18-The new Rightness, or Righteousness

The new Rightness, or Righteousness And now, having set before the reader, in black and white, the deplorable condition of all the world in respect to sinfulness, St Paul proceeds to unfold the doctrine of the new ‘Righteousness.’ The message first touches the Israelite, as is plainly indicated in the very opening phrases. It is a section of fundamental importance and calls for very careful handling.

3:21, 22. “But now, quite apart from Law, a ‘righteousness of God’ has been (and is) displayed; a ‘righteousness’ whereto the Law and the Prophets testify-a ‘righteousness of God’ (operating) through faith in Jesus Christ, (and) extending to all believers; for there is no distinction.” The very last verse declared that “no living creature shall be set right.” So it was till the New Age came. It was in such a sense, I should hold, the Apostle interpreted the words of Psalm 14. There he did not take δίκαιος to mean ‘right-doing’; but ‘right’ in a narrower sense, that is ‘right with God.’ That no one was, nor could be τότε-in the days before the great φανέρωσις. Χωρὶς νόμου briefly hints at the stage of futile effort, which Saul the Pharisee had known so well. Many still were engaged upon it: there were Jews in Rome so engaged. The two words simply insist that ‘all that’ is a delusion and must be set aside. “A righteousness of God” I take to mean a way whereby a man may attain to ‘right’-ness with God, by God’s own plan and appointment. It has nothing to do with conduct: it deals with status only: but status, where God is concerned, is for man the very first of all considerations. God’s own ‘righteousness,’ in the ethical sense, has nothing to do with the matter. The Θεοῦ does not mark Him as the possessor of the ‘righteousness.’ It only marks it as being associated with Him-we apprehend, of course, as its fountainhead and source, “God’s righteousness” is contrasted with a “righteousness” of man, that is, any system whereby a man may hope to attain to the definitely unattainable. But, though this way to acceptance is new in point of time, it is not unprepared for. The ‘Law’ has testified of it, no doubt, both in its words of promise and also (perhaps more plainly) in the symbolism of appointed Ritual. As for the ‘Prophets,’ one thinks at once of the great utterances of Isaiah. In v. 22 we meet prepositions somewhat heavily weighted, even overweighted, with meaning. The διά has to bear a good deal; but so also has the εἰς. There seems to have been a time when copyists were uncertain whether ἐπί or εἰς should be read. If one might have a choice in the matter, one would be disposed to vote for ἐπί, as definitely better adapted to express the idea of extension. In English we cannot well, without sacrifice of clearness, refrain from some expanding. The meaning of the phrase πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ has been disputed like everything else. That the ‘faith’ is not our Lord’s faith (notwithstanding Hebrews 12:2), is made certain by Galatians 2:16, where we read how “we” … “being sure that man is not ‘justified’ by works of Law, only by faith in Christ Jesus, even we became believers in Christ Jesus”-which is surely proof positive as to what the writer means here. The closing words of v. 22 (οὐ γάρ ἐστι διαστολή), belong to what goes before. Διαστολή itself, as it happens, is found once again in the Epistle (it occurs three times altogether, the remaining place being 1 Corinthians 14:7) in such a connexion as shows that the absence of difference spoken of is in relation to ‘believers’ and not to ‘sinners.’ The sense is “on all believers, without distinction.” At least that is the conclusion suggested by 10:11, 12. However, in the end, it comes to the same thing. Jew and Gentile-all are ‘justified’ only by the way of ‘faith.’ For why? The sequel shows.

3:23, 24. “For all have sinned and (consciously) fall short of the Divine Glory; and are freely justified by His own ‘grace,’ through the ‘redemption’ that was wrought in Jesus Christ.…” The πάντες ἥμαρτον here is an excellent instance of the danger of identifying the Greek aorist with our preterite. All the phrase means is just this, that every man on earth, and woman too, at one time or another, has done amiss. Presumably it was this kind of usage that induced old world grammarians to designate the tense ‘the undefined tense.’ Now, our English preterite is, in a general way, precisely the opposite. ‘I struck’ means that I so did upon some given occasion. When we wish to be ‘indefinite’ we naturally say ‘I have struck,’ not ‘I struck.’ ‘Again and again I have seen’ is what our idiom requires. Therefore “all have sinned” is right. Only we must be careful to remember, it does not refer to any ‘corporate’ sin, any sin in which we all had part and lot-as the older theology says men all share in the sin of Adam. It merely states a truth we are none of us prepared to deny, that, at one time or another, we have done what we blush to recall; what we feel to be incompatible with any ‘acceptance’ by God. This ‘sin’ is always past, even if perpetrated just this moment: the ‘consciousness’ it entails is inevitably present. Because we did wrong to-day, last week, last year, whenever it may be, we feel in our hearts uncomfortable at the contemplation of God and His Supreme Holiness. And there is more in it than that. Not only do we ‘feel’ unfit; we actually are unfit. As for the voice of ὑστεροῦνται, it is worth while to observe that ‘sense’ verbs in early Greek are very apt to be ‘middle.’ There is in them an element of ‘reflexive’ force. A careful consideration of the places where ὑστερεῖν and ὑστερεῖσθαι are found in the New Testament, seems to give good reason for thinking that the former means ‘to be behind,’ and the latter ‘to feel want,’ or to ‘feel oneself behind.’ Yet it is not wholly certain. St Luke 15:14 and 1 Corinthians 12:24 might be taken as examples of the meaning of ‘conscious’ want or ‘conscious’ failing. It seems reasonable to suppose that the Divine ‘Glory’ is an expression for God’s realised Holiness. He has said “Ye shall be holy, for I am holy,” but unhappy man in his heart is only too well aware he is nothing of the sort. Before the amazing splendour of that transcendent Holiness he stands completely abashed. The “glory of God” however might mean that moral dignity which the great Creator meant His creature man to have. But the other interpretation appears to be the likelier. Verse 24 is full of important technical terms. Χάρις means (in strict accordance with regular Pauline usage) the ‘undeserved favour’ of God. Ἀπολύτρωσις I will speak of anon. Δικαιούμενοι is used in the formal ‘theological’ sense, not “made righteous,” that is, but “righted.” Luther’s German gives it exactly: “und werden ohne Verdienst gerecht.”

There is, we must freely admit, a singular grammatical difficulty to be faced in this same verse. It is this; that the main predication is conveyed in a participle, δικαιούμενοι. Yet plainly there are before us only two alternates. Either all words after πιστεύοντας till τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ must be taken as a parenthesis, and δικαιούμενοι be regarded as one of those ‘irrational’ participial appositions we sometimes find in St Paul: or else we must boldly say that δικαιούμενοι is virtually equivalent to καὶ δικαιοῦνται. Our familiar “being justified freely” is only possible because it is apprehended not as a present participle, but as a past one. As translation it will not do. At any rate so I should hold.

However, let us be honest. I have said that I incline to regard the word δικαιούμενοι as equivalent to καὶ δικαιοῦνται. Then, unless we are prepared to admit some laxity of expression, it undoubtedly means too much. “All” have sinned, but “all” are not “justified.” It is the πιστεύοντες only, be they Jew, or be they Gentile, that reach that happy condition. If accordingly we incline to take it as I have taken it, we must supply a qualifying phrase (at least, in thought) “and are justified-if they are justified-by no merit of their own but by His free Grace.” The question is; is this, or is it not, beyond the bonds of that licence in manipulation of grammar St Paul so freely assumes? And now for ἀπολύτρωσις. The usage of the Septuagint undoubtedly eliminates from this term the idea of ‘ransom.’ The word means ‘redemption’ that is, in the sense of mere ‘deliverance.’ All idea of ‘price’ has vanished. Has it also vanished in St Paul? Elsewhere the thought of ‘price’ is emphasised by our writer, though not in connexion with ‘ransom,’ or any such metaphor. In the famous saying of Christ we have our definite λύτρον. It might be argued therefore that here too the second element in the famous compound noun is not asleep or dead. Take it altogether, however, I think that it is safer to regard the noun as used in its common ‘O. T.’ sense. After all, the λύτρον of Christ was all His own. It does not seem to have had any sort of root in the past. The λύτρα of O. T. are literal λύτρα. Let us then dissociate ἀπολύτρωσις from all λύτρον in this context.

Lastly, before we pass on, we must observe that this ἀπολύτρωσις is characterised as being ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. The ἐν awakes some questioning. Is it like this one in ‘Galatians’ (2:4) τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἥν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ? or this other, in the same Epistle (2:17), ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ? And, even if it be, what is the force of it? The truth is, of all prepositions non is more elusive than ἐν. Here, I take it, we have to choose between two conceptions. The ‘redemption’ either comes “through Christ Jesus” (for I conceive that there are places where ἐν is not far in sense from διά with the genitive): or else, it must be viewed as centred in His Person. This latter is easier to say than to grasp or to explain. Maybe the Johannic “In Him was Light” would help us. The ἐν in 6:11 is, I should say, more decisively quasi-instrumental-unless, by a considerable stretch of the ‘pregnant’ principle, we make bold to see in that the doctrine of the ‘vital union.’ I remember, when I first read ‘Romans’ as a schoolboy years ago, all ἐνʼ s had somehow to be forced into relation with the idea of locality. But such desperate expedients need not trouble us to-day. The effect of this qualification, attached to our Redemption, is plain for all practical purposes: it comes ‘through’ the Lord Christ-primarily through His Incarnation and Death.

Let us venture forward two more verses:

3:25, 26. “Whom God … to be atoning, by means of faith, through His own blood; with a view to demonstration of God’s own ‘righteousness’-because former sins had been passed over, in the time when He was patient-I say, for the demonstration of His ‘righteousness’ at this present, to the end He may be ‘righteous’ yet also ‘righting’ him, that is of those that believe in Jesus.” The verb I have left a blank, because it is so hard to make up one’s mind about it. Προτίθεσθαι comes but three times in all the N.T. Twice it certainly means ‘propose’ (that is, set before oneself, as an object to pursue). In the ‘LXX’ the middle is found three times in this tense; and in each of the three it has a reflexive force. It belongs to the phrase of the Psalms ‘to set God before one’s eyes.’ Can it mean here “Whom God purposed to Himself to be”? Or, are we to find in it a usage somewhat removed from all Biblical usage whatever, and take it as merely meaning “set forward,” “displayed”? That could be supported by classical instances-even if we dissociate it from that more special usage, whereby it often means ‘lay out for burial.’ On the whole, I should prefer to render “Whom God purposed to be atoning.…” With regard to ἱλαστήριον, I feel certain S. is right. So far as form is concerned, the word could easily be an adjectival form. And ‘adjectival,’ in fact, it is, in Josephus and elsewhere (testibus L.S., who give two references). In LXX, to be sure, it always means “mercy seat” as it does also in Hebrews 9-the only other place, where it is found in the N.T. Yet it cannot possibly mean “mercy seat” here. And should you say, such a usage of an adjective is not Greek, then I answer, you will find an instance in Aeschylus, who employs In Theb. 562 κακῶν τῶνδε βουλευτήριον for ‘the man that counselled these naughty deeds, The two prepositional phrases, that follow on ἱλαστήριον, are wholly independent of each other. They add two fresh details. Christ makes men’s peace with God, provided they have faith: moreover. His ‘atonement’ is achieved ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι. How this is so, we cannot tell. But the Apostolic teaching reproduces Christ’s own statement in the Gospel (see St Matthew 26:28). There the “putting away of sins”-plainly the heart of what is expressed in the term ἱλαστήριον-is definitely connected with the “outpouring” of His Blood. What mysteries lie behind that “outpouring” it is not for us to fathom. But we must not close our eyes to the solemn fact that Christ Himself proclaimed a ‘virtue’ in His death, and that all His followers, as many as ever taught in early days, likewise proclaimed this thing. Though ‘blood’ in the ancient world (I think, universally) was taken as the seat of life; yet blood that is shed stands for death-stands for life laid down for others. As S. very justly observes, the ‘idea of sacrifice’ is a ‘central conception’ of N. T. religion. Though we may not see its meaning, we ‘must not explain it away’; nor regard it as ‘mere metaphor.’ To this I say ‘Amen,’ with all my heart and soul!

Continuing the consideration of what is said in v. 25, we come to the Apostolic statement of a purpose that was involved in Christ’s work of propitiation. This is stated once and again; but the conception is introduced by different prepositions. The first time it is εἰς ἔνδειξιν, the second πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν. Plainly the latter phrase is more definite than the former; but its larger degree of definiteness, I think, must be taken to lie rather in the addition of the article than in the change of the preposition. Subtle minds have drawn a distinction between εἰς and πρός in such connexions: but the plain man is rather tempted to doubt whether they will hold.

What St Paul desires to say is obviously this. God’s ‘Righteousness’ (meaning thereby-in anthropomorphic terms-His absolute sense of right) is somehow touched and affected by the act of ‘passing over’ sin. The πάρεσις of sins demands, in the Apostolic thought, some sort of justification. It might have been supposed that God was not δίκαιος (that is, absolutely ‘just’-that He could tolerate sin, the which, from His very nature, is palpably impossible. This desiderated ‘justification’ of the Perfect Justice of God is supplied by the Death of Christ. That demonstrates indisputably that sin is not ‘indifferent’; not a thing which does not matter. The idea has, possibly, been overemphasised by Puritan Divines. It is not in the Pauline scheme of primary importance. Still here it plainly is, and has to be grappled with. For that purpose we must be clear as to how πάρεσις differs from ἄφεσις. ‘Forgiveness,’ as we call it, that is to say, the wiping out the memory of a wrongdoing, as one wipes out the ‘score’ on a slate, in such sort that the wrongful act is wholly dead and buried and the wrongdoer is restored to the position he occupied, before he did the wrong-‘forgiveness,’ I say, is ἄφεσις, which word we sometimes render by the Latin term ‘remission’ (which is not very adequate) and sometimes by our own word Πάρεσις (which is only found here in Biblical Greek) is a wholly different matter. It means a ‘passing over without notice,’ a temporary disregarding. In sense it is akin to that ὑπεριδών, of Acts 17, which our English (A.V.) renders so whimsically. That πάρεσις belonged to another age: it cannot continue for ever; for it is palpably derogatory to God’s supreme Righteousness. Therefore it must give place, and an ἄφεσις be achieved, at a cost which will prove for ever that God does not disregard sin, or view it as indifferent. As for προγεγονότων (where one would have rather looked for an aorist participle) it should be noticed, as a fact, that the perfect γέγονα is not infrequently employed ‘irrationally.’ A concordance will demonstrate this. Those, who are zealous for a ‘perfect’ sense in the word, can find a loophole here, in the thought that ‘sins,’ once sinned, remain ‘sins’ permanently (in the absence of ἄφεσις). Ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ is, of course, a temporal expression. Ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ recalls to the mind the distinction (in Acts 17) between “the time of ignorance” and the “now,” in which God bids men “everywhere repent,” in view of coming judgment. At the end of v. 26, I have ventured on a novel rendering. The καί I take to be ‘adversative,’ not ‘copulative.’ The problem is, how shall God be ‘Righteous’ in Himself, and yet accept sinners as ‘i’ the right.’ This is what theologians commonly speak of as the reconciliation of Justice and Mercy.

S. says “righteous and also declaring righteous.” That is precisely what ‘διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν’ (a thing which palpably demands excuse) will not at all permit. It should be “righteous yet also ‘righting’.” Such an adversative force in ‘and’ is found, one would suspect, in every language.

Τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ is sufficiently compact, regarded as a phrase. It means “anyone, who belongs to faith in Jesus.” The expression is of the same pattern, not improbably, as the descriptive phrase in Galatians “οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς.” But I cannot fell certain, whether it actually signifies “him, who rests on faith in Jesus,” or, “him, who belongs to ‘faith’ in Jesus,” that is, to the company of the faithful. Yet truly it matters little.