputation, and separates it from the broader and deeper doctrine of a life-union of the believer with Christ. Certainly God, unlike any human judge, is absolutely true and infallible; He speaks, and it is done; His declaratory acts are creative, efficient acts. But mark, the sinner is not justified outside of Christ, but only in Christ, on the ground of His perfect sacrifice, and on condition of true faith, by which he actually becomes one with Christ, and a partaker of His holy life. So, when God declares him righteous, he is righteous potentially, “a new creature in Christ;” old things having passed away, and all things having become new (1Co_5:7). And God, who sees the end from the beginning, sees also the full-grown fruit in the germ, and by His gracious promise assures its growth. Justifying faith is itself a work of Divine grace in us, and the fruitful source of all our good works. On the part of God, then, and in point of fact, the actus declaratorius can indeed not be abstractly separated from the actus efficiens: the same grace which justifies, does also renew, regenerate, and sanctify; faith and love, justification and sanctification, are as inseparable in the life of the Christian, as light and heat in the rays of the sun. “When God doth justify the ungodly,” says Owen (on Justification, vol. v. p. 127, Goold’s ed.), “on account of the righteousness imputed unto him, He doth at the same instant, by the power of His grace, make him inherently and subjectively righteous, or holy.” Nevertheless, we must distinguish in the order of logic. Justification, like regeneration (which is the corresponding and simultaneous or preceding inner operation of the Holy Spirit), is a single act, sanctification a continuous process; they are related to each other like birth and growth; justification, moreover, depends not at all on what man is or has done, but on what Christ has done for us in our nature; and, finally, good works are no cause or condition, but a consequence and manifestation of justification. Comp. Doctrinal and Ethical, No. 5, below; also the Exeg. Notes on Rom_1:17; Rom_2:13; Rom_3:20.—P. S.]
Freely.
äùñåÜí
, as a gift, gratis, not by merit (Rom_4:4; comp. 2Th_3:8). [Comp. also
ἡäùñåὰ ôῆò äé÷áéïóýíçò
, Rom_5:17, and
èåïῦ ôὸ äῶñïí
, Eph_2:3.—P. S.]—By his grace. The idea of grace denotes the union of God’s love and righteousness, the highest manifestation of His favor, which, by its voluntary operation, as love, destroys the sinner’s guilt freely, and which, as righteousness, destroys the guilt on conditions of justice. [Grace—i.e., God’s love to the sinner, saving love, is the efficient cause, redemption by the blood of Christ the objective means, faith the subjective condition, of justification
áὐôïῦ
is emphatically put before
÷Üñéôé
. Justification on the part of God is an act of pure grace (Eph_2:8-10; Gal_2:21), and
÷Üñéò
is the very opposite of
ìéóèὸò ἔñãùí
or
ὀöåßëçìá
(Rom_4:4; Rom_11:6). Faith, on our part, is not a meritorious act, but simply the acceptance and appropriation of God’s free gift, and is itself wrought in us by God’s Spirit, without whom no one can call Jesus Lord (1Co_12:3).—P. S.]
Through the redemption,
ἀðïëýôñùóéò
. The grace of God is marked as the causality of this
ἀðïëýôñùóéò
. This is therefore to be regarded here as the most general view of the fact of redemption, as is also plain from the addition,
ôῆòἐí ×
.’
É
. [in Christ, not through Christ; comp. Eph_1:7;
ἐí ᾧ ἔ÷ïìåí ôὴí ἀðïëýôñùóéí äéὰ ôïῦ áἵìáôïò áὐôïῦ
]. The
ἀðïëýôñùóéò
, or redemption, in the wider sense, and viewed as a fundamental and accomplished fact, comprehends: 1.
÷áôáëëáãÞ
[change from enmity to friendship, reconciliation], Rom_5:10; 2Co_5:18 : freedom from the enmity and rancor of sin. 2.
ἱëáóìüò
[propitiation, expiation], 2Co_5:14; Rom_3:21; Gal_3:13 [
ἐîçãüñáóåí ἐ÷ ôῆò ÷áôÜñáò ôïῦ íüìïõ
]; Eph_1:7 [
ôὴíáðïëýôñùóéí
...
ôὴí ἄöåóéí ôῶí ðáñáðôùìÜôùí
]; Col_1:14; Heb_2:17 : freedom from the guilt of sin. 3.
ἀðïëýôñùóéò
in the narrower sense, Rom_5:17; Rom_6:2; Rom_6:18; Rom_6:22; Rom_8:2; Rom_8:21; Gal_5:1; Tit_2:14; Heb_2:15; Rom_3:18 : freedom from the dominion of sin. The same
ἀðïëýôñùóéò
, viewed in its ultimate aim and effect, means the transposition from the condition of the militant to the triumphant Church: Luk_21:28 [“the day of redemption draweth nigh”]; Rom_8:23; Eph_1:7; Eph_1:14; Eph_4:30. The
ßëáóìüò
is justly represented here as the central saving agency of the whole
ἀðïëýôñùóéæ
. [Hodge: Redemption from the wrath of God by the blood of Christ. Philippi, Alford, and others: deliverance from the guilt and punishment of sin by the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. The one of course implies the other.—P. S.]
Rom_3:25.Whom God set forth. Explanations of
ðñïÝèåôï
: 1. Previously purposed, designed, decreed (Chrysostom, Œcumenius, Fritzsche [Forbes], and others, with reference to Eph_1:9); 2. Kypke: substituit, nostro loco dedit. Against the meaning of
ðñïôßèçìé
. 3. Publicly set forth (Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Bengel, De Wette, Philippi, Meyer, Tholuck [E. V., Alford, Hodge; also Delitzsch, Comm. on Heb., 9:5]). Meyer: “This signification of
ðñïôéèçìé
, well known from the Greek usage (Herod., 3:148; Rom_6:21; Plato’s Phœdr., p. 115, E., &c.), must be decidedly accepted, because of the correlation to
åἰò ἔíäåéîéí
.” The peculiar interest of God is indicated by the middle voice. It was manifested through the crucifixion; compare the discourse of Jesus, in John, where He compares Himself with the serpent of Moses; John 3
This explanation acquires its full weight by the following
ἱëáóôÞñéïí
, a substantive of neuter form, made from the adjective
ἱëáóôÞñéïò
, which relates to expiatory acts; see the Lexicons. In the Septuagint especially it is the designation of the mercy-seat, or the lid or cover of the ark,
ëַּôֹּøֶú
, which was sprinkled by the high-priest with the blood of the sin-offering once a year, on the great day of atonement [and over which appeared the shekinah, or
äüîá ôïῦ ÷õñßïõ
; Lev_16:13-16; Exo_25:17-22. Comp Bähr: Symbolik des mosaischen Cultus, 1837, vol. i., p. 379 ff., 387 ff., and Lundius, Jüd. Heiligthümer, Hamb. 1711, p. 33 ff.—P. S.]. Besides, the settle, or lower platform [
òֲæָøָä
] of the altar of burnt-offering [Eze_43:14; Eze_43:17; Eze_43:20] was so named [because the Asarah, like the Capporeth, was to be sprinkled with the blood of atonement, or because it was the platform from which the sin-offering was offered.—P. S.]. See also Exo_25:22, and other places. Explanations: 1. Expiatory sacrifice, sin-offering (Sühnopfer). Some supply
èῦìá
[which, however, is unnecessary,
ἱëáóôÞñéïí
being used as a noun]. (So Clericus, Reiche, De Wette, Köllner, Fritzsche [Meyer, Alford, Conybeare and Howson, Jowett, Wordsworth, Hodge, Ewald]). 2. Means of propitiation [Sühnmittel] (Vulgate: propitiatio; Castellio: placamentum; Morus, Usteri, Rückert). 3. The mercy-seat, or covering of the ark of the covenant [Origen, Theodoret, Theophylact, Augustine], (Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Calov., Olshausen, Philippi [Tholuck, Forbes]). Against the first exposition it may be urged: (a.) The expiatory offering is not brought to man on God’s part, but man brings it to God by the high-priest (see Philippi) (b). The offering is not publicly set forth. (c). The permanence of the operation of the offering requires another expression, and this is Christ crucified as the permanent atonement itself. This sets aside also the second explanation, which, moreover, is too abstract (Meyer). Arguments in favor of the third explanation: (a.) The Septuagint [uniformly] has translated
ëּôֹּøֶú
ἱëáóôÞñéïí
(Exo_25:18-21, &c. [twenty-six passages according to Fürst’s Hebrew Concordance]). (b.) In Heb_9:5,
ßëáóôÞñéïí
means the mercy-seat. (c.) This view is sustained by the idea pervading the whole Epistle, of the contrast between the old worship, which was partly heathen and partly only symbolical, and the real New Testament worship. The verb
ðñïÝèåôï
[ad spectandum proponere] likewise favors it. As, according to Joh_1:14, the
äüîá
, or Shekinah, openly appeared in the person of Christ from the secrecy of the Holy of holies, and has dwelt among men, so, according to the present passage, is the
ἱëáóôÞñéïí
set forth from the Holy of holies into the publicity of the whole world for believers. See Zec_13:1; the open fountain. (d.) The
ἱëáóôÞñéïí
unites as symbol the different elements of the atonement. As the covering of the ark of the covenant itself, it is the throne of the divine government of the cherubim above, and the preservation of the law, with its requirements, below. But with the sprinkled blood of expiation, it is a sacrifice offered to God, and therefore the satisfaction for the demands of the divine law below. Also Philo called the covering of the ark of the covenant the symbol of the gracious majesty [
ἵëåùäõíÜìåùò
] of God [Vit. Mos., p. 668; comp. Josephus, Antiq. iii. 6, 5.—P. S.].
Meyer [admits that this interpretation agrees with the usage of the word, especially in the LXX., and gives good sense by representing Christ as the anti-typical Capporeth, or mercy-seat; but, nevertheless, he] urges against it the following objections: (a.) That
ἱëáóôÞñéïí
is without the article. But this would exclude the antitype, the Old Testament
ἱëáóôÞñéïí
. The requisite articulation is here in
ἐí ôῷ áὐôïῦ áἵìáôé
. [With more reason we might miss
ἀëçèéíüí
. Christ may be called our pascha, or the true pascha, or the true mercy-seat, rather than simply pascha or mercy-seat. Yet this is by no means conclusive.—P. S.] (b.) The name, in its application to Christ, is too abrupt. Answer: Since there must be a place of expiation for every expiatory offering, the conceptions of places and offerings of expiation must have been quite familiar to the readers, not merely to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles, although here the idea is connected with the Old Testament symbol. (c.) If Christ should be conceived as Capporeth, then the
åἰòἔíäåéîéí ôῆò äé÷áὶïóýíçò áὐôïῦ
would be improper, since the Capporeth must much rather appear as
ἔíäåéîéò
of divine grace. This objection rests simply on a defective understanding of the Pauline idea of righteousness (see above). According to Paul, righteousness is not merely condemnatory and putting to death, but, in its perfect revelation, also delivering and quickening. Grace itself is called, on one side, righteousness, on the other, love. (d.) The conception of Christ as the antitype of the mercy-seat nowhere returns in the whole New Testament. Answer: Likewise the types of Christ as the antitype of the brazen serpent (Joh_3:14), and Christ as the curse-offering (Gal_3:13), and others, only occur once. (e.) It has also been objected [but not by Meyer], that the image does not suit, because the covering of the ark and the sprinkling of the blood were two different things. [Hodge: “It is common to speak of the blood of a sacrifice, but not of the blood of the mercy-seat.”] In reply to this, even Meyer observes: Christ is both sacrifice and high-priest.—On the ignorantly contemptuous manner in which Rückert and Fritzsche criticise the proper explanation, see Tholuck. [Fritzsche dismisses this interpretation with a frivolous “valeat absurda explicatio.”—P. S.]
Through faith in his blood [
äéὰ ðßóôåù ò
,
ἐí ôῷ áὐôïῦ áἵìáôé
]. Different interpretations: 1. By faith on His blood (
ἐí
instead of
åἰò
; Luther, Calvin, Beza, Olshausen [Tholuck, Hodge], and others). Although the language will permit this view, the thought is not only obscure, but incorrect, that God, by faith on the blood of Christ, should have made Christ himself the throne of grace for humanity. Faith, in this sense, is a consequens, but not an antecedent, of the established propitiation. 2. The same objection holds good against the construction of Meyer, and others, by which both clauses,
äéὰ ôῆò ðßóô
. and
ἐí ôῷ áὐôïῦ áἵìáôé
, should refer coördinately to
ðñïÝèåôï
; namely, so that faith would be the subjective condition, and the blood of Christ the objective means of the setting forth of Christ as the expiatory offering. An objective condition should precede the subjective one, and the propitiation exists before faith, in the sense of the New Testament idea of salvation. Faith is therefore the completed faithfulness of Christ (see Rom_3:22), which, in the blood of His sacrificial death, has become the eternal spiritual manifestation and power for the world. [As in Rom_3:22, I beg leave here to differ from this unusual interpretation of
ðßóôéò
, and understand this, with other commentators, more naturally of our faith in Christ; comp.
ôὸí ἐ÷ ðßóôåùò Ἰçóïῦ
at the close of Rom_3:26. If it meant the faithfulness of Christ, the Apostle would probably have added
áὐôïῦ
, as he did before
áἵìáôé
. It is better to separate the two classes by a comma after “faith.—The blood of Christ means His holy life offered to God as an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world. It is like a healing fountain sending forth streams through the channel of faith to wash away the guilty stains of sin.—P. S.]
For the demonstration of his righteousness [
åἰò ἔíäåéîéí ôῆò äé÷áéïóýíçò áὐôïῦ
]. In order to perfectly reveal and establish it. The divergent interpretations of the word
äé÷áéïóýíç
indicate how difficult it has been for theology to regard God’s righteousness as grace which produces righteousness. Truthfulness [contrary to the meaning of
äé÷áéïóýíç
], (Ambrose, Beza [Turretin, Hammond], and others); goodness (Theodoret, Grotius [Koppe, Reiche, Tittmann], and others); holiness (Neander, Fritzsche [Lipsius]); judicial righteousness (Meyer [De Wette, Tholuck, Philippi, Alford, Wordsworth, Hodge]); justifying, or sin-forgiving righteousness (Chrysostom, Augustine, and others); the righteousness which God gives [which would be a superfluous repetition of Rom_3:21, and inconsistent with Rom_3:26,] (Luther, and others); [Stuart, and others: God’s method of justification, which
äé÷áéïóýíç
never means.—P. S.]. It is rather the righteousness of God in the fulness of its revelation, as it proceeds from God, requires and accomplishes through Christ the expiation of the law, and institutes the righteousness of faith by justification as the principle of the righteousness of the new life. For the righteousness of God, like His truth, omnipotence, and love, forms an unbroken and direct beam from His heart, until it appears in renewed humanity.
Because of (or, on account of) the prætermission (passing over), [i. e., because He had allowed the sins of the race which were committed before Christ’s death to pass by unpunished, whereby His righteousness was obscured, and hence the need of a demonstration or manifestation in the atoning sacrifice, that fully justified the demands of righteousness, and at the same time effected a complete remission of sins, and justification of the sinner.—P. S.]. The
ðÜñåóéò
must not be confounded with the
ἄöåóéò
, as Cocceius has proved in a special treatise, De utilitate distinctions inter et
ἄöåóéí
(Opp. t. vii.). [Comp. Textual Note8.] The judicial government of God was not administered in the ante-Christian period, either by the sacrificial fire of the Israelitish theocracy, or by the manifestations of wrath to the old world, both Jews and Gentiles, as a perfect and general judgment. Notwithstanding all the relative punishments and propitiations, God allowed sin, in its full measure, especially in its inward character, to pass unpunished in the preliminary stages of expiation and judgment, until the day of the completed revelation of His righteousness. For this reason, the time of the
ðÜñåóéò
is denoted as the time of the
ἀíï÷Þ
. God permitted the Gentiles to walk in their own ways (Psa_81:12; Psa_147:20; Act_14:16); He overlooked, or winked at, the times of this ignorance (Act_17:30). But among the Jews, one of the two goats which was let loose in the wilderness on the great day of atonement, represented symbolically the
ðἀñåóéò
(Lev_16:10). This is not only a transcendent fact, but one that is also immanent in the world. The fact that the administrators of the theocracy, in connection with the Gentile world, have crucified Christ, proves the inability of the theocracy to afford a fundamental relief of the world from guilt.—Of sins previously committed. The sins of the whole world are meant, but as an aggregate of individual sins; because righteousness does not punish sin until it has become manifest and mature in actual individual sins. [Comp. the similar expression, Heb_9:15 :
åἰò ἀðïëýôñùóéí ôῶí ἐðὶ ôῇ ðñþôῃ äéáèÞ÷ῃ ðáñáâÜóåùí
. This parallel passage, as well as tile words
ἐí ôῷ íῦí ÷áéñῷ
, in Rom_3:26, plainly show that the
ðñïãåãïíüôá ἀìáñôÞìáôá
are not the sins of each man which precede his conversion (Calov., Mehring, and others), but the sins of all men before the advent, or, more correctly speaking, before the atoning death of Christ. Comp. also Act_15:30 :
ôïὺò ÷ñüíïõò ôῆò ἀãíïßáò ὑðåñéäῶí ὁ èåüò
. Philippi confines the expression to the sins of the Jewish people, in strict conformity to Heb_9:15; but here the Apostle had just proven the universal sinfulness and guilt, and now speaks of the universal redemption of Christ.—P. S.]
Rom_3:25-26. Under the forbearance of God for the demonstration [Unter der Geduld Gottes zu der Erweisung,
ἐí ôῇ ἀíï÷ῇ ôïῦ èåïῦ
, &c.]. Construction: 1. Œcumenius, Luther [Rückert, Ewald, Hodge], and others, refer the
áíï÷Þ
to
ðñïãåãïíüôùí
[i.e., committed during the forbearance of God; comp. Act_17:20. This gives good sense, but would require, as Meyer says, a different position of the words, viz.,
ôῶí ἁìáñô
.
ôῶí ðñïãåãïí
.
ἐí ôῇ ἀí ô
.
è
.—P. S.]. 2. Meyer refers the forbearance to
ðÜñåóéò
, in consequence of indulgence or toleration, as the ground of the passing over. [So also Philippi]. 3. Reiche:
åἰò ἔíäåéîéí ôῆò äé÷áéïóýíçò
; the
äé÷áéïó
. having been manifested partly in the forgiveness of sins, and partly in the delay of punishment. [This implies a wrong view of
äéὰ
and
äé÷áéïó
.; Meyer.—P. S.] 4. We connect the
ἀíï÷Þ
with the following
ðñὸò ôὴí ἔíäåéîéí
(Rom_3:26) into one idea, and suppose here a brief form of expression, by which
ðñïãåãïíüôùí
must be again supplied before
ἀíï÷Þ
. The
&
