Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Adam and Eve, created in an absolutely pristine environment, did what is now in hindsight
the most unthinkable thing and disobeyed the only prohibition that they were given. By choosing to
satisfy their basic appetites the couple cast the world into a chaos and confusion that has lingered
eternally. Their collective action resulted in the introduction of an etymology in which man is
forever caught in a whirlpool of selfishness and humanism, where God has become totally and
uniquely irrelevant and insignificant; Man became the epitome of himself ± a being that held no
regard for the God of heaven ± ³like sheep gone astray«everyman to his own way.´
It was God in his sovereignty that set in motion a divine initiative for a redemptive work in
history. The books of Exodus through to Deuteronomy are records of the inception and initiation of
this action plan to bring man back to himself. It is in these books of the Old Testament that we get a
masked picture of the initiative of salvation, sufficient for that time. The centre of this miraculous
and historic unfolding surrounds the establishment of the tabernacle of God that was erected at the
centre of the camp of Israel. The meticulous nature with which the instructions for this temple were
communicated and the care that was given in following the instructions to the ³T´ were not only a
representation of the desire of God to bring back to himself man whom he created and to dwell in
his fullness in their midst. It was a demonstration of what would then be revealed in its fullness in
Chapters 26 ± 40 of Exodus testify to the great detail given by God in the construction of
this tabernacle ± a tabernacle finally completed in chapter 40 of the text. Of prominence in this
tabernacle was the Holy of Holies, the quintessential representation and resting place of the
presence and power of God on earth among his chosen people Israel. It is within the holy of holies,
that the high priest made temporary atonement for himself and for the nation of Israel, via the blood
of bulls and rams for sins and transgressions, and it is there before the Ark of the Covenant that God
Fast forward to the New Testament centuries later and we are presented with a fuller picture
of the redemptive work of God in history. Through His son Jesus Christ, God brought to completion
his divine prerogative to restore man to himself ± a salvation that is both complete and continuous.
It is in the words penned in Romans 3: 21 ± 26 more than any other location in the book of Romans
that the theological intersections of this divine initiative are elucidated by the great orator Paul.
³Rarely does the bible bring together in so few verses so many important theological ideas: the
righteousness of God, justification, the shift in salvation history, faith, sin, redemption, grace
propitiation, forgiveness and the justice of God.´1 As such the importance and significance of the
act of the son of God and the son himself may represent a reformation of the transcendental starting
point in this parenthesises called time and redemptive history. The advent of Christ, his death,
burial and resurrection represents the establishment of a new covenant under which justification and
redemption were no longer garnered through temporary sacrifices as the blood of animals but
through the incomparable atoning blood of the Lamb of God. The practices of the Old Testament
were brought to fruition in the New Testament, convened by and through Jesus Christ himself.
V r ÎÎÎ
Î
ÎÎ
Î
ÎÎ
ÎV
Î
ÎÎÎ
Î
ÎÎ
Î
Î
Î
V VÎÎ
ÎÎ
Î
Î
Î
ÎV
ÎÎ
Î
ÎÎÎÎ
!ÎÎÎÎ
ÎV Î
ÎÎÎ
Î"Î#ÎÎ
Î
Î
Î
ÎÎ Î
Î
ÎÎÎÎ
Î
V ÎÎÎ
Î
Î
ÎÎÎ
Î Î
Î
ÎÎÎÎ
ÎÎÎÎ
ÎÎ
Î
Î
ÎÎÎ
Î$
1
Douglas J. Moo, The NIV Application Commentary, Romans, (Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 125.
2
Charles John Ruppert, GNT, Online Greek New Testament, [resource on-line], available from http://wesley.nnu.edu/gnt/, internet, accessed
14/04/08.
V ut now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets
testify. V his righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. here is no difference,
V Vfor all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, V and are justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that came by Christ Jesus. V God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.
He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand
unpunished ʹ V he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies
those who have faith in Jesus. ʹ (New International Version), NIV.
There are many versions and translations of the original Greek manuscripts part of which is
outlined above. The poetical King James Version is very often the version of choice for most
readers of the Bible, primarily because it may have been one of the first versions to have been
published but also for its poetical language. However, this version may not satisfactorily represent a
proper interpretation of the text in Romans outlined above. This version is rather hard to read and
uses an antiquated language. There are a number of versions that will be used in this paper the
primary one being the New International Version of the Bible (NIV). This is not saying that other
versions will not be employed. However, the intention of this paper is to give as close as possible an
accurate interpretation of the spirit¶s intention in the text as well as to do justice to the original
Greek manuscript. As such this version of the Bible will be used along with translations that may
help our cause in this paper ± in our look at the third chapter of Romans.
The book of Romans is the longest and most theologically significant of Paul¶s letters. The
gospel as the righteousness of God by faith occupies centre stage for the first part of the book (1:18
± 4:25).3 Paul paves the way for this theme by explaining why it was necessary for God to manifest
his righteousness and why humans can experience this righteousness only by faith. Sin, Paul
affirms, has gained a stranglehold on all people, and only an act of God, experienced as a free gift
through faith, can break through that stranglehold. God¶s wrath, the condemning outflow of his holy
anger, stands over all sinners and justly so. For God has made himself known to all people through
creation; their turning from him to gods of their own making renders them without excuse (Romans
1). As such Paul makes a claim that only God can change the tragic state of affairs, and this he has
3
D. A Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 2005), 391.
done by making himself available, through the sacrifice of his son, a means of becoming righteous,
or innocent, before God. This justification can be gained only through faith. It is with this in mind
that Paul penned the words and theological nuances in this the third chapter of his letter to the
Romans.
Verse 21 ± 26 may represent the heart and the centre of the main division of which it is a
part. In fact it may be said that it is the heart of the whole section that spans Romans 1:16b ± 15:13.
Paul continues his earlier discourse which he began in chapter 1, and the gospel he presents expands
on the theme of justification by faith. Paul in his discourse takes a detour from the main line of his
argument in chapter 1 to show why God¶s intervention in Christ was needed and then resumes his
argument in chapter 3. An examination of this pericope in chapter three shows that the language of
³righteousness´ (3: 21, 22, 25, 26), ³justify´ (24, 26), and ³just´ (v. 26) dominates this paragraph.
All these English words come from the Greek root v and as such develop one basic theme. Paul
in this assertion alludes to the idea that there is a new and different way of being seen as righteous
in the eyes of God; this idea of righteous therefore is intimately linked to the idea of justification in
The term justification or justify does not mean to ³subjectively change into a righteous
person´ but instead means ³to declare righteous,´ specifically, to declare righteous upon the act of
faith based upon the work of another, the divine substitute Jesus Christ.4 Justification then involves
both the forensic, legal declaration of the righteousness of the believer as well as the grounds and
basis of their acceptance. The fact is that the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to the
believer accounts for the resulting perfection of the relationship between the believer and God. As
4
Chad rand et al, volman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, (Nashville, ennessee; Holman Reference, 2004), 970.
result of God, in the court yards of heaven declaring men to be righteous. Thus we are judged to be
But there is much more that is significance about this text than meets the eye. Poignantly
this passage stands out in its proclamation of the fact that the one decisive, once for all, redemptive
act of God through which was declared righteous and just, the revelation both of the righteousness
which is from God and also of the wrath of God against sin, the once for all revelation which is the
basis of the continuing revelation of the righteousness (1:17) and of the wrath (1:18) of God in the
preaching of the gospel, has now taken place. It shows unequivocally, according to Cranfield, that
the heart of the gospel preached by Paul is a series of events in the past. It includes all that God did
before the advent of Jesus as well as the elements of the ultimate exaltation of Christ; elements
because the cross by itself would have been no saving act of God. This gospel includes the
crucifixion, the resurrection and the exaltation of the Crucified. It is a series of events which is the
event of history; the decisive act of God which is altogether effective and irreversible.5 It is through
the crucifixion, resurrection and exaltation of the crucified that God¶s righteousness has been
revealed. This righteousness which is God¶s method of bringing men into right relation to Himself,
is a definite righteousness, is available to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ and is a
Of particular note is the phrase µBut now¶ (r ÎÎ followed by the perfect tense. It could
be understood as either (1) logical or (2) temporal in force and may be the source of some
contention.6 Cranfield in his analysis states that in light of the contention of some
commentators that Ê Ê has a purely logical force in this verse must surely be rejected and its
temporal significance firmly maintained. It emphasizes the fact that the contrast marked by Î - so
5
C.E. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans, (Edinburgh: & Clark Limited 38 George Street, 1985), 199
ʹ 200.
6
ible.org, Net ible First Edition, Software package, 1996 ʹ 2005, iblical Studies Press
far from being merely a contrast between two ideas, that of justification Î Î
andthat
of justificationÎ
%is a contrast between the impossibility of justification by works, on
the one hand, and on the other hand, the fact that in the recent past a decisive event has taken place
by which justification which is God¶s free gift& %is now % ¨ ÊAs such
Î
ÎÎ
Î is formally a statement about
Îbut it also is a statement
about the Old Testament; for it affirms that the righteousness which is of God is not only attested to
by the Old Testament but that the Old Testament is a witness to this righteousness.Paul captures
beautifully the continuity and discontinuity in God¶s plan of salvation and this is the relation. God in Jesus
reveals His righteousness in Christ ³apart from the law´ of Moses. Like the ³old wineskins´ of Jesus¶ Parable
(Mark 2:22) the Mosaic covenant simply cannot contain the ³new wine´ of the gospel. This is the
discontinuity. However, the continuity is expressed in the idea that the entire ³Old Testament´ (the Law and
the Prophets) testifies to this new work of God in Christ. The cross is no afterthought, no ³plan B;´ it has
been God¶s intention from the beginning to reveal his saving righteousness by sending His son as a sacrifice
for us.
God¶ s righteousness ³has been known´ can literally be translated ³has been manifested´ ±
the verb being in the perfect tense in contrast to the present tense in chapter 1:17. This according to
Gaebelein, draws attention to the appearing of Jesus Christ in the arena of history or more
specifically, points to the fulfilment of God¶s saving purpose in him.8 This righteousness ±
justification that is now imputed onto man is a free gift given to man by God through ³faith in Jesus
Christ.´
The translation ³faith in Jesus Christ´ appears in all modern translations but there is a
contending view that is being adopted today, a genitive construction ± ³faith of Jesus Christ´
7
Ibid, 201.
8
Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor͛s Bible Commentary with The New International Version of The voly Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan
Publishing House, 1977), 41.
(Î
Î
Î The NIV takes this genitiveto be objective, that is, that Jesus Christ is
the object of the noun of ³faith.´ But it can equally be a subjective genitive according to Moo, with
Jesus Christ being the subject of ³faith.´10Gaebelein concurs with the subjective genitive view of
the phrase when he asserts that the word'()*+)*,evidently means faithfulness. Evidence of
this is seen when one takes a glance at the book of Mark 11:22 which seems to make it is clear that
the of God may mean faith in God, as the situation there requires. What should settle the
matter therefore is the precedent in Galatians 2:16, where we find the identical phrase´ through faith
of Jesus Christ´ followed by the explanatory statement, ³we believe in Christ Jesus.´ As such both
phrases, ³faith in Jesus´ and ³faith of Jesus´ may not oppositional ideologies but may actually
speak of the same thing. Consequently according to Gaebelein, the NIV translation should be
regarded as legitimate and preferable.11The point therefore is thatsalvation and justification comes
only through faith in Jesus and not by works. The idea of such divine attributes being gained by
works is a doctrine that is polemically denied in the bible. It was Paul himself that stated in
fundamentally a miracle and initiative of God towards the liberation of men from sin and oppressive
systems that have kept men from fulfilling their duty to God and living a life of worship to the
Even though the advent of Christ has removed the necessity of justification through the
insufficient law, it does not mean that such justification through faith in Christ took place without
the impetus of the law. This may be the assumption that is gleaned by the use of the phrase Î
an adverbial phrase that modifies ʌİijĮȞȑȡȦIJĮȚ (a present indicative passive). However,
9
Douglas J. Moo, The NIV Application Commentary, Romans, 127
10
Ibid
11
Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor͛s Bible Commentary with The New International Version of The voly Bible, 41.
according to Cranfield, this may not be the meaning here, since it is clear that Paul did not think that
the law was absent at the time of the manifestation referred to. On the contrary passages like
Galatians 3: 13 and 4: 4 suggest that he thought that it was deeply involved in the gospel events.
According to him, the words are most naturally understood in relation to Î Î
andÎ
in verse 20 ± as indicating that the righteousness of God (
Î of which verse 20
and 21 speak is manifest as something which has not been earned by men¶s fulfilment of the law.12
As such
Îshould be understood in the same way as it is understood in 1: 17, that it is
This status of righteousness has been made available to all men on the earth as a result of the
universality of sin. Sin in many respects is the central identifying feature of this fallen race. As such
Paul states that ³there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.´ There
is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. All are under sin¶s power and all fall short. In like
manner all are declared righteous or justified by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus. The execution of the declaration of justice on the behalf of the guilty is described by ÎÎ
Î
!by means of redemption.
Redemption means ³to pay a price in order to secure the release of something or someone.
It connotes the idea of paying what is required in order to liberate from oppression, enslavement or
another type of binding obligation.´13 In the Old Testament two word groups were used to connote
redemption. The verb ! and its cognates mean to ³buy back´ or ³to redeem.´ In the book of
Ruth for example, (Ruth 2:20), Boaz acts as kinsman-redeemer to secure the freedom of Ruth from
poverty and widowhood. Boaz purchases the land of Elimelech and in so doing, ³redeems´ Ruth
12
Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans, 201.
13
Chad rand et al, volman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, (Nashville, ennessee; Holman Reference, 2004), 1370.
and takes her to be his wife. When
!
is used of God, the idea is redemption from bondage or
oppression, typically from one¶s enemies. " another Old Testament word,is primarily used
with regard to the redemption of persons or living things and may refer to general deliverance from
trouble or distress.
The former meaning ³to redeem,´ ³to liberate,´ ³or ³to ransom´ and suggests the heart of Jesus¶
mission. His life and ministry ended in his sacrificial death. The latter is used often to express God¶s
redemptive activity in Christ. For example, God¶s redemption of fallen humanity is costly and
controversial. While some like Warfield and Morris assert that the thought of ± Êa ransom paid,
µemancipation,¶ without any reference to the payment of a ransom.16 Cranfield in his discourse
comes to the conclusion that an absolutely confident assertion of either view can hardly be justified;
ransom paid cannot be ruled out in face of the evidence of the Septuagint¶s use of ± and
other derivatives of ± Êand on the other hand, in view of the fact that µin the use of the word
± Êand its derivative in Greek literature, there is a marked consistency in the retention of the
connection with the manumission of slaves (in which a payment was involved). This is an idea that
14
Ibid, 1371.
15
.. Warfield, The New Testament Terminology of Redemption, in PR 15 (1917), 201 ʹ 49. L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of The Cross,
(London), 1955. Quoted in Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans, 201.
16
Cambier, L͛Evangile de Dieu I pp.84f. Quoted in Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans, 201.
17
Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans, 206.
would have been familiar to many of Paul¶s readers.18 In other words, the Greek words employed
in this text with reference to the redemption of men, seems to suggest the notion of God freeing the
enslaved, sinful men and women from the power and influence of sin by paying the price for our
sins. This price is necessarily the blood of his son Jesus Christ. This freeing of slaves ± slaves to sin
- involves God paying the price, to ³buy back´ man to himself and free him from the one to whom
he was enslaved ± sin. Scripture it self attests to this idea of God paying the ransom for the freedom
of men. Many scripture verses attest or seem to confirm to the view of a price being paid for the
freedom of the enslaved to sin, for example, 1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23, refer to Christians being
³bought with a price´, along with other supporting texts including Gal 3:13, Mark 10:45 and 1 Peter
1:18. As such Cranfield summarizes by saying that the possibility that Paul had in mind the thought
must leave the discussion open. What can be said about ÎÎÎ
!however is that it
indicates that the believer¶s righteous status has been brought about by God by means of a definite
and decisive action on His own part. The fact that the phrase is linked with
means, that
the slavery from which this action of God has redeemed us must be the slavery of sin in the sense of
subjection to its effects, that is God¶s condemnation, His wrath, the condition of having an
Morris posits something similar in his analysis of the idea of redemption. He too alludes to
the notion of the release of prisoners of war or slaves or slaves under sentence of death all of which
included the paying of a price. However, he alludes to a metaphorical meaning of the idea of
redemption but still maintains that it is freedom after payment that gives these metaphorical
meanings their meaning. Paul and other biblical authors portray Christ¶s sacrifice as a ³ransom´ a
price paid to secure the release of captives. Bu the question that one must necessarily ask is to
18
Ibid, 207
whom did God pay this ransom? The answer given by many theologians was Satan. The church
fathers in the Patristic period argued that because of sin, the devil had the right to keep people
captive to himself. Human beings sinned, and the devil therefore had control of them. In order to
secure their release, God had to pay the devil a ransom, the death of Christ. So popular was this
interpretation that Gustaf Aulen called it the ³classic´ view of the atonement. But the Bible no
where teaches any ransom aid to the devil. The Biblical writers repeatedly used the concept of
redemption to connote that God in Christ had to liberate people from slavery to sin and that He paid
the price to accomplish this. Moo calls this the points of contact between ³secular´ redemption and
what God has done n Christ. Biblical writers nowhere speculate on whom the ransom was paid to.
Their silence here suggests that this was not part of the analogy they were using. If one really wants
to argue the point about a ransom being paid to someone, then the most probable person to whom
that ransom would have been paid must be God since sin makes us debtors to him.19 Therefore
according to Morris, ³we must look at redemption as a way of looking at the cross which brings out
certain details of Christ¶s work but which cannot be pressed in every detail.´20
This latter theory is the one that seems most likely to be given the situation and context of
the scriptures; God, may never or could never regard the devil, a lesser being than himself (in every
sense of the word) to be worthy of any form of payment. It seems evident from the discussion,
therefore, that the redemptive work of God in history emphasizes not so much the paying of a price,
but the appeasement of the anger of a Holy God, by the sacrifice of his Son and the manumission ±
the setting free of men from the power and shackles of sin - from the shackles and bondages of sin
that kept them chained without hope of escape. It is the fact of God setting men free by the
sacrificial blood of his Son that makes redemption the theological truth that it is. It is God liberating
19
Norman Geisler, Öystematic Theology, Volume Three, Öin and Öalvation, (Minneapolis, Minnesota; ethany House, 2004), 224.
20
Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William . Eerdmans Publishing Company; Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1997), 179.
humanity from such a phenomenon and the custody that was cancelled thereby came about because
of man¶s guilt, on account of which they were shackled to the results of sin, according to the divine
justice. The idea of God paying the price then through the sacrifice of his son could be viewed as a
metaphorical analogy geared towards communicating the idea that God took the initiative to liberate
men. Such liberation necessarily would be gained through the blood of His Son, apart from whom,
permanent forgiveness for sins could not be effected. From the stand point of humanity, the act of
God in freeing man should be seen in just that light ± God liberated or set men free from
enslavement and the medium of such freedom was His Son. According to Schlatter, because Paul
links sin with death, the liberation from guilt is also the deliverance from the sentence of death that
is based on guilt, and because our destiny of death is associated with the condition of our body, Paul
could say concerning the body that it would also be freed by redemption.21 Jesus ³paid´ the ultimate
sacrifice so that man can be set free ± liberated from the curse of sin and its effects.
Because of this redemptive work the blessings of God that comes with being set free, µfor
whom the son sets free is free indeed,¶ are made available to all who believe on the name of Christ.
Those who have been set free are no longer enslaved to sin or it¶s effects but can live a victorious
life founded on the notion that Christ, through the work on the cross has liberated mankind from the
powers and shackles of sin. He has spoiled principalities and powers and made a show of them
openly and has led captivity captive. We have been liberated and as such can live lives that are pure
and upright, without yielding to the powers of the former slave master. Paul says later in chapter 4
of Romans, ³For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be
The benefit that redemption brings in this life, according to Ephesians 1:7, is
forgiveness of sins, and this is applicable in our passage. Another aspect however, belonging to the
21
Adolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God, ranslated by Siegfried S. Schatzmann, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc,
1995), 97.
future, is the redemption of the body which will consummate our salvation according to Romans 8:
Justification and redemption however, are not single individual events that happen in this
parenthesis called time; they are left null and void if one fails to consider that in order for them to
have taken effect blood had to be shed ± there had to be a blood sacrifice. There had to have been
A SACRIFICE OF ATONEMENT
The NIV version states that ³God presented him [Christ] as a sacrifice of atonement,´ while
the King James calls him ³a propitiation.´ There is much dissention among the ranks of the
theologians about the Greek word ȜĮıIJ ȡȚȠȞ (( ) (translated in the NIV µsacrifice of
atonement or as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin), which ³in form is an
adjective that could be taken as either masculine or neuter´22 In secular Greek culture, this word and
its cognates often refer to various means by which the wrath of the gods could be ³propitiated.´23 A
sacrifice was offered or monument dedicated, acts that served to ³turn away´ the wrath of a god.
Many interpreters think Paul uses the word in this sense and as such translate the word
³propitiation´ or ³appeasement.´ In the minds of other theologians this word, ȜĮıIJ ȡȚȠȞ, may refer
to a ³place of satisfaction,´ referring to the place where God¶s wrath toward sin is satisfied. More
likely, though, it refers specifically to the ³mercy seat,´ i.e., the covering of the ark where the blood
was sprinkled in the Old Testament ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).
C.H. Dodd, in his analysis of the word ȜĮıIJ ȡȚȠȞ, and true to his distaste for the idea of God¶s
wrath, used the word to mean ³expiate.´ This word refers to wiping away or forgiving sins (where the subject
of that action is human), or where the subject is God, God being gracious, having mercy and forgiving. He
22
Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor͛s Bible Commentary with The New International Version of The voly Bible, 43.
23
Douglas J. Moo, The NIV Application Commentary, Romans, 128.
further states that no allusion to God¶s wrath is included.24 Thus Dodd was diametrically opposed to the idea
of propitiation or appeasement. Morris on the other hand has shown that in many if not all of the passages in
which ȜĮıIJ ȡȚȠȞ or its infinitive is used, the idea of God¶s wrath is present.25 As such Dodd failed to pay
Morris in another of his publications asserts that a number of translations see a reference to sacrifice
and this may be justified by the use of the term µblood¶ in the passage and further by the fact that the verb
cognate with the noun being discussed is commonly used in the Septuagint to say that such-and-such a
sacrifice was offered ³to make atonement.´ However it must be born in mind that the verb in such
expressions mean ³to make atonement´ not ³to offer sacrifice´ and further that the noun we have is not the
atonement word, but is only related to it. As such he concludes that the usage of the noun shows that it means
³propitiation,´ and that those who advocate a meaning like ³propiatory sacrifice´ might be right.26 Morris
therefore is against the ³mercy seat´ interpretation of the word. In his view there is no example of the word
unqualified referring to the mercy seat. Moreover the same word is used in the Septuagint of other things,
such as the ledge of the alter in Ezekiel 43:14. It seems clear therefore that the word is understood to signify
³means of propitiation´ or ³propitiatory thing.´ This according to him is a description that could on occasion
apply to the mercy seat, but it could also refer to other things. He states:
We need more that the simple, unqualified use of the word to see here reference to that article of
tabernacle furniture. We should also bear in mind that the mercy seat was hidden from the public
gaze (nobody ever saw it except the high priest, and he only once a year), whereas here the context
stresses what is in the open. 27
Shedd supports this assertion by saying that a comparison to the mercy seat ³upon the face of it seems
incongruous´ Their conclusion: Few of those who hold to this view really face the fact that an unexplained
24
Douglas J. Moo, The NIV Application Commentary, Romans, 129. Quoting C. H. Dodd, ͞ ȜĮıIJ ȡȚȠȞ,´ its Cognates, Derivatives and Synonyms
in the Septuagint,͟ JS 32 (1931): 353 ʹ 60.
25
Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle To The Romans, 21. Quoting L. Morris, ͚The use of Î Î
Biblical
Greek!in E 62 (1950 ʹ 51), pp. 227 ʹ 33.
26
Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 181.
27
Ibid, 182
likening of Christ to a blood-sprinkled lid would be very curious. ³Means of propitiation´ is surely the
meaning.28
ȜĮıIJ ȡȚȠȞ however, is used in reference to the mercy seat of Leviticus 16, in twenty one out of the
twenty-seven occurrences in the Septuagint and in its only other occurrence in the New Testament, (Hebrews
9:5), the possibility that Paul is using it in that sense here in Romans and thinking of Christ as the anti-type
of the Old Testament mercy-seat must clearly be taken seriously. N. S. L. Fryer in his analysis of the
word concludes that the term is a neuter accusative substantive best translated ³mercy seat´ or
³propitiatory covering,´29 D. P. Bailey in his own analysis on the passage in Romans 3: 25 argues
that this is a direct reference to the mercy seat which covered the ark of the covenant.30 From earlier
times Paul has often been so understood, and this view of ȜĮıIJ ȡȚȠȞ is upheld by many writers.
Schlatter states that the author makes a link between keporet with kipper, ³to atone,´ and as such
ȜĮıIJ ȡȚȠȞ became the name of the cover that was placed on top of the sacred ark, upon which the
cherubim were positioned and upon which the high priest sprinkled blood on the Day of Atonement
and states that ³although ȜĮıIJ ȡȚȠȞ was now rendered neuter, its active meaning µeffecting
One objection that is held against the mercy seat interpretation of this word is that in the
passage in Hebrews referred to above, the word is accompanied by the definite article; however, in
this passage the word is void of it. This is not an insuperable objection, for if Paul is intent on
stressing that Christ is the antitype of the Old Testament mercy seat, he would naturally omit the
But more significant is the objection that any reference to the mercy seat is incongruous, since that
article was withheld from public view and access. However in the New Testament, the death of Christ
28
Ibid
29
N. S. L. Fryer, ͞The Meaning and Translation of vilasterion in Romans 3:25,͟ EvQ 59 (1987): 99-116,
30
D. P. ailey, ͞Jesus As the Mercy Seat: he Semantics and heology of Paul͛s Use of vilasterion in Romans 3:25͟ (Ph.D. diss., University of
Cambridge, 1999).
31
Adolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God, ranslated by Siegfried S. Schatzmann, 98.
opened up what had formerly been concealed and inaccessible to the people ± symbolic of the renting of the
veil in the temple (Matt 27: 51; Mark 15: 38). As far as Romans is concerned, the word ³presented´ is a sign
post suggesting a similar concept here. If Paul here recalls the furnishings of the tabernacle and the
tradition of Israel¶s festivals, he clarifies his statement concerning the redemptive power of the
death of Jesus in this way that the law already provided a process that mediated forgiveness to the
community comprised of sinners, as well as the ability to remain in the divine grace. In order for an
act like this to be possible, the cover was upon the ark in the holy of holies, as the symbol of the
God present in the sanctuary and among his people. He was removed from the sight of everyone
else and positioned in the accessible darkness of the holy of holies; but once each year to become
the locus of the sprinkling of blood with which the assurance of the forgiving grace was associated.
While the locus of grace was hidden and inaccessible to Israel and more so to the nations, he
through whom God has granted deliverance to all is proclaimed to all and the access to him opened
up to all. T. W. Manson remarks, ³the mercy-seat is no longer kept in the sacred seclusion of the most holy
place: it is brought out into the midst of the rough and tumble of the world and set up before the eyes of
hostile, contemptuous, or indifferent crowds´32 Indeed, Christ has become the mediator or the go between in
the struggle of God and man where the mercy of God is available because of the sacrifice of the son. Nygren
supports the mercy seat interpretation by noting that the very terms used by Paul in the passage tally with the
Old Testament setting in Exodus 25 ± the manifestation of God, his wrath, his glory, the blood and the mercy
seat.
However, the idea of Christ being the ³mercy seat´ as well as ³our propitiation´ does not have to be
one that is in stark contrast to the other. Perhaps there is room for both of these interpretations in the New
Testament writings of Paul. The concept of propitiation is not limited to Paul¶s writings. In the Old
Testament sacrificial system, the offering was made before the Lord and there it took effect as well: ³The
priest shall burn it on the alter, upon the offerings by the fire to the Lord; and the priest shall make atonement
32
Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor͛s Bible Commentary with The New International Version of The voly Bible, 41. Quoting T. W Manson (JTÖ 46)
1945, 5.
for [the sinner] for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven´ (Lev. 4:35). Similar passages
could be found in Leviticus 16. As such Erickson asks the question can there be any doubt, especially in
view of God¶s anger against sin that this verse points to an appeasement of God? How else can we interpret
the statement that the offering should be made to the Lord and forgiveness would follow?33
Exodus 25 gives a detailed description of God¶s direction for the building of the Ark of the
Covenant. In verse 17 and 22, the object of great concern is the atonement cover. It is the location upon
which the Priest once every year would locate himself and make sacrifice for the entire nation of Israel for
one entire year. The noun is ʺʓʸʖ˝ʔ˗ ( ), translated ³atonement lid´ or ³atonement plate.´ The
traditional translation being ³mercy-seat´ (so KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV) came from Tyndale in
1530 and was also used by Luther in 1523. The noun is formed from the word ³to make
atonement.´ The item that the Israelites should make would be more than just a lid for the ark. It
would be the place where atonement was signified. The translation of ³covering´ is probably
incorrect, for it derives from a rare use of the verb, if the same verb at all (the evidence shows
³cover´ is from another root with the same letters as this). The value of this place was that Yahweh
sat ³enthroned´ above it, and so the ark essentially was the ³footstool.´ Blood was applied to the lid
of the box, for that was the place of atonement. When God look down before the blood was applied,
he would see the commandments that were written on the two tablets of stone that were hid within
the Ark of the Covenant. This would necessarily act as a yoke around the neck of the Israelites and
would be the source of the wrath and the judgment of God on the people of Israel. But just like the
Passover recorded in Exodus 12, when the blood was applied and God looked down from between
the Cherubims, atonement was made at the mercy seat of God and the sins of the people were
forgiven for a while ± a period of one year. This atonement nevertheless being a temporary
$
33
Millard J. Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, Edited by L. Arnold Hustad, (Grand Rapids, Michigan; aker ook House, 1999), 251.
%
&
'(
)*)+,-.
The picture of the Tabernacle given in the Old Testament was but a pre-figure of the true
tabernacle that was to be inaugurated in the New Testament. This tabernacle would then be
transformed from a temple made with hands to the temple of the heart. The only condition which
did not change was the condition of the heart of man and the necessity for atonement. This
atonement however, had to be diametrically different from the atonement made in the Old
Covenant, where the blood of rams and bulls were offered. But separate and apart from this form of
atonement, this atonement was a two pronged fork in its application. Leviticus 16 records this idea.
In the instruction presented there, Aaron, the high priest had to select two goats one to act as a
sacrifice ± a sin offering to be butchered for the sins of the people of Israel and the other to be a
µscape¶ goat ± to make atonement by sending it away into the wilderness - the two goats together
forming one sacrifice, one of them being killed, and the other µlet go,¶ there being no other
analogous case of the kind except at the purification of a leper, when one bird was killed and the
Thus these two sacrifices²one in the removal of what symbolically represented indwelling
sin, the other contracted guilt²agreed in requiring two animals, of whom one was killed, the other
µlet go.¶ It should be noted according to Edersheim, that the sins of the people were confessed not
on the goat which was killed, but on that which was µlet go in the wilderness,¶ and that it was this
goat²not the other²which µbore upon him all the iniquities¶ of the people. So far as the
conscience was concerned, this goat was the real and the only sin-offering µfor all the iniquities of
the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,¶ for upon it the high-priest laid the
sins of the people, after he had by the blood of the bullock and of the other goat µmade an end of
reconciling the Holy Place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar¶ (Lev 16:20).34 The
blood sprinkled had effected this; but it had done no more, and it could do no more, for it µcould not
make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience¶ (Heb 9:9). The symbolical
representation of perfecting was by the live goat, which, laden with the confessed sins of the
people, carried them away into µthe wilderness¶ to µa land not inhabited.¶ The only meaning of
which this seems really capable, is that though confessed guilt was removed from the people to the
head of the goat, as the symbolical substitute, yet as the goat was not killed, only sent far away, into
µa land not inhabited,¶ so, under the Old Covenant, sin was not really blotted out, only put away
from the people, and put aside till Christ came, not only to take upon Himself the burden of
transgression, but to blot it out and to purge it awayNot only was the atonement of Christ a
Several considerations indicate that Christ did indeed take our place. First there is a whole
set of passages which tell us that our sins were ³laid upon´ Christ, He ³bore´ our iniquity, ³He was
made sin´ for us. One prominent instance is in Isaiah 53: ³All we like sheep have gone astray we
have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all´ (vs 6);
He ³was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for
the transgressors´ (v. 12b). On seeing Jesus, John the Baptist exclaimed, ³Behold, the Lamb of
God, who takes away the sin of the world!´ (John 1:29). Paul said, ³For our sake he made him to be
sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God´ (2 Cor. 5:21). The
common idea in these several passages is that just like how the goat in Leviticus 16 ³bore´ the sins
of the nation and took them away from the nation it self, Christ completed that work and not only
took away the sins of the world but totally annihilated it so that it was not covered but totally done
away with.
34
Alfred Edersheim, The Temple ʹ Its Ministry and Öervices, Electronic Pdf. Document
The coming of the Christ, the son of God heralded the freedom of men from the oppressive
shackles of sin and shame and has given birth to the unspeakable gift of grace by which we are
saved through faith. It is the faith that comes by trusting in the divine initiative of God that man is
declared righteous in the court house of heaven and is redeemed by the precious blood of the lamb.
This lamb through his atonement sacrifice has not only taken away the sins of the world but has also
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bailey, D. P. ³Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul¶s Use of (
Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie England, Steve Bond, E. Ray Clendenen, Trent C. Butler and
Bill Latta. (
2
0 3
. (Nashville, Tennessee; Holman Reference,
2004.
________. 4
1&
$1 $$5
. Edinburgh: T &
T Clark Limited 38 George Street. 1985. Quoting B.B. Warfield. $/$
$
5
. In PTR 15 (1917), 201 ± 49. L. Morris. $4
"
$. London. 1955.
________. 4
1&
$1 $$5
. Edinburgh: T &
T Clark Limited 38 George Street. 1985. Quoting Cambier, L¶Evangile de Dieu I pp.84f
________. 4
1&
$1 $$5
. Edinburgh: T &
T Clark Limited 38 George Street. 1985. Quoting LMorris6$Î Î
0
!In ET 62 (1950 ± 51).
Erickson, Millard J. 2
3
. Edited by L. Arnold Hustad. Grand Rapids,
Michigan; Baker Book House, 1999.
Fryer, N. S. L. ³$7
$
(
5
9*:;.´ 1<59 (1987): 99-
116.
________. $/2=4
5
Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House. 2000. Quoting C. H. Dodd, ³ ȜĮıIJ ȡȚȠȞ,´ its Cognates, Derivatives and
Synonyms in the Septuagint.´ JTS 32 (1931): 353 ± 60.