The Christadelphian 1930, John Carter

“The Letter to the Romans” 

An Analytical Study

V.—The Righteousness of God Revealed

IT has often been remarked that upon no subject has controversy been so keen and so bitter as upon the sacrifice of Christ. The life and death of Jesus of Nazareth are so unique that they challenge attention and thought. The claim was made by Jesus that his life’s work was vitally connected with God’s dealings with men. The Father had sent him. It was his meat and drink to do his Father’s will. That will necessitated that he should go to Jerusalem and be ill-treated and crucified. And this was for the remission of men’s sins, and that they might have life. He taught that he would be raised from the dead; that he was the Resurrection and the Life; that he would raise up whomsoever he would at the last day, and give eternal life to his people. All these things are plainly stated concerning him in the gospel records.

The apostles’ teaching about him is the same. Jesus “being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it” (Acts 2:23). “Those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled” (3:18). “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7).

These are the facts. They are not matters of dispute. It is in the explanation of why God chose to perform the work in this way that difficulties and differences arise.

Much confusion has arisen through pressing a figure beyond what it was intended to teach. Jesus said, “The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). There are two things to be learnt from these words. First, that Jesus was doing something that was a service, a ministration; and second, that this service would result in the release of the many who came within the reach of the benefits of his work. Both matters find abundant emphasis in apostolic writings. “Ye are not your own; for ye are bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:20). “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold . . . but with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:18). “Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood” (Rev. 5:9). Christ “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works” (Tit. 2:14). The deliverance is from sin (Rom. 6:17), and finally from death. Sin relates man to wrath, and so the deliverance from sin involves a deliverance from wrath. Jesus “delivered us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10). It culminates in “the adoption, the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23).

It is clear that these two features are the intended lessons of the figure used. But if we try to go further, we pass beyond the intended use of the metaphor, and get confusion.1 Suppose we ask, To whom was the ransom paid? In the early centuries this was the subject of much debate. Some said that the ransom was paid to the Devil, who found Christ too powerful for him, and he had to let him go, thus losing both his captives and the ransom price. On this view the Devil was either self-deceived or deceived by God into accepting a ransom that he could not retain. Some “fathers” said one thing and some another. How grotesque are such ideas! Apart from the false teaching about a superhuman devil involved in the theory, to what a low level of morality is God represented as having descended, in resorting to a stratagem for the deliverance of men.

When a ransom is paid for the release of someone held captive, no one expects the return of the ransom as well as the release of the captives. Beautiful as the figure of ransom is when rightly used, it is fatal to any attempt to use it in all possible aspects for the establishment of a doctrine, when we take into account the fact that Christ not only laid down his life, but also took it again.

The fact that sins are forgiven also precludes the use of the figure from every conceivable point of view. When the ransom is regarded as an “equivalent price” that has been paid, the question of forgiveness does not enter. That forgiveness of sins is so prominent a part of the gospel message shows that any use of the metaphor which excludes that phase must be wrong.

Some of the speculations on the subject look very absurd with changing times and beliefs. It is not impossible that a similar fate will befall some of the speculations of to-day. The true explanation of Christ’s work should commend itself in every age to the judgment of all who are instructed in God’s ways.

Men have fallen into absurd theories through holding other false doctrines. The doctrine of the devil, referred to above, prepared the mind for a wrong view of Christ’s sacrifice. Any who hold the doctrine of the immortality of the soul are thereby prevented from understanding the need and meaning of God’s redemptive plan. For if men have life inherently nothing that Christ did was necessary to secure it for them. His sacrifice could only secure men’s release from hell or some other place of punishment, and their transfer to some place of felicity. But many to-day would quietly drop both the doctrine of the devil and of hell torments, and do not realise the illogicalness of repudiating these doctrines while retaining the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.

Paul’s explanation in Romans of how God’s righteousness has become available for man is not expressed in the language of metaphor, although some of the words used are figurative. The sections 3:21–31 and 5:12–21 are, we believe, the most important in the whole of the scriptures on the subject. They might well be the touchstone by which to test every theory. The best exposition of the subject in the Truth’s literature is to be found, in our judgment, in the pamphlet, The Blood of Christ. The passages just mentioned are consequently referred to therein, brother Roberts remarking that in the course of his exposition they had been frequently on his lips.

There are many pitfalls in connection with the subject. Our safeguard is to stick close to the text of scripture, following the reasoning of the apostle as he develops his theme.

God’s Righteousness Manifested

(3:21–31.)

“But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 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 declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (21–26). The quotation is given from the A.V. Any changes in the remarks that follow are based upon the R.V.

The manifested righteousness is “apart from law.” In the concluding words of the preceding section Paul had said that “by works of law shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” Conformably with this, the righteousness which is now manifested is not one which man can establish for himself by the observance of law. It is not earned. It is by faith in Jesus Christ. It is all-embracing in its scope, “unto all and upon all that believe.” One method for all is necessary, because the need of all is the same. All have sinned, and have therefore of themselves failed to reach the end God intended for man—His approval and participation in His glory to be revealed in the earth.

Those who believe, who exhibit faith in Jesus Christ, are justified—deemed righteous—freely by God’s grace. This is a gift which God has arranged in mercy, quite unmerited by man. And it is through the redemption that is in Christ that the deliverance is effected: “in Christ” because he has himself “obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). He “brought life and immortality to light,” illustrating in himself God’s “purpose and grace” (2 Tim. 1:9, 10). It was his work to obtain this deliverance, and having obtained it, he became the author of salvation, the author and finisher of our faith, the firstborn among many brethren. Of God, he “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30).

Redemption, or deliverance, as a Biblical idea, is illustrated by Israel’s release from Egypt. God had said to Moses, “Say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: and I will take you unto me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians” (Ex. 6:6, 7). No ransom was paid to Egypt in this redemption, but God’s people had to exercise faith in the word of God. “By faith, Moses kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, that the destroyer of the firstborn should not touch them” (Heb. 11:27).

So far, Paul has spoken of what has been accomplished, but he has not explained by what means it has been done. This he does in verses 25 and 26. Every phrase is pregnant with meaning. “God has set forth Jesus to be a propitiation.” The word translated propitiation has been the subject of considerable discussion among “the learned.” It was originally an adjective but came to be used as a noun. So it is argued that here it means “propitiatory-gift.” But beyond question the word is used in the sense of “propitiatory-place” in Heb. 9:4, where, speaking of the ark of the covenant which was overlaid with gold, the writer says there was “over it the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy seat.” All the ideas of the passage in Romans favour most the same meaning, being attached to the word there as in Hebrews. If it be objected that the idea is abruptly introduced, and that it would not be so understood by the first readers, it may be answered, (1) that in the context Paul says this work of God in Christ is witnessed by the law and the prophets; and (2) that the language of the ritual system of the law is the language by which Christ’s work is explained in the New Testament. The words “in his blood,” connected in this very place with “propitiation” (note the punctuation of the R.V.) is language which has its alphabet in the account of the sacrifices of the law and preceding times.

God, then, has set forth Jesus to be a mercy seat. We notice first a contrast. The mercy seat of the law was hidden in the innermost apartment of the tabernacle. To it once every year the High Priest alone approached, and then with blood. But the Christ-mercy-seat is publicly set forth, for the events connected with him were not done in a corner, but were exhibited for all to see.

What was the mercy-seat? It was the appointed place of meeting between God and man. God said: “There will I meet with thee (Moses), and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel” (Ex. 25:22). To quote again from The Law of Moses, brother Roberts says, page 122, “‘There will I meet with thee’ is a revelation, and a prophecy—not anywhere: not with wilful unhumbled man as he roams in his pride through the earth with a sense of misconceived rights—but there; over a blood-sprinkled ark, or through a God-vindicating slain lamb: over an ark containing the God-written law on indelible stone, the miraculously budded rod, and the golden pot of manna; or through men in the profoundest submission to the authority of God: conforming, in punctilious and reverential affection to His appointments, and rejoicing in everlasting life received from His hand as the reward of faith and obedience.”

Christ has been set forth as the place of meeting and communion between God and man. It is through faith on man’s part that it becomes such to him. It is “in his blood” that it has been established as the mercyseat, just as the typical mercy-seat was blood-sprinkled. God has done this to “declare his righteousness.” Why was this necessary? “Because of the passing over of sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God.” For four thousand years God had “passed over” (a different word from the one usually translated “remission,” as the R.V. and A.V. margin show) sins. Did God then lightly esteem sin? No. He forebore for a time in view of this exhibition of His righteousness. He foreordained this work, “that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15).

God’s righteousness did not, could not, ignore sin. Mercy was not indifferent to holiness. Hence there must be this declaration of God’s righteousness as the basis for forgiveness. “It was,” continues Paul, “for the shewing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season, that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.” Apart, then, from that declaration, God could not righteously forgive sin. To understand the subject, it becomes essential to find out in what way Jesus showed that God was righteous in all His appointments, in order that sins might be forgiven.

We begin to understand as we consider the words of Jesus to John the Baptist. When John demurred to the request of Jesus for baptism, Jesus answered, “Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” John had proclaimed that “all flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof as the flower of the field: the grass withereth, the flower fadeth; because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass” (Is. 40:6); in other words, John was preaching that man was mortal. Man finds himself in this position because of sin. Adam transgressed the law of God, bringing upon himself the sentence that he should return to the dust. All his descendants inherit his nature and die. We see Jesus, a member of Adam’s race, voluntarily submit to a rite which symbolises burial, and therefore death, and which exhibits man’s relation to death by divine appointment. God was well pleased with His Son, as the voice from heaven proclaimed. And on the day following John pointed to Jesus as “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.”

We see Jesus again on the night of his arrest, knowing full well what would befall him on the morrow. We are privileged to hear his prayer to the Father; and, knowing that it was his Father’s will that he should go forward to suffering and death, he addresses the Father in the words “O Righteous Father.”

We see him on the cross. He is there according to the determinate counsel of God. He is there because he is obedient in all things, even to the death on the cross. Was it right he should be there? Who will say it was not? It was right that he was there because he was a member of a race that was mortal, dying because of sin. His submission to it was a voluntary declaration that God was righteous in involving all in death. That righteousness could only be exhibited by the willing submission to death of one in that position.

We perceive this when we reflect that an angel could not be there. Neither was the offering of an animal (except in a typical sense) an exhibition of God’s righteousness, for the animal had done no sin; and apart from it being a divine appointment as a typical expression of what was later to be effected by Christ, it was not right that it should die.

Could the voluntary death of a sinner have exhibited the righteousness of God? It might so far as that man was concerned, but there the matter would have ended. There could not have accrued from that any justification of others. The object of God was to bring good out of evil, to people the earth with men and women redeemed from sin and death. This needed a conqueror over death. The death of a sinner would not have secured this. And as all humanly begotten are sinners, the redeemer must be “set forth” by God. He must be of God’s providing, because only thus can the two things necessary be obtained. The one who dies must righteously die, must voluntarily die, and yet be sinless that resurrection might follow. Only divine wisdom could evolve the scheme, and only divine power could carry it out. Because Christ did no sin, “him hath God raised up having loosed the pains of death, for it was not possible that he should be holden of it.” Although tempted in all points like us, Jesus was without sin. Sin was overcome, and the nature over which sin rules in all others was publicly exhibited as appointed to death by the holy decree of God. Thus sin was condemned and a way found for sinners to be forgiven.

But upon what principle can this which Jesus did become effective for the forgiveness of my sins? It is evident that God’s righteousness was declared. It is also clear that Christ should be raised from the dead. But how can others benefit by his work? The answer is, that God is dealing with the race of mankind upon federal principles. This is explained in 5:12–21, the consideration of which must be left until we come to that section.

Paul says this purpose was witnessed by the law and the prophets. We might notice that the Book of Job bears testimony to it. It has already been pointed out that Job and his friends discuss the question of how mortal man can be just before God. The answer which Job’s friends proposed was inaccurate and inadequate. God says they had not spoken that which was right concerning him. It was left for Elihu, who claims to speak in God’s stead, to expound God’s ways. He says God speaks to man by dream (Job 33:14–18); God disciplines man (verses 19–22); and God provides a ransom (verses 23–28). We quote the last verses from Rotherham’s translation.

“If there had been near him a messenger who could interpret—

One of a thousand,

To declare to the son of earth his uprightness,

Then hath he shewed him favour, and said,

‘Set him free from going down to the pit,

I have found a price of redemption.’

His flesh hath been made fresher than a child’s,

He hath returned to the days of his youth;

He made supplication unto God, who hath accepted him,

And he hath beheld his face with a shout of triumph.

Thus hath he given back to man his righteousness.

He sang before men and said,

‘I sinned, and uprightness I perverted,

Yet he requited me not;

He hath ransomed my soul from passing away into the pit,

And my life in the light shall have vision.’”

And Elihu sums up thus:—

“Lo! all these things doth God work,

Two ways, three, with a man;

To bring back his soul from the pit,

To enlighten with the light of the living.”

The correspondence of this statement with the one in Romans is remarkable. Here, in what is one of the oldest books in the Oracles of God, the question is proposed and answered as to how man will be reconciled to God. By it all the time witness has been borne to God’s plan, which at last was realised when “God sent forth his son, made of a woman,” “to save his people from their sins.” He was the messenger, the one of a thousand, who could interpret and shew God’s uprightness; who was the price of redemption, for whose sake God will not requite man for his sins, and through whom man will at last receive that change of body which is as fresh as a child’s with all the vigour of youth.

Paul notes the consequences which follow from what he has said (Rom. 3:27–31). He first points out that boasting is excluded. No one can glory before God. Is this end achieved by “a law of works”? That would leave room for human satisfaction and pride in human achievement. It is by “a law of faith”; a law—or rule—which requires faith in God. The essence of faith is trust in another; it carries with it the need for help and the conviction that the one trusted can help. Faith in Christ is an acceptance of the benefits of Christ’s work, apart from which man is helpless. “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, apart from works of law” (verse 28). If it is “by faith,” the Jew’s trust in works of law was misplaced; and if “apart from works of law,” a Gentile must not be brought under law (which to the Jew meant the law of Moses) as a condition of obtaining salvation.

There is one principle of salvation for all. God is the God of both Jew and Gentile. “God is One” (verse 30), as the Jews believed, and as the prophets and apostles all affirm, and therefore He must be God of all. From this Paul infers that His plan is one for all. “And he shall justify the Jew by faith, and the Gentile through the faith” (The margin of the R.V. preserves here some distinctions in the use of the article.) The Jew had the Word of God; he needed to put faith in the promises therein revealed. To the Gentile the gospel was preached, which, since it contains the subject matter of faith, is called “the faith.”

Lastly, an objection is stated. “Do we then make law of none effect through the faith?” (verse 31). That is, Does the gospel do away with law? “God forbid,” Paul answers, “Nay, we establish law.” He does not here shew how he establishes law, being content with the bare affirmation. Later in the epistle he returns to the subject. But law—the Father’s will—has been fully established by Christ, who magnified the law and made it honourable. The believer in Christ is not free from law, but under law to Christ. He lives not unto himself, but unto him that died for him, constrained to do this by the love of Christ. “Love fulfils the law.”

Fulfil in us Thy faithful word,

Through him who died to make it sure,

Our mercy seat, our righteousness,

Who lives again to die no more.

John Carter.

1 Truly so, as is well illustrated in the pamphlet, A Ransom for All. No doubt, as Dr. Thomas says, “Satan took the price of release” (thirty pieces of silver) (p. 4). But, on the other hand, Russell affirms that Jesus literally bought the world of mankind from God the Father! (pp. 16, 17).—Ed., C.