Romans 3:25–3:26

Romans 3:23-26 23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 23. Omnes enim peccaverunt, et destituuntur gloria Dei; 24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 24. Justificati gratis ipsius gratia per redemptionem qu? est in Christo lesu: 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 25. Quem proposuit Deus propitiatorium per fidem in sanguine ipsius, in demonstrationem justitiae su?, propter remissionem delictorum, 26. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 26. Qu? prius extiterunt in tolerantia Dei; ad demonstrationem justitiae suae, in hoc tempore; ut sit ipse justus et Justificans enum qui est ex fide Iesu. 23. There is indeed no difference, etc. He urges on all, without exception, the necessity of seeking righteousness in Christ; as though he had said, "There is no other way of attaining righteousness; for some cannot be justified in this and others in that way; but all must alike be justified by faith, because all are sinners, and therefore have nothing for which they can glory before God." But he takes as granted that every one, conscious of his sin, when he comes before the tribunal of God, is confounded and lost under a sense of his own shame; so that no sinner can bear the presence of God, as we see an example in the case of Adam. He again brings forward a reason taken from the opposite side; and hence we must notice what follows. Since we are all sinners, Paul concludes, that we are deficient in, or destitute of, the praise due to righteousness. There is then, according to what he teaches, no righteousness but what is perfect and absolute. Were there indeed such a thing as half righteousness, it would yet be necessary to deprive the sinner entirely of all glory: and hereby the figment of partial righteousness, as they call it, is sufficiently confuted; for if it were true that we are justified in part by works, and in part by grace, this argument of Paul would be of no force -- that all are deprived of the glory of God because they are sinners. It is then certain, there is no righteousness where there is sin, until Christ removes the curse; and this very thing is what is said in Galatians 3:10 , that all who are under the law are exposed to the curse, and that we are delivered from it through the kindness of Christ. The glory of God I take to mean the approbation of God, as in John 12:43 , where it is said, that "they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God." And thus he summons us from the applause of a human court to the tribunal of heaven. [118] 24. Being justified freely, etc. A participle is here put for a verb according to the usage of the Greek language. The meaning is, -- that since there remains nothing for men, as to themselves, but to perish, being smitten by the just judgment of God, they are to be justified freely through his mercy; for Christ comes to the aid of this misery, and communicates himself to believers, so that they find in him alone all those things in which they are wanting. There is, perhaps, no passage in the whole Scripture which illustrates in a more striking manner the efficacy of his righteousness; for it shows that God's mercy is the efficient cause, that Christ with his blood is the meritorious cause, that the formal or the instumental cause is faith in the word, and that moreover, the final cause is the glory of the divine justice and goodness. With regard to the efficient cause, he says, that we are justified freely, and further, by his grace; and he thus repeats the word to show that the whole is from God, and nothing from us. It might have been enough to oppose grace to merits; but lest we should imagine a half kind of grace, he affirms more strongly what he means by a repetition, and claims for God's mercy alone the whole glory of our righteousness, which the sophists divide into parts and mutilate, that they may not be constrained to confess their own poverty. -- Through the redemption, etc. This is the material, -- Christ by his obedience satisfied the Father's justice, (judicium -- judgment,) and by undertaking our cause he liberated us from the tyranny of death, by which we were held captive; as on account of the sacrifice which he offered is our guilt removed. Here again is fully confuted the gloss of those who make righteousness a quality; for if we are counted righteous before God, because we are redeemed by a price, we certainly derive from another what is not in us. And Paul immediately explains more clearly what this redemption is, and what is its object, which is to reconcile us to God; for he calls Christ a propitiation, (or, if we prefer an allusion to an ancient type,) a propitiatory. But what he means is, that we are not otherwise just than through Christ propitiating the Father for us. But it is necessary for us to examine the words. [119] 25. Whom God hath set forth, etc. The Greek verb, protithenai, means sometimes to determine beforehand, and sometimes to set forth. If the first meaning be taken, Paul refers to the gratuitous mercy of God, in having appointed Christ as our Mediator, that he might appease the Father by the sacrifice of his death: nor is it a small commendation of God's grace that he, of his own good will, sought out a way by which he might remove our curse. According to this view, the passage fully harmonizes with that in John 3:16 , "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son." Yet if we embrace this meaning, it will remain still true, that God hath set him forth in due time, whom he had appointed as a Mediator. There seems to be an allusion in the word, hilasterion, as I have said, to the ancient propitiatory; for he teaches us that the same thing was really exhibited in Christ, which had been previously typified. As, however, the other view cannot be disproved, should any prefer it, I shall not undertake to decide the question. What Paul especially meant here is no doubt evident from his words; and it was this, -- that God, without having regard to Christ, is always angry with us, -- and that we are reconciled to him when we are accepted through his righteousness. God does not indeed hate in us his own workmanship, that is, as we are formed men; but he hates our uncleanness, which has extinguished the light of his image. When the washing of Christ cleanses this away, he then loves and embraces us as his own pure workmanship. A propitiatory through faith in his blood, etc. I prefer thus literally to retain the language of Paul; for it seems indeed to me that he intended, by one single sentence, to declare that God is propitious to us as soon as we have our trust resting on the blood of Christ; for by faith we come to the possession of this benefit. But by mentioning blood only, he did not mean to exclude other things connected with redemption, but, on the contrary, to include the whole under one word: and he mentioned "blood," because by it we are cleansed. Thus, by taking a part for the whole, he points out the whole work of expiation. For, as he had said before, that God is reconciled in Christ, so he now adds, that this reconciliation is obtained by faith, mentioning, at the same time, what it is that faith ought mainly to regard in Christ -- his blood. For (propter) the remission of sins, [120] etc. The causal preposition imports as much as though he had said, "for the sake of remission," or, "to this end, that he might blot out sins." And this definition or explanation again confirms what I have already often reminded you, -- that men are pronounced just, not because they are such in reality, but by imputation: for he only uses various modes of expression, that he might more clearly declare, that in this righteousness there is no merit of ours; for if we obtain it by the remission of sins, we conclude that it is not from ourselves; and further, since remission itself is an act of God's bounty alone, every merit falls to the ground. It may, however, be asked, why he confines pardon to preceding sins? Though this passage is variously explained, yet it seems to me probable that Paul had regard to the legal expiations, which were indeed evidences of a future satisfaction, but could by no means pacify God. There is a similar passage in Hebrews 9:15 , where it is said, that by Christ a redemption was brought from sins, which remained under the former Testament. You are not, however, to understand that no sins but those of former times were expiated by the death of Christ -- a delirious notion, which some fanatics have drawn from a distorted view of this passage. For Paul teaches us only this, -- that until the death of Christ there was no way of appeasing God, and that this was not done or accomplished by the legal types: hence the reality was suspended until the fullness of time came. We may further say, that those things which involve us daily in guilt must be regarded in the same light; for there is but one true expiation for all. Some, in order to avoid what seems inconsistent, have held that former sins are said to have been forgiven, lest there should seem to he a liberty given to sin in future. It is indeed true that no pardon is offered but for sins committed; not that the benefit of redemption fails or is lost, when we afterwards fall, as Novatus and his sect dreamed, but that it is the character of the dispensation of the gospel, to set before him who will sin the judgment and wrath of God, and before the sinner his mercy. But what I have already stated is the real sense. He adds, that this remission was through forbearance; and this I take simply to mean gentleness, which has stayed the judgment of God, and suffered it not to burst forth to our ruin, until he had at length received us into favor. But there seems to be here also an implied anticipation of what might be said; that no one might object, and say that this favor had only of late appeared. Paul teaches us, that it was an evidence of forbearance. 26. For a demonstration, [121] etc. The repetition of this clause is emphatical; and Paul resignedly made it, as it was very needful; for nothing is more difficult than to persuade man that he ought to disclaim all things as his own, and to ascribe them all to God. At the same time mention was intentionally made twice of this demonstration, that the Jews might open their eyes to behold it. -- At this time, etc. What had been ever at all times, he applies to the time when Christ was revealed, and not without reason; for what was formerly known in an obscure manner under shadows, God openly manifested in his Son. So the coming of Christ was the time of his good pleasure, and the day of salvation. God had indeed in all ages given some evidence of his righteousness; but it appeared far brighter when the sun of righteousness shone. Noticed, then, ought to be the comparison between the Old and the New Testament; for then only was revealed the righteousness of God when Christ appeared. That he might be just, etc. This is a definition of that righteousness which he has declared was revealed when Christ was given, and which, as he has taught us in the first chapter, is made known in the gospel: and he affirms that it consists of two parts -- The first is, that God is just, not indeed as one among many, but as one who contains within himself all fullness of righteousness; for complete and full praise, such as is due, is not otherwise given to him, but when he alone obtains the name and the honor of being just, while the whole human race is condemned for injustice: and then the other part refers to the communication of righteousness; for God by no means keeps his riches laid up in himself, but pours them forth upon men. Then the righteousness of God shines in us, whenever he justifies us by faith in Christ; for in vain were Christ given us for righteousness, unless there was the fruition of him by faith. It hence follows, that all were unjust and lost in themselves, until a remedy from heaven was offered to them. [122] Footnotes: [118] Beza gives another view, that the verb husterountai, refers to those who run a race, and reach not the goal, and lose the prize. The "glory of God" is the happiness which he bestows; (see Romans 5:2 ;) of this all mankind come short, however much some seemed to labor for it; and it can only be attained by faith. Pareus, Locke, and Whitby give the same view. Others consider it to be "the glory" due to God, -- that all come short of rendering him the service and honor which he justly demands and requires. So Doddridge, Scott, and Chalmers But Melancthon, Grotius and Macknight seemed to have agreed with Calvin in regarding "glory" here as the praise or approbation that comes from God. The second view seems the most appropriate, according to what is said in Romans 1:21 , "they glorified him not as God." -- Ed. [119] On this word hilasterion, both Venema, in his Notes on the Comment of Stephanus de Brais on this Epistle, and Professor Stuart, have long remarks. They both agree as to the meaning of the word as found in the Septuagint and in Greek authors, but they disagree as to its import here. It means uniformly in the Septuagint, the mercy-seat, kphrt, and, as it is in the form of an adjective, it has at least once, ( Exodus 25:17 ,) epithema, cover, added to it. But in the classics it means a propitiatory sacrifice, the word thuma, a sacrifice, being understood; but it is used by itself as other words of similar termination are. It is found also in Josephus and in Maccabees in this sense. It appears that Origen, Theodoret, and other Fathers, and also Erasmus, Luther and Locke, take the first meaning -- mercy-seat; and that Grotius, Elsner, Turrettin, Bos, and Tholuck, take the second meaning -- a propitiatory sacrifice. Now as both meanings are legitimate, which of them are we to take? Venema, and Stuart allude to one thing which much favors the latter view, that is, the phrase en to haimati autou; and the latter says, that it would be incongruous to represent Christ himself as the mercy-seat, and to represent him also as sprinkled by his own blood; but that it is appropriate to say that a propitiatory sacrifice was made by his blood. The verb proetheto, set forth, it is added, seems to support the same view. To exhibit a mercy-seat is certainly not suitable language in this connection. Pareus renders it "placamentum -- atonement," hoc est, "placatorem," that is, "atoner, or expiator." Beza's version is the same -- "placamentum;" Doddridge has "propitiation," and Macknight, "a propitiatory," and Schleusner, "expiatorem -- expiator." The word occurs in one other place with the neuter article, to hilasterion, Hebrews 9:5 , where it clearly means the mercy-seat. It is ever accompanied with the article in the Septuagint, when by itself, see Leviticus 16:2 , 13-15; but here it is without the article, and may be viewed as an adjective dependent on on, "whom," and rendered propitiator. Had the mercy-seat been intended, it would have been to hilasterion. -- Ed. [120] The words are, dia ten paresin. They seem connected, not with the first clause, but with the one immediately preceding; and dia may be rendered here in; see a note on Romans 2:26 ; or more properly, perhaps, on account of. "For a proof of his own righteousness in passing by the sins," etc., Macknight; "In order to declare his justification with respect to the remission of sins," Stuart What is God's "righteousness" here has been variously explained. Some regard it his righteousness in fulfilling his promises, as Beza; others, his righteousness in Christ to believers, mentioned in chapter. 1:17, as Augustine; and others, his righteousness as the God of rectitude and justice, as Chrysostom Some, too, as Grotius, view it as meaning goodness or mercy, regarding the word as having sometimes this sense. It is the context that can help us to the right meaning. God exhibited his Son as a propitiation, to set forth this righteousness; and this righteousness is connected with the remission of, or rather; as the word means, the preterition of or connivance at sins committed under the old dispensation: and those sins were connived at through the forbearance of God, he not executing the punishment they deserved; and the purpose is stated to be, -- that God might be or appear just, while he is the justifier of those who believe in Christ. Now, what can this righteousness be but his administrative justice? As the law allowed no remission, and God did remit sins, there appeared to be a stain on divine justice. The exhibition of Christ as an atonement is what alone removes it. And there is a word in the former verse, as Venema justly observes, which tends to confirm this view, and that word is redemption, apolutrosis, which is a deliverance obtained by a ransom, or by a price, such as justice requires. Both Doddridge and Scott regard the passage in this light; and the latter gives the following version of it, -- "Whom God hath before appointed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his justice, on account of the passing by of sins, that had been committed in former times, through the forbearance of God; I say, for a demonstration of his justice, in this present time, in order that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." -- Nothing can be clearer than this version. The last words are rightly rendered, though not literally; ton ek pisteos Iesou -- "him of the faith of Jesus," or, "him of faith in Jesus." Him of faith is him who believes, as tois houk ek peritomos -- "them not of circumcision" means "them who are not circumcised," Romans 4:12 ; and tois ex eritheias -- "those of contention," signifies, "those who contend," or, are contentious, Romans 2:8 . -- Ed. [121] There is a different preposition used here, pros, while eis is found in the preceding verse. The meaning seems to be the same, for both prepositions are used to designate the design, end, or object of any thing. This variety seems to have been usual with the Apostle; similar instances are found in Romans 3:22 , as to eis and epi, and in Romans 3:30 , as to ek and dia. "By both," says Wolfius, "the final cause (causa finalis) is indicated." Beza renders them both by the same preposition, ad, in Latin; and Stuart regards the two as equivalent. There is, perhaps, more refinement than truth in what Pareus says, -- that eis intimates the proximate end -- the forgiveness of sins; and pros, the final end -- the glory of God in the exhibition of his justice as well as of his mercy. There is, at the same time, something in the passage which seems favorable to this view. Two objects are stated at the end of the passage, -- that God might appear just, and be also the justifier of such as believe. The last may refer to eis, and the former to pros; and this is consistent with the usual style of the Apostle; for, in imitation of the Prophets, where two things are mentioned in a former clause, the order is reversed in the second. -- Ed. [122] A parallel passage to this, including the two verses, Romans 3:25 and 26, is found in Hebrews 9:15 ; where a reference, as here, is made to the effect of Christ's death as to the saints under the Old testament. The same truth is implied in other parts of Scripture, but not so expressly declared. Stuart makes here an important remark -- that if the death of Christ be regarded only as that of a martyr or as an example of constancy, how then could its efficacy be referred to "sins that are past?" In no other way than as a vicarious death could it possibly have any effect on past sins, not punished through God's forbearance. -- Ed.

{10} Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his {x} blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that {y} are past, through the {z} forbearance of God; (10) God then is the author of that free justification, because it pleased him: and Christ is he who suffered punishment for our sins, and in whom we have remission of them: and the means by which we apprehend Christ is faith. In short, the result is the setting forth of the goodness of God, that by this means it may appear that he is indeed merciful, and faithful in his promises, as he that freely, and of grace alone, justifies the believers. (x) The name of blood reminds us of the symbol of the old sacrifices, and that the truth and substance of these sacrifices is in Christ. (y) Of those sins which we committed when we were his enemies. (z) Through his patience, and his enduring nature.

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To be a propitiation — Or a covering, in allusion to the law; where the ark covering the two tables within it, the mercy seat covering the ark, and the cherubims covering the mercy seat and one another, showed Christ covering the curses of the law, in whom is the ground of all mercy; which things the angels desire to pry into, as into the pattern of God’s deep wisdom. For the remission of sins — Gr. παρεσιν , for the relaxation or releasement of sins, as of bonds or fetters.

Whom God hath set forth; i.e. God the Father hath proposed this Jesus, in the eternal counsel, and covenant of redemption, Ephesians 1:9 1 Peter 1:20 ,21 ; or in the types and shadows of the old tabernacle; and hath now at last shown him openly to the world. To be a propitiation, or atonement, 1Jo 2:2 . He alludes to the mercy seat sprinkled with blood, which was typical of this great atonement; and from whence God showed himself so propitious and favourable to sinners, Leviticus 16:2 Numbers 7:89 . Through faith in his blood: he goes on to show the instrumental cause of justification, to wit, faith; i.e. the close adherence and most submissive dependence of the sinner; together with the peculiarity of the object of faith, viz. the blood, @ i.e. the death and sacrifice, of Christ; in contra-distinction to his dominion, (with which yet on other accounts faith is so much concerned), and in opposition to the blood of beasts slain and sacrificed. To declare his righteousness; i.e. for the showing forth either of his goodness and mercy; see 1 Samuel 12:7 ,8,10 Psa 36:10 ; or of his faithfulness in his promises, and fulfilling all types and prophecies; or else of his vindictive justice, in the just proceedings of God against sin, which he hath condemned in his Son, though he justify the sinner. Or further, it may be understood of the righteousness of faith, of which Romans 3:22 , which is hereby shown to be his; and to manifest itself in the forgiveness of sins, which is so declared as to be exhibited. For the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; he means, either the sins committed before justification, while God bore so patiently with the sinner, and did not presently take the forfeiture; or else the sins committed under the Old Testament, before the proposed propitiation was exposed to the world, when God so indulged our fathers, as to pardon them upon the account of what was to come: see Hebrews 9:15-18 .

Whom God had set forth to be a propitiation,.... Redemption by Christ is here further explained, by his being "a propitiation": which word may design either Christ the propitiator, the author of peace and reconciliation; or the propitiatory sacrifice, by which he is so; and both in allusion to the mercy seat, which was a type of him as such. The apostle here uses the same word, which the Septuagint often render "the mercy seat", by; and Philo the Jew calls it by the same name, and says it was a symbol, "of the propitious power of God" (b). Christ is the propitiation to God for sin; which must be understood of his making satisfaction to divine justice, for the sins of his people; these were imputed to him, and being found on him, the law and justice of God made demands on him for them; which he answered to satisfaction, by his obedience and sacrifice; and which, as it could not be done by any other, nor in any other way, is expressed by "reconciliation", and "atonement": whence God may be said to be pacified, or made propitious; not but that he always loved his people, and never hated them; nor is there, nor can there be any change in God, from hatred to love, any more than from love to hatred: Christ has not, by his sacrifice and death, procured the love and favour of God, but has removed the obstructions which lay in the way of love's appearing and breaking forth; there was, a law broken, and justice provoked, which were to be attended to, and Christ by his sacrifice has satisfied both; so that neither the wrath of God, nor any of the effects of it, can fall upon the persons Christ is the propitiation for, even according to justice itself; so that it is not love, but justice that is made propitious: for this is all owing to the grace and goodness of God, who "hath set him forth", for this intent, in his eternal purposes and decrees; in the promises of the Old Testament, in the types, shadows, and sacrifices of the old law; by the exhibition of him in our nature, and in the ministration of the Gospel; and this is said to be through faith in his blood. The "blood" of Christ is that, by which Christ is the propitiation; for without the shedding of that blood, there is no redemption, no peace, no reconciliation, or remission of sin; and "faith" in his blood is the means by which persons become partakers of the benefits of his propitiation; such as peace, pardon, atonement, justification, and adoption: and the end of Christ's being set forth as a propitiation, on the part of God's people, is, for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God: by "sins that are past", are meant, not sins before baptism, nor the sins of a man's life only, but the sins of Old Testament saints, who lived before the incarnation of Christ, and the oblation of his sacrifice; and though this is not to be restrained to them only, for Christ's blood was shed for the remission of all his people's sins, past, present, and to come; yet the sins of the saints before the coming of Christ, seem to be particularly designed; which shows the insufficiency of legal sacrifices, sets forth the efficacy of Christ's blood and sacrifice, demonstrates him to be a perfect Saviour, and gives us reason under the present dispensation to hope for pardon, since reconciliation is completely made: "remission" of sin does not design that weakness which sin has brought upon, and left in human nature, whereby it is so enfeebled, that it cannot help itself, and therefore Christ was set forth, and sent forth, to be a propitiation; but rather God's passing by, or overlooking sin, and not punishing for it, under the former dispensation; or else the forgiveness of it now, and redemption from it by the blood of Christ, "through the forbearance of God"; in deferring the execution of justice, till he sent his Son, and in expecting satisfaction of his Son; which shows the grace and goodness of God to his people, and the trust and confidence he put in his Son: the other end on the part of God, in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation, was to declare his righteousness Psalm 22:31 ; meaning either the righteousness of Christ, which was before hid, but now manifested; or rather the righteousness of God the Father, his faithfulness in his promises relating to Christ, his grace and goodness in the mission of his Son, the holiness and purity of his nature, and his vindictive justice, in avenging sin in his own Son, as the surety of his people: the execution of this was threatened from the beginning; the types and sacrifices of the old law prefigured it; the prophecies of the Old Testament express it; and the sufferings and death of Christ openly declare it, since God spared not his own Son, but sheathed the sword of justice in him. (b) Philo de Vita Mosis, l. 3. p. 668.

Must guilty man remain under wrath? Is the wound for ever incurable? No; blessed be God, there is another way laid open for us. This is the righteousness of God; righteousness of his ordaining, and providing, and accepting. It is by that faith which has Jesus Christ for its object; an anointed Saviour, so Jesus Christ signifies. Justifying faith respects Christ as a Saviour, in all his three anointed offices, as Prophet, Priest, and King; trusting in him, accepting him, and cleaving to him: in all these, Jews and Gentiles are alike welcome to God through Christ. There is no difference, his righteousness is upon all that believe; not only offered to them, but put upon them as a crown, as a robe. It is free grace, mere mercy; there is nothing in us to deserve such favours. It comes freely unto us, but Christ bought it, and paid the price. And faith has special regard to the blood of Christ, as that which made the atonement. God, in all this, declares his righteousness. It is plain that he hates sin, when nothing less than the blood of Christ would satisfy for it. And it would not agree with his justice to demand the debt, when the Surety has paid it, and he has accepted that payment in full satisfaction.

25, 26. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation—or "propitiatory sacrifice." through faith in his blood—Some of the best interpreters, observing that "faith upon" is the usual phrase in Greek, not "faith in" Christ, would place a "comma" after "faith," and understand the words as if written thus: "to be a propitiation, in His blood, through faith." But "faith in Christ" is used in Ga 3:26 and Eph 1:15; and "faith in His blood" is the natural and appropriate meaning here. to declare his righteousness for the remission—rather, "pretermission" or "passing by." of sins—"the sins." that are past—not the sins committed by the believer before he embraces Christ, but the sins committed under the old economy, before Christ came to "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." through the forbearance of God—God not remitting but only forbearing to punish them, or passing them by, until an adequate atonement for them should be made. In thus not imputing them, God was righteous, but He was not seen to be so; there was no "manifestation of His righteousness" in doing so under the ancient economy. But now that God can "set forth" Christ as a "propitiation for sin through faith in His blood," the righteousness of His procedure in passing by the sins of believers before, and in now remitting them, is "manifested," declared, brought fully out to the view of the whole world. (Our translators have unfortunately missed this glorious truth, taking "the sins that are past" to mean the past sins of believers—committed before faith—and rendering, by the word "remission," what means only a "passing by"; thus making it appear that "remission of sins" is "through the forbearance of God," which it certainly is not).

Whom God hath set forth - Margin, "Fore-ordained" (προέθετο proetheto). The word properly means, "to place in public view;" to exhibit in a conspicuous situation, as goods are exhibited or exposed for sale, or as premiums or rewards of victory were exhibited to public view in the games of the Greeks. It sometimes has the meaning of decreeing, purposing, or constituting, as in the margin (compare Romans 1:13 ; Ephesians 1:9 ); and many have supposed that this is its meaning here. But the connection seems to require the usual signification of the word; and it means that God has publicly exhibited Jesus Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of people. This public exhibition was made by his being offered on the cross, in the face of angels and of people. It was not concealed; it was done openly. He was put to open shame; and so put to death as to attract toward the scene the eyes of angels, and of the inhabitants of all worlds. To be a propitiation - ἱλαστήριον hilastērion. This word occurs but in one other place in the New Testament. Hebrews 9:5 , "and over it (the ark) the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy-seat. It is used here to denote the lid or cover of the ark of the covenant. It was made of gold, and over it were the cherubim. In this sense it is often used by the Septuagint Exodus 25:17 , "And thou shalt make a propitiatory ἱλαστήριον hilastērion of gold," Exodus 18-20 , 22; Exodus 30:6 ; Exodus 31:7 ; Exodus 35:11 ; Exodus 37:6-9 ; Exodus 40:18 ; Leviticus 16:2 , Leviticus 16:13 . The Hebrew name for this was כפּרת kaphoreth, from the verb כּפר kaaphar, "to cover" or "to conceal." It was from this place that God was represented as speaking to the children of Israel. Exodus 25:22 , "and I will speak to thee from above the Hilasterion, the propitiatory, the mercy-seat. Leviticus 16:2 , "For I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy-seat." This seat, or cover, was covered with the smoke of the incense, when the high priest entered the most holy place, Leviticus 16:13 . And the blood of the bullock offered on the great day of atonement, was to be sprinkled "upon the mercy-seat," and "before the mercy-seat," "seven times," Leviticus 16:14-15 . This sprinkling or offering of blood was called making "an atonement for the holy place because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel," etc. Leviticus 16:16 . It was from this mercy-seat that God pronounced pardon, or expressed himself as reconciled to his people. The atonement was made, the blood was sprinkled, and the reconciliation thus effected. The name was thus given to that cover of the ark, because it was the place from which God declared himself reconciled to his people. Still the inquiry is, why is this name given to Jesus Christ? In what sense is he declared to be a propitiation? It is evident that it cannot be applied to him in any literal sense. Between the golden cover of the ark of the covenant and the Lord Jesus, the analogy must be very slight, if any such analogy can be perceived. We may observe, however, (1) That the main idea, in regard to the cover of the ark called the mercy-seat, was that of God's being reconciled to his people; and that this is the main idea in regard to the Lord Jesus whom "God hath set forth." (2) this reconciliation was effected then by the sprinkling of blood on the mercy-seat, Leviticus 16:15-16 . The same is true of the Lord Jesus - by blood. (3) in the former case it was by the blood of atonement; the offering of the bullock on the great day of atonement, that the reconciliation was effected, Leviticus 16:17-18 . In the case of the Lord Jesus it was also by blood; by the blood of atonement. But it was by his own blood. This the apostle distinctly states in this verse. (4) in the former case there was a sacrifice, or expiatory offering; and so it is in reconciliation by the Lord Jesus. In the former, the mercy-seat was the visible, declared place where God would express his reconciliation with his people. So in the latter, the offering of the Lord Jesus is the manifest and open way by which God will be reconciled to people. (5) in the former, there was joined the idea of a sacrifice for sin, Leviticus 16 . So in the latter. And hence, the main idea of the apostle here is to convey the idea of a sacrifice for sin; or to set forth the Lord Jesus as such a sacrifice. Hence, the word "propitiation" in the original may express the idea of a propitiatory sacrifice, as well as the cover to the ark. The word is an adjective, and may be joined to the noun sacrifice, as well as to denote the mercy-seat of the ark. This meaning accords also with its classic meaning to denote a propitiatory offering, or an offering to produce reconciliation. Christ is thus represented, not as a mercy-seat, which would be unintelligible; but as the medium, the offering, the expiation, by which reconciliation is produced between God and man. Through faith - Or by means of faith. The offering will be of no avail without faith. The offering has been made; but it will not be applied, except where there is faith. He has made an offering which may be efficacious in putting away sin; but it produces no reconciliation, no pardon, except where it is accepted by faith. In his blood - Or in his death - his bloody death. Among the Jews, the blood was regarded as the seat of life, or vitality. Leviticus 17:11 , "the life of the flesh is in the blood." Hence, they were commanded not to eat blood. Genesis 9:4 , "but flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Leviticus 19:26 ; Deuteronomy 12:23 ; 1 Samuel 14:34 . This doctrine is contained uniformly in the Sacred Scriptures. And it has been also the opinion of not a few celebrated physiologists, as well in modern as in ancient times. The same was the opinion of the ancient Parsees and Hindus. Homer thus often speaks of blood as the seat of life, as in the expression πορφυρεος θανατος porphureos thanatos, or "purple death." And Virgil speaks of "purple life," Purpuream vomit ille animam. AEniad, ix. 349. Empedocles and Critias among the Greek philosophers, also embraced this opinion. Among the moderns, Harvey, to whom we are indebted for a knowledge of the circulation of the blood, fully believed it. Hoffman and Huxham believed it Dr. John Hunter has fully adopted the belief, and sustained it, as he supposed, by a great variety of considerations. See Good's Book of Nature, pp. 102, 108, New York edition, 1828. This was undoubtedly the doctrine of the Hebrews; and hence, with them to shed the blood was a phrase signifying to kill; hence, the efficacy of their sacrifices was supposed to consist in the blood, that is, in the life of the victim. Hence, it was unlawful to eat it, as it were the life, the seat of vitality; the more immediate and direct gift of God. When, therefore, the blood of Christ is spoken of in the New Testament, it means the offering of his life as a sacrifice, or his death as an expiation. His life was given to make atonement. See the word "blood" thus used in Romans 5:9 ; Ephesians 1:7 ; Colossians 1:14 ; Hebrews 9:12 , Hebrews 9:14 ; Hebrews 13:12 ; Revelation 1:5 ; 1 Peter 1:19 ; 1 John 1:7 . By faith in his death as a sacrifice for sin; by believing that he took our sins; that he died in our place; by thus, in some sense, making his offering ours; by approving it, loving it, embracing it, trusting it, our sins become pardoned, and our souls made pure. To declare - εἰς ἔνδειξις eis endeixis. For "the purpose" of showing, or exhibiting; to present it to man. The meaning is, that the plan was adopted; the Saviour was given; he suffered and died: and the scheme is proposed to people, for the purpose of making a full manifestation of his plan, in contradistinction from all the plans of people. continued...

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, etc. This clause contains the ground of our deliverance from the curse of the law, and of our acceptance with God, and constitutes therefore the second step in the apostle’s exhibition of the plan of salvation. He had already taught that justification was not by works, but by faith, and entirely gratuitous; he now comes to show how it is that this exercise of mercy to the sinner can be reconciled with the justice of God and the demands of his law. The word προέθετο , hath set forth , also signifies to purpose , to determine , Romans 1:13 ; compare Romans 8:28 . If this sense be adopted here, the meaning would be, ‘whom God hath purposed or decreed to be a propitiation.’ But the context refers to a fact rather than a purpose; and the words εἰς ἔνδειξιν ( for the manifestation ), as expressing the design of the manifestation of Christ, is decidedly in favor of the common interpretation. There are three interpretations of the word ἱλαστήριον ( propitiation ), which are worthy of attention. It was understood by many of the Fathers, and after them by Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Olshausen, and others, to mean the propitiatory, or mercy-seat, over the ark of the covenant, on which the high priest, on the great day of atonement, sprinkled the blood of the sacrifices. Here it was that God was propitiated, and manifested himself as reconciled to his people. The ground of this interpretation is, that the original word here used is employed in the Septuagint as the designation of the mercy-seat, Exodus 25:18-20 ; and often elsewhere. The meaning would then be, ‘that God had set forth Jesus Christ as a mercy-seat, as the place in which, or the person in whom he was propitiated, and ready to forgive and accept the sinner.’ But the objections to this interpretation are serious. 1. The use of the word by the Greek translators of the Old Testament, probably arose from a mistake of the proper meaning of the Hebrew term. The Hebrew word means properly a cover; but as the verb whence it comes means literally, to cover; and metaphorically, to atone for , to propitiate , the Greek translators incorrectly rendered the noun ἱλαστήριον , the Latin propitiatorium , and our translators, the mercy-seat , a sense which ëÇÌôÉøÆú never has. It is, therefore, in itself a wrong use of the Greek word. 2. This interpretation is not consistent with the analogy of Scripture. The sacred writers are not accustomed to compare the Savior to the cover of the ark, nor to illustrate his work by such a reference. This passage, if thus interpreted, would stand alone in this respect. 3. According to this view, there is an obvious incongruity in the figure. It is common to speak of the blood of a sacrifice, but not of the blood of the mercy-seat. Besides, Paul in this very clause speaks of “ his blood.” See Deylingii Observationes , Part 2, sect. 41, and Krebs’s New Testament , illustrated from the writings of Josephus. The second interpretation supposes that the word θῦμα ( sacrifice ) is to be supplied: ‘Whom he has set forth as a propitiatory sacrifice .’ 1. In favor of this interpretation is the etymology of the word. It is derived from ἱλάσκομυαι , to appease , to conciliate . Hence ἱλαστήριος , as an adjective, is applied to anything designed to propitiate; as in the expressions “propitiatory monument,” “propitiatory death.” (Josephus Ant . 16. 7. 1 Lib. de Macc ., sect. 17. See Krebs on this verse.) 2. The use of analogous terms in reference to the sacrificial services under the old dispensation, as σωτήριον , sacrificium pro salute , Exodus 20:24 ; Exodus 28:29 , for which we have in Exodus 24:5 , θυσία σωτηρίου ; so χαριστήρια , thank-offerings , τὸ καθάρσιον the offering for purification . In keeping with all these terms is the use of ἱλαστήριον ( θῦμα ) in the sense of propitiatory sacrifice. 3. The whole context favors this explanation, inasmuch as the apostle immediately speaks of the blood of this sacrifice, and as his design is to show how the gratuitous justification of men can be reconciled with the justice of God. It is only a modification of this interpretation, if ἱλαστήριον be taken substantively and rendered propitiation , as is done in the Vulgate and by Beza. The third interpretation assumes that i(lasth&rion is here used in the masculine gender, and means propitiator . This is the explanation given by Semler and Wahl; but this is contrary to the usage of the word and inconsistent with the context. The obvious meaning, therefore, of this important passage is, that God has publicly set forth the Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of the intelligent universe, as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of men. It is the essential idea of such a sacrifice, that it is a satisfaction to justice. It terminates on God. Its primary design is not to produce any subjective change in the offerer, but to appease God. Such is the meaning of the word, from which we have no right to depart. Such also is the idea which it of necessity would convey to every Gentile and every Jewish reader, and therefore such was the idea which the apostle intended to express. For if we are not to understand the language of the Bible in its historical sense, that is, in the sense in which the sacred writers knew it would be understood by those to whom they wrote, it ceases to have any determinate meaning whatever, and may be explained according to the private opinion of every interpreter. But if such be the meaning of these words, then they conclusively teach that the ground of our justification is no subjective change in us, but the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. Olshausen, who elsewhere plainly teaches the doctrine of subjective justification, in his comment on this verse, admits the common Church doctrine. He denies that the work of Christ terminates on the sinner. “Every sacrifice,” he says, “proposed to expiate the guilt of man, and to appease the wrath of God, consequently the sacrifice of all sacrifices, in which alone all others have any truth, must accomplish that which they only symbolized.” The doctrine of the Scotists, he adds, of gratuita acceptatio , refutes itself, because God can never take a thing for what it is not, and therefore cannot accept as a satisfaction what is no satisfaction. Grotius’s view of an acceptilatio , which amounts to the same thing with the doctrine of Scotus, and resolves the atonement into a mere governmental display, (a popular theory reproduced as a novelty in the American Churches,) he also rejects. He says, “So there remains nothing but the acute theory of Anselm, properly understood, of a satisfactio vicaria , which completely agrees with the teachings of Scripture, and meets the demands of science.” ‹10› According to Olshausen, therefore, ( “die tiefste Erörterungen,” ) the profoundest disclosures of modern science have at last led back to the simple old doctrine of a real vicarious satisfaction to the justice of God, as the ground of the sinner’s justification. Through faith. These words, διὰ πίστεως , may be connected with δικαιούμενοι as coordinate with διὰ απολυτρώσεως : ‘Being justified through the redemption , that is, being justified through faith .’ But this breaks the connection between προέθετο and εἰς ἔνδειξιν . Meyer connects both διὰ πίστεως and ἐν τῷ αἳματι with προέθετο : ‘God hath, by means of faith, by his blood, set forth Christ as a propitiation.’ But the faith of man is not the means by which God set forth Christ. The most natural connection is with i(lasth&rion , ‘a propitiation through faith,’ i.e. which is received or appropriated through faith. It is a more doubtful question how the words in his blood are to be connected. The most obvious construction is that adopted in our version, as well as in the Vulgate, and by Luther, Calvin, Olshausen, and many others, ‘Through faith in his blood;’ so that the blood of Christ, as a propitiatory sacrifice, is the ground of the confidence expressed in πίστις , “in Christi sanguine repositam habemus fiduciam.” Calvin. To this it is objected, that the construction of πίστις ; with ἐν is altogether unauthorized. But there are so many cases in the New Testament in which this construction must be admitted, unless violence be resorted to, that this objection cannot be allowed much weight. See Galatians 3:26 ; Ephesians 1:15 ; Colossians 1:4 ; 1 Timothy 3:13 ; 2 Timothy 3:15 . Others connect both διὰ πίστεως ; and ἐν τῷ αἳματι as distinctly qualifying clauses with i(lasth&rion ; the former, as De Wette says, expressing the means of the subjective appropriation, the other the means of the objective exhibition. That is, ‘God has set forth Christ as a propitiation, which is available through faith, and he is a propitiation by his blood. Still another method is to connect ἐν τῷ αἳματι with ὃν : ‘Whom God has set forth in his blood as a propitiation.’ The construction first mentioned, and sanctioned by the translators of the English Bible, gives a perfectly good sense, and is most agreeable to the collocation of the words. The blood of Christ is an expression used in obvious reference to the sacrificial character of his death. It was not his death as a witness or as an example, but as a sacrifice, that expiates sin. And by his blood , is not to be understood simply his death, but his whole work for our redemption, especially all his expiatory sufferings from the beginning to the end of his life. This whole passage, which Olshausen happily calls the “Acropolis of the Christian faith,” is of special importance. It teaches that we are justified in a manner which is entirely of grace, without any merit of our own; through, or by means of faith, and on the ground of the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is evident from this statement, that Paul intended to exclude from all participation in the meritorious ground of our acceptance with God, not only those works performed in obedience to the law, and with a legal spirit, but those which flow from faith and a renewed heart. The part assigned to faith in the work of our reconciliation to God is that of an instrument; it apprehends or appropriates the meritorious ground of our acceptance, the work or righteousness of Christ. It is not itself that ground, nor the means of attaining an inherent righteousness acceptable to God. This is obvious, 1. Because our justification would not then be gratuitous, or without works. Paul would then teach the very reverse of the doctrine which he has been laboring to establish, viz., that it is not on account of works of righteousness, i.e. works of the highest order of excellence, that we are accepted, since these works would then be the real ground of our acceptance. 2. Because we are said to be justified by faith, of which Christ is the object, by faith in his blood, by faith in him as a sacrifice. These expressions cannot possibly mean, that faith in Christ is, or produces, a state of mind which is acceptable to God. Faith in a sacrifice is, by the very force of the terms, reliance on a sacrifice. It would be to contradict the sentiment of the whole ancient and Jewish world, to make the design of a sacrifice the production of a state of mind acceptable to the Being worshipped, which moral state was to be the ground of acceptance. There is no more pointed way of denying that we are justified on account of the state of our own hearts, or the character of our own acts, than by saying that we are justified by a propitiatory sacrifice. This latter declaration places of necessity the ground of acceptance out of ourselves; it is something done for us, not something experienced, or produced in us, or performed by us. There is no rule of interpretation more obvious and more important than that which requires us to understand the language of a writer in the sense in which he knew he would be understood by the persons to whom he wrote. To explain, therefore, the language of the apostle in reference to the sacrifice of Christ, and the mode of our acceptance with God, otherwise, than in accordance with the universally prevalent opinions on the nature of sacrifices, is to substitute our philosophy of religion for the inspired teachings of the sacred writers. To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. Having stated the nature and ground of the gospel method of justification, Paul comes, in this clause, to state its object: ‘God has set forth Christ, as a propitiatory sacrifice, to declare his righteousness.’ It should be remembered that the object of the death of Christ, being very comprehensive, is variously presented in the word of God. In other words, the death of Christ answers a great number of infinitely important ends in the government of God. It displays “his manifold wisdom,” Ephesians 3:10 , Ephesians 3:11 ; it was designed “to purify unto himself a people zealous of good works,” Titus 2:14 ; to break down the distinction between the Jews and Gentiles, Ephesians 2:15 ; to effect the reconciliation of both Jews and Gentiles unto God, Ephesians 2:16 ; “to deliver us from this present evil world,” Galatians 1:4 ; to secure the forgiveness of sins, Ephesians 1:7 ; to vindicate his ways to men, in so long passing by or remitting their sins, Romans 3:25 ; to reconcile the exercise of mercy with the requirements of justice, Romans 3:26 , etc. These ends are not inconsistent, but perfectly harmonious. The end here specially mentioned is, to declare his righteousness . These words here, as elsewhere, are variously explained. 1. They are understood of some one of the moral attributes of God, as his veracity, by Locke; or his mercy, by Grotius, Koppe, and many of the moderns. Both of these interpretations are forced, because they assign very unusual meanings to the word righteousness, and meanings little suited to the context. 2. Most commentators, who render the phrase ‘righteousness, or justification of God,’ in Romans 1:17 , Romans 3:21 , God’s method of justification, adopt that sense here. The meaning would then be, that ‘God had set forth Christ as a propitiation, to exhibit his method of justification, both in reference to the sins committed under the old dispensation, and those committed under the new.’ But this is inconsistent with the meaning of δικαιοσύνη , which never has the sense of “method of justification,” and is unsuited to the context. 3. The great majority of commentators understand the δικαιοσύνη Qeou~ here spoken of to be the justice of God. This is the proper meaning of the terms, and this the context demands. Justice is the attribute with which the remission, or passing by, of sins without punishment, seemed to be in conflict, and which therefore required vindication. It was necessary that the justice of God should be publicly exhibited, because he forgave sin. Besides, the apostle himself explains what he means by δικαιοσύνη when he adds that God set forth Christ as a propitiation, in order that he might be just , and yet justify the ungodly. The satisfaction of justice therefore was the immediate and specific end of the death of Christ. This was indeed a means to a higher end. Justice was satisfied, in order that men might be sanctified and saved; and men are sanctified and saved, in order that might be known, in the ages to come, the exceeding riches of the grace of God. For the remission of sins , διὰ τήν πάρεσιν κ . τ . λ . This admits of different explanations. 1. Some give διὰ with the accusative the same force as with the genitive; through the forgiveness of sins. That is, the righteousness of God was manifested by means of remitting sins. This is contrary to the proper meaning of the words, and supposes that dikaiosu_nh means goodness. Beza, however, adopts this view, and renders the words, per remissionem ; so also Reiche, Koppe, and others. 2. It is taken to mean, as to , as it regards . This gives a good sense, ‘To declare his righteousness, as to , or as it regards the remission of sins.’ So Raphelius ( Observationes , etc., p. 241,) who quotes Polybius, Lib . 5, ch. 24, p. 517, in support of this interpretation. This view is given by Professor Stuart. But the preposition in question very rarely if ever has this force. No such meaning is assigned to it by Wahl, Bretschneider, or Winer. 3. The common force of the preposition is retained, on account of . This clause would then assign the ground or reason of the exhibition of the righteousness of God. It became necessary that there should be this exhibition, because God had overlooked or pardoned sin from the beginning. This is the most natural and satisfactory interpretation of the passage. So the Vulgate, propter remissionem , and almost all the moderns. 4. Others again make the preposition express the final cause or object, ‘To declare his righteousness for the sake of the remission of sins,’ i.e., that sins might be remitted. So Calvin, who says, “Tantundem valet praepositio causalis, acsi dixisset, remissionis ergo, vel in hunc finem ut peccata deleret. Atque haec definitio vel exegesis rursus confirmat quod jam aliquoties monui, non justificari homines, quia re ipsa tales sint, sed imputatione.” But this is a very questionable force of the preposition: See Winer’s Gram ., §49, c. The third interpretation, therefore, just mentioned, is to be preferred. The word pa&resij , remission , more strictly means pretermission , a passing by , or overlooking . Paul repeatedly uses the proper term for remission ( ἄφεσις ) as in Ephesians 1:7 , Hebrews 9:22 etc.; but the word here used occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Many, therefore, consider the selection of this particular term as designed to express the idea, that sins committed before the advent of Christ might more properly be said to be overlooked, than actually pardoned, until the sacrifice of the Redeemer had been completed; see Wolf’s Curae . Reference is made to Acts 17:30 , where God is said to have overlooked the times of ignorance. But as the word used by the apostle is actually used to express the idea of remission , in Greek writers (see Elsner) the majority of commentators adopt that meaning here. The words pa&resij and ἄφεσις express the same thing, but under different aspects. They differ only as not punishing , and pardoning . To say that God did not punish sins under the old dispensation, is only a different way of saying that he pardoned them. So “not to impute iniquity,” is the negative statement of justification. This passage, however, is one of the few which the Romanists quote in support of their doctrine that there was no real pardon, justification, or salvation, before the advent of Christ. The ancient believers at death, according to their doctrine, did not pass into heaven, but into the limbus patrum , where they continued in a semi-conscious state until Christ’s descensus ad inferos for their deliverance. The modern transcendental theologians of Germany, who approach Romanism in so many other points, agree with the Papists also here. Thus Olshausen says, “Under the Old Testament there was no real, but only a symbolical forgiveness of sins.” Our Lord, however, speaks of Abraham as in heaven; and the Psalm are filled with petitions and thanksgiving for God’s pardoning mercy. The words, that are past , seem distinctly to refer to the times before the advent of Christ. This is plain from their opposition to the expression, at this time , in the next verse, and from a comparison with the parallel passage in Hebrews 9:16 , “He is the Mediator for the redemption of sins that were under the first testament.” The words ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ , rendered through the forbearance of God, admit of different explanations. 1. They may be connected with the words just mentioned, and the meaning be, ‘Sins that are past, or, which were committed during the forbearance of God;’ see Acts 17:30 , where the times before the advent are described in much the same manner. 2. Or they may be taken, as by our translators, as giving the cause of the remission of these sins, ‘They were remitted, or overlooked through the divine forbearance or mercy.’ Forgiveness however is always referred to grace, not to forbearance. The former interpretation is also better suited to the context. The meaning of the whole verse therefore is, ‘God has set forth Jesus Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice, to vindicate his righteousness or justice, on account of the remission of the sins committed under the former dispensation;’ and not under the former dispensation only, but also in the remission of sins at the present time, as the apostle immediately adds. The interpretation of the latter part of this verse, given above, according to which τὰ προγεγονότα ἁμαρτήματα , ( the sins before committed ,) mean the sins committed before the coming of Christ, is that which both the context and the analogy of Scripture demand. In the early Church, however, there were some who held that there is no forgiveness for post-baptismal sins — a doctrine recently reproduced in England by the Rever. Dr. Pusey. The advocates of this doctrine make this passage teach that Christ was set forth as a propitiation for the forgiveness of sins committed before baptism, that is, before conversion or the professed adoption of the gospel. Rückert and Reiche, among the recent German writers, give the same interpretation. This would alter the whole character of the gospel. There could be no salvation for any human being; for all men sin hourly, after as well as before baptism or conversion. No man at any moment of his life is perfectly conformed to the law of God. Conscience always pronounces sentence against us. There could be no peace in believing, no imputation or possession of righteousness. We should not now be under grace, but under law, as completely as though Christ had never died.