“He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.” (Romans 4:25, NASB)
But did Christ’s resurrection help to pay for our sins? Maybe Christ’s payment wasn’t “finished” (Greek tetelestai = paid in full, Jn. 19:30) on the cross after all? Sometimes Romans 4:25 is misunderstood as teaching this. But I like what Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer has written about it. Chafer writes in Volume 4 of his Systematic Theology:
“Because of a complicated translation in the A.V. [the Authorized Version, i.e. the KJV] of Romans 4:25, the impression is abroad that in some way—not well defined—Christ was delivered to death for our sins, but was raised again to the end that believers might be justified. However, justification does not depend on the resurrection of Christ, but on His death; and this particular text really asserts a quite different idea. The A.V. rendering is, ‘Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.’ Romans 3:24 states that justification is ‘through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus’; and, again, ‘justified by his blood’ (Rom. 5:9). The sense of Romans 4:25 is that, the ground having been provided for justification by His death, the Lord arose from the grave. Bishop Moule writes in the Cambridge Bible on this verse:
Lit. because of our justification. The construction is identical [i.e., in this and the corresponding phrase earlier]. This, and the balance of the clauses, seem to demand the exposition: ‘He was raised, because our justification was effected;’ not, ‘in order to give us justification,’ as many interpret it. The parallel is complete: ‘We sinned, therefore He suffered: we were justified, therefore He rose.’—To this it is objected that the thought is not doctrinally true; justification being, for each believer, dated not from the Lord’s death, but from the time of faith (see [Rom.] ch. 5.1). But the answer is obvious: the Apostle here states the Ideal of the matter; he means not individual justifications, but the Work which for ever secured Justification for the believing Church. A close parallel is the ‘IT IS FINISHED’ (John 19.30). (See too the ideal language in [Rom.] 8.30; and instructive parallels in Heb. 1.3 and 10.14). In the Divine Idea every future believer was declared to be justified, through an accomplished Propitiation, when Jesus rose. His resurrection proved His acceptance as our Substitute, and therefore our acceptance in Him. No doubt the other interpretation is true as to fact: He was raised that, through the Gospel, (which but for His resurrection would never have been preached,) we might receive justification. But the Gr. [Greek] construction, and the balance of clauses, are certainly in favour of that now given.—‘Romans,’ p. 98.
To the same purpose, F. Godet writes, ‘In the same way, as Jesus died because of our offences, that is our (merited) condemnation, He was raised because of our (accomplished) justification. Our sin had killed Him; our justification raised Him again. How so? The expiation of our trespasses once accomplished by His death, and the right of God’s justice proved in earnest, God could pronounce the collective acquittal of future believers, and He did so. . . . So long as the security is in prison the debt is not paid; the immediate effect of payment would be his liberation. Similarly, if Jesus were not raised, we should be more than ignorant whether our debt were paid: we might be certain that it was not. His resurrection is the proof of our justification, only because it is the necessary effect of it’ (Romans, I, 312, cited by Griffith Thomas, Romans, I, 187).”2
ENDNOTES:
1 J. B. Hixson, Getting the Gospel Wrong (Xulon Press, 2008), pp. 84, 89, 92, 99, 100, 104, 110, 145, 205, 229, 237, 242, 258, 285, 347, ellipsis added. Note: I have already responded to Hixson’s statement in my paper “The Free Grace Gospel Debate”. That article is a more thorough critique of his view and is available here.
2 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976), 8 vols., vol. 4, pp. 88-89, emphasis and ellipsis his. Note: In the quotation above, the Bible verse references have been updated from Roman numerals to the current format.
While I agree with most of what was shared here, the scripture which came to my mind is 1 Corinthians 15:16-18: "For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished."
ReplyDeleteA possible solution may be found in the Book of Hebrews. Hebrews 8:3 reads "For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer." Then we read: "But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come, He went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made by hands and is not a part of this creation. He did not enter by the blood of goats and calves, but He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, thus securing eternal redemption."
"So it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made copy of the true sanctuary, but He entered heaven itself, now to appear on our behalf in the presence of God." (Hebrews 8:3; 9:11-12,23-24).
So yes, we were saved by His shed blood; but just as the atoning blood on the Day of Atonement had to be properly applied by the high priest in the Holy of Holies (the copy of the true) in order to be efficacious, so the blood of Christ had to be applied to the heavenly things themselves to be efficacious; this was achieved through the resurrection. If Christ were not resurrected, He could not have applied His blood to the true mercy seat.
Hello:
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your comments. My first thought is that there is a difference between Christ’s blood being propitious and it being (as you said) “efficacious”, or effective. If Christ would not have resurrected, then of course Christ’s sacrifice on the cross (and His shed blood) would not be effective, as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 15, and we would still be in our sins.
I used the word “propitious”. What is propitiation? The Theological Wordbook explains it like this:
“The biblical meaning of propitiation is that God’s wrath has been turned away from the sinner because of the supreme sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross.” (pp. 282-283)
Also notice that Hebrews 9:12 says that Christ entered Heaven “by” or “through” (Greek dia with the genitive, meaning “through”) His own blood, not “with” His blood.
I believe that the resurrection was not punitive, but demonstrative. The resurrection was not “for our” transgressions, but “for [literally “because of” (NASB)] our justification” (Rom. 4:25). Christ’s death on the cross was “for our sins” (Isa. 53:5-6; 1 Cor. 15:3; Heb. 5:3, 9:15). His resurrection was “because of our justification” – our justification having been previously accomplished on the cross (Rom. 3:23, 5:9; 2 Cor. 5:21). Professor John Hart of Moody Bible Institute has well said, “The resurrection proved our justification, but it did not provide for our justification.” (Hart, “Why Confess Christ? The Use and Abuse of Romans 10:9-10,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society [Autumn 1999]: p. 12.) The resurrection is part of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:4). But the resurrection was not the means by which Christ paid for our sins. It was Christ’s death (thanatos) on the cross that paid the penalty for our sins (Heb. 9:15) and the reason why we are justified (Rom. 3:23, 5:9; 2 Cor. 5:21). As Lewis Sperry Chafer has said, “It is thus assumed that as sin caused Christ’s death, so justification necessitated His resurrection”. (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 Volumes, Vol. 2, p. 274.) Christ rose from the dead, “since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power” (Acts 2:24; cf. Jn. 20:9). Chafer states again that Romans 4:25 indicates that “. . . having completed the ground of justification by and through His death and His body having remained the prescribed time in the tomb, Christ arose. Judging from that (the proper) sense of the passage, it is not according to sound doctrine to declare that justification is based upon Christ's resurrection. It, rather, is certain from the testimony of the New Testament that justification is based upon the death of Christ. It is written: 'Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus' (Rom. 3:24); 'Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him' (5:9). Yet there is a sense in which it may be said too that, since imputed righteousness is the divine reason for that divine pronouncement which justification is and since imputed righteousness accrues to the believer on the sole basis of His union to the resurrected Christ, the believer's justification does rest perfectly on the resurrection of the Lord. [Editor's note: Chafer seems to be saying that justification is efficacious because of Christ's resurrection.] It is therefore true that justification is made possible both by the death of Christ [i.e. Christ's blood is propitious] and by His resurrection [i.e. the resurrection is what makes Christ's blood efficacious or effective], and so both are essential.” (Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 248.)
Continued below....
Justification (Rom. 5:9), redemption (Eph. 1:7), forgiveness (Eph. 1:7), peace (Eph. 2:13-14; Col. 1:20), and cleansing (Heb. 9:14) were all accomplished on the cross, not while Christ was in Hades and not as a result of the resurrection – but a result of His death on the cross (cf. Rom. 3:24, 5:9; 2 Cor. 5:21). Concerning this, see Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Systematic Theology, in which he deals with these topics and with Romans 4:25.
ReplyDeleteWhenever Christ ascended, the Scriptures are clear that Christ’s presentation of Himself in heaven did not add to His finished work on the cross, for “He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). The propitiation therefore was already accomplished when Christ presented Himself in heaven. It is significant that Christ is said to have entered heaven “through” (not “with”) His blood (Heb. 9:12). Christ obtained eternal redemption when He died, not when He presented Himself in heaven. F. W. Grant states the point well when he writes:
“Where shall we expect to find it if not in Hebrews, where confessedly the Day of Atonement is the text upon which the apostle is dwelling in all this part? And where is it to be found in Hebrews, or anywhere else in the New Testament, that Christ went into heaven to make propitiation there? . . . Quite another thing is, in fact, taught there, - namely, that Christ entered in once into the holy places, having obtained eternal redemption. As risen from the dead, raised up by the glory of the Father, He entered once, not the second time, propitiation therefore already accomplished, the resurrection the evidence of the ransom accepted . . . .” (F. W. Grant, cited by Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 Volumes, Vol. 5, p. 266, ellipsis added.)
This act of Christ appearing in heaven “through His blood” (Heb. 9:12) simply demonstrated the value of His completed sacrifice on the cross. Concerning this matter, Dwight Pentecost writes:
“Specifically, Christ’s sacrifice is the ultimate fulfillment of the Day of Atonement. At the Cross, God was the one being propitiated (satisfied); the blood of Christ was that which propitiated a holy God; the body of Christ was the place of propitiation (the mercy seat); and all guilty sinners were those for whom propitiating blood was being offered to God.” (J. Dwight Pentecost, A Faith That Endures, p. 148.)
In reference to Hebrews 9:12, several other quotes may prove helpful. Sir Robert Anderson writes:
“But having entered there [i.e. heaven] in virtue of His blood – that is, of the death by which He put away sin – He is there by a title that He can share with His people. Therefore is it that He is the mercy-seat – the meeting-place between God and men. Twice only does this word occur in the New Testament: in Heb. ix. 5 it refers to the typical ‘propitiatory,’ and in Rom. iii. 25 to Christ Himself, the antitype.” (Sir Robert Anderson, Types In Hebrews, p. 166.)
“The words of [Hebrews 9] verse 12 are, ‘Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, He entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.’ It is not the Priest going in to make atonement – to finish an unfinished work – but the Mediator going in on the ground of a work finished and complete.” (Ibid., p. 167.)
William R. Newell similarly writes:
“having obtained eternal redemption at the Cross: pardon, justification, reconciliation, association . . . through (dia) His own blood, reveal that Christ entered Heaven with a memorial of His own sacrifice. . . . He entered in by virtue of His blood. He might have entered Heaven at any moment during His perfect life here. But He would have gone alone as He came alone. But He has not entered Heaven in that way. Always pleasing unto the Father, through the eternal Spirit He offered Himself without blemish {at the Cross} unto God (vs. 14).” (Newell, Hebrews Verse-By-Verse, pp. 289-290, brackets his.)
So the point being, that Christ's resurrection was not for our justification (in the sense of paying for sin), but because of our justification: the sin debt was already paid in full by Christ on the cross, thus Christ could and did rise from the dead! Of course, yes, as Keith pointed out in his comment and as the apostle Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:17, Christ's death would not have been efficacious (effective) if He never rose up out of the grave. But my point in this article is different somewhat: I'm talking about propitiation, i.e. the satisfactory payment for sin. I.e. What paid for our sin debt? It was Christ's death on the cross! My point in this article was to address the all too common practice of when preachers say that Christ's resurrection somehow was also involved in paying for sin. This is false, because the Bible clearly says that the penalty for our sins was "paid in full" (Jn. 19:30, Gr. tetelestai) by Christ's death on the cross! As the old hymn says, "What can wash away my sins, nothing but the blood of Jesus!" Not his life, neither His resurrection; but His blood alone! All the way back to the Garden of Eden, when God provided a sacrifice for Adam and Eve's sin: it was pictured by the blood of a slain animal (see Genesis chapter 3). This theme runs all through the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. In Exodus, God said to the Israelites: "When I see the blood, I will pass over you" (see Exodus chapter 12). Fast-forward to the last book in the Bible, the book of Revelation. There it says that "Jesus Christ...freed us from our sins by His blood" (Rev. 1:5). So this is the truth of God's Word. And as hopefully Bible-believing Christians, we need to recognize this, and we need to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15, KJV): and that involves noting the distinction between something being "efficacious" and something being "propitious". These two things are related, but different! The Bible teaches that propitiation is through the shed blood of Christ (Rom. 3:25). A right use of words is essential in order to present the gospel accurately.
ReplyDelete