Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 3:26

To declare, [I say,] at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

26. at this time ] The word translated “time” means usually occasion, “special time,” “due time.” Same word as ch. Rom 5:6. Such a sense is natural here. The “declaration” of God’s righteousness in pardon was made not only “at this time,” as distinct from a previous age (that of the O. T.), but “at this due time,” the crisis fixed by the Divine purpose.

that he might be ] i.e., practically, “might be seen to be,” “that He might be in His creatures’ view.”

just ] With the justice of a judge; giving full honour to the Law.

and the justifier ] “And” here plainly = even whilst. The Cross reconciled two seeming incompatibles jealousy for the Law, and judicial acquittal of the guilty.

him which believeth ] Lit. him who is out of, or from, faith. This Gr. idiom may mean “one who belongs to the class of faith,” i.e. of the faithful, the believing. Nearly the same Gr. occurs Heb 10:39.

in Jesus ] Some critics omit these words, but without sufficient reason.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

At this time – The time now since the Saviour has come, now is the time when he manifests it.

That he might be just – This verse contains the substance of the gospel. The word just here does not mean benevolent, or merciful, though it may sometimes have that meaning; see the Mat 1:19 note, also Joh 17:25 note. But it refers to the fact that God had retained the integrity of his character as a moral governor; that he had shown a due regard to his Law, and to the penalty of the Law by his plan of salvation. Should he forgive sinners without an atonement, justice would be sacrificed and abandoned. The Law would cease to have any terrors for the guilty, and its penalty would be a nullity. In the plan of salvation, therefore, he has shown a regard to the Law by appointing his Son to be a substitute in the place of sinners; not to endure its precise penalty, for his sufferings were not eternal, nor were they attended with remorse of conscience, or by despair, which are the proper penalty of the Law; but he endured so much as to accomplish the same ends as if those who shall be saved by him had been doomed to eternal death.

That is, he showed that the Law could not be violated without introducing suffering; and that it could not be broken with impunity. He showed that he had so great a regard for it, that he would not pardon one sinner without an atonement. And thus he secured the proper honor to his character as a lover of his Law, a hater of sin, and a just God. He has shown that if sinners do not avail themselves of the offer of pardon by Jesus Christ, they must experience in their own souls forever the pains which this substitute for sinners endured in behalf of people on the cross. Thus, no principle of justice has been abandoned; no threatening has been modified; no claim of his Law has been let down; no disposition has been evinced to do injustice to the universe by suffering the guilty to escape. He is, in all this great Transaction, a just moral governor, as just to his Law, to himself, to his Son, to the universe, when he pardons, as he is when he sends the incorrigible sinner down to hell. A full compensation, an equivalent, has been provided by the sufferings of the Saviour in the sinners stead, and the sinner may be pardoned.

And the justifier of him … – Greek, Even justifying him that believeth, etc. This is the uniqueness and the wonder of the gospel. Even while pardoning, and treating the ill-deserving as if they were innocent, he can retain his pure and holy character. His treating the guilty with favor does not show that be loves guilt and pollution, for he has expressed his abhorrence of it in the atonement. His admitting them to friendship and heaven does not show that he approves their past conduct and character, for he showed how much he hated even their sins by giving his Son to a shameful death for them. When an executive pardons offenders, there is an abandonment of the principles of justice and law. The sentence is set aside; the threatenings of the law are departed from; and it is done without compensation. It is declared that in certain cases the law may be violated, and its penalty not be inflicted. But not so with God. He shows no less regard to his law in pardoning than in punishing. This is the grand, glorious, special feature of the gospel plan of salvation.

Him which believeth in Jesus – Greek, Him who is of the faith of Jesus; in contradistinction from him who is of the works of the Law; that is, who depends on his own works for salvation.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Rom 3:26

To declare, I say, at this time His righteousness.

The Cross a manifestation of the Divine righteousness

I. How. In two ways so closely united that either of them separated would lose its value.

1. By the very fact of Christs sacrifice and bloody death. If Paul does not see in this punishment a quantitative equivalent of the treatment which every sinner had incurred, this is what clearly appears from such sayings as 2Co 5:21; Gal 3:13. Now herein precisely consists the manifestation of the righteousness wrought out by the Cross. God is here revealed as one against whom no sinner can revolt without meriting death; and the sinner is here put in his place in the dust as a malefactor worthy of death. Such is the objective manifestation of righteousness.

2. This demonstration, however, would be incomplete without the subjective or moral manifestation which accompanies it. Every sinner might be called to die on the Cross; but no sinner was in a condition to undergo this punishment as Jesus did, accepting it as undeserved. This is what He alone could do in virtue of His holiness (Joh 17:25), The calm and mute resignation with which He allowed Himself to be led to the slaughter, manifested the idea which He Himself formed of the Majesty of God and the judgment He was passing on the sin of the world; from His Cross there rose the most perfect homage rendered to the righteousness of God. In this death the sin of mankind was therefore doubly judged, and the righteousness of God doubly manifested,–by the external fact of this painful and ignominious punishment, and by the inward act of Christs conscience, which ratified this dealing of which sin was the object in His Person.

II. But what rendered such a demonstration necessary–because of the tolerance of sins past. For four thousand years the spectacle presented by mankind to the whole moral universe (cf. 1Co 4:9)

was, so to speak, a continual scandal. With the exception of some great examples of judgments, Divine righteousness seemed asleep; men sinned and yet they lived. They sinned on, and yet reached in safety a hoary old age. Where were the wages of sin? It was this relative impunity which rendered a solemn manifestation of righteousness necessary. God judged it essential, on account of the impunity so long enjoyed by these myriads of sinners who succeeded one another on the earth, at length to manifest His righteousness by a striking act; and He did so by realising in the death of Jesus the punishment which each of these sinners would have deserved to undergo. But if it be asked why Paul refers only to sins of the past and not to those of the future, the answer is easy: the righteousness of God once revealed in the sacrifice of the Cross this demonstration remains. Whatever happens, nothing can again efface it from the history of the world, nor from the conscience of mankind. Henceforth all sin must be pardoned or judged. (Prof. Godet.)

That He might be Just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Justice satisfied

(text, and 1Jn 1:9).

I. How has justice been so satisfied that it no longer stands in the way of Gods justifying the sinner? The one answer to that is, through the substitution of Christ. When man sinned the law demanded his punishment. The first offence was committed by Adam, the representative of the race. When God would punish sin, He thought of the blessed expedient, not of punishing His people, but their representative, the second Adam. He died–the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. Let us show how fully the law is satisfied. Note–

1. The dignity of the victim. The eternal Son of God condescended to become man; lived a life of suffering, and at last died a death of agony. If you will but think of the wondrous person whom Jesus was, you will see that in His sufferings the law received a greater vindication than it could have done even in the sufferings of the whole race. There is such dignity in the Godhead that all it does is infinite in its merit; and when He stooped to suffer, the law received greater honour than if a whole universe had become a sacrifice.

2. The relationship which Jesus Christ had towards the Great Judge. Brutus was the most inflexible of judges, and knew no distinction of persons. But when he sentenced his own son, we see that he loved his country better than his son, and justice better than either. Now, we say, Brutus is just indeed. Now, if God had condemned each of us one by one, or the whole race in a mass, justice would have been vindicated. But lo! His own Son takes upon Him the sins of the world, and it pleased the Lord to bruise Him. Surely, when God smites His Son, only begotten and well-beloved, then justice has all that it could ask; and this Christ freely gave,

3. The agonies of Christ, which He endured in the place of sinners. All I ought to have suffered has been suffered by my substitute. It cannot be that God can smite me now. Justice itself prevents, for when justice once is satisfied it were injustice if it should ask for more. God can be just, and yet the justifier.

II. It is an act of justice on Gods part to forgive on confession of sin. Not that the sinner deserves forgiveness. Sin can never merit anything but punishment. Not that God is bound from any necessity of His nature to forgive everyone that repents, because repentance has not in itself sufficient to merit forgiveness. Yet it is true that, because God is just, He must forgive every sinner who confesses his sin. Because–

1. He has promised to do so; and a God who could break His promise were unjust. Every word which God utters shall be fulfilled. Go, then, to God with–Lord, Thou hast said, He that confesseth his sin, and forsaketh it, shall find mercy. I confess my sin, and I forsake it; Lord, give me mercy! Dont doubt but that God will give it you. You have His own pledge in your hand.

2. Man has been induced to act upon it; and therefore, this becomes a double bond upon the justice of God. God has said, If we confess our sins and trust in Christ, we shall have mercy. You have done it on the faith of the promise. Do you imagine when God has brought you through much pain of mind to repent and rely on Christ He will afterwards tell you He did not mean what He said? It cannot be. Suppose you said to a man, Give up your situation and take a house near me, and I will employ you. Suppose he does it, and you then say, I am glad for your own sake that you have left your master, still I will not take you. He would reply, I gave up my situation on the faith of your promise, and now you break it. Ah! but this never can be said of God.

3. Christ died on purpose to secure pardon for every seeking soul. And do you suppose that the Father will rob Him of that which He has bought so dearly?

III. The duties taught in the two texts.

1. Confession. Expect not that God will forgive you until you confess. You are not to confess to a man, unless you have offended against him. If you have, leave thy gift upon the altar, and go and make peace with him, and then come and make peace with God. You are to make confession of your sin to God. You cannot mention every offence, but do not hide one.

2. Faith. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Justice and redemption

What was the main purpose of Christs sufferings?

I. The question is answered in very various ways.

1. There are those who say that they had no purpose, but were brought about by the operation of blind forces, which act sometimes through the working of inanimate nature, sometimes through the malignity of human wills. We need not look beyond them to account for the spectacle of the best of human lives ending as though it had been the worst; for that anomaly, that while Tiberius was enthroned in Rome, Jesus should have been crucified in Jerusalem. To discuss this would be to open the question whether there is any Divine government at all. Suffice it to say, that if there is a Being who is almighty, and has a moral character, then the world is governed by Him. If a great deal is permitted to go on in it which is a contradiction to the moral nature of such a ruler, this only shows that, from certain reasons, He has allowed sin to enter into and to mar His work, and in its train, pain, and death. The sufferings of Christ are thus only an extreme illustration of what we see everywhere around us on a smaller scale, but they afford no ground for the opinion that human lives drift helplessly before forces which are as entirely without moral purpose as the wave or the hurricane is void of intelligence or of sympathy.

2. A more satisfactory account of the sufferings of our Lord is that they were the crowning feature of the testimony He bore to the sacredness of truth. This, it may be truly urged, is His own account of the matter. To this end was I born that I might bear witness unto the truth. But the question is whether this was the only or the most important object. If it was, then He does not differ from sages, prophets, and martyrs, who have all done this service to truth. There is a more important purpose in the death of our Lord which distinguishes it from every other.

II. The true answer is that Christs death was intended to set forth in action an Attribute of God.

1. This attribute is not, as we might expect, Gods love or mercy, although we know that if God gave His only begotten Son to die, it was because He so loved the world; but the attribute of which St. Paul is thinking is Gods righteousness or justice.

2. When we speak of righteousness we presuppose the existence of a law of right, a law which justice upholds. This law has its witness partly in the structure of society, partly in the conscience of man. If human society is largely unfaithful to this law, it cannot altogether neglect it without going to pieces, sooner or later. And the conscience of every man attests the existence of right, as opposed to wrong. Without doing violence to the mind which God has given us, we cannot conceive of a time when right was not right, and when justice was not a virtue; and if so then right and justice are eternal; and since nothing distinct from God can be conceived of as eternal–for in that case there would be two eternals–it follows that right and justice belong to Gods essential nature. To think of God as unrighteous is only a mode of thinking of Him as not existing at all.

3. This great truth it was a main purpose of the Jewish revelation to teach. From generation to generation its voice is, Righteous art Thou, O Lord, and true is Thy judgment. Its law was a proclamation of righteousness applied to human life; its prophets were preachers of righteousness; its penalties were the sanctions of righteousness; its sacrifices were a perpetual reminder of the Divine righteousness; its promises pointed to One who would make clearer than ever to man the beauty and the power of Divine righteousness. And so when He came He was named the Just One and Jesus Christ the Righteous, and it was but in accordance with these titles that both in His life and in His death He revealed to man the righteousness of God as it had never been revealed before.

III. But how was the death of Christ a declaration of Gods righteousness?

1. Here we must consider that righteousness is an active attribute. There is no such thing as a working distinction between a theoretical and a practical justice. And if this is true in man, much more true is it in God. To conceive of God as just in Himself, but as indifferent to the strict requirements of justice, would, one might think, be impossible for any clear and reverent mind. And yet many a man has said, If I were God, I would forgive the sinner, just as a good-natured man forgives a personal offence, without expecting an equivalent. Here is a confusion between an offence against man and one against God. An offence against us does not necessarily involve an infraction of the eternal law of right. But with the Master of the moral universe it is otherwise. That violations of right must be followed by punishment is as much part of the absolute law of right as is the existence of right itself. If the maxim holds in human law, that the acquittal of the guilty is the condemnation of the judge, it holds true in a higher sense of Him whose passionless rectitude is as incapable of being distorted by a false benevolence as by a prejudiced animosity.

2. The death of our Lord was a proclamation of Gods righteousness in exacting the penalty which is due to sin. If we would take the measure of moral evil, let us not merely track it to the workhouse, the prison, the gallows, not even to the eternal condition of the lost; let us stand in spirit on Mount Calvary, and there look how Christ is made to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

3. But here it will be asked whether Gods justice is not compromised in the very act of its assertion, whether the penalty paid by the sinless Sufferer is not inconsistent with the rule of justice that the real sinner should be punished for his sins. But consider–

(1) That a vicarious penalty is not unjust, e.g., when the person who pays it has a natural title to represent the criminal. Natural and civil law are agreed in making a father responsible for the sons misconduct, and in exacting from him the payment which the boy himself cannot produce. On the other hand, a parents conduct, good or bad, affects profoundly the destiny of his descendants. Their temperate habits or their loose way of living have a present effect on our lives; and the good or bad name which a parent leaves to his children colours and shapes their lives in a thousand ways. To be the son of David procured for Solomon the delay of the penalty which his own misdeeds had deserved. To be descended from Jeroboam was to ascend a throne which was already forfeited. The Romans welcomed with enthusiasm the worthless son of Marcus Aurelius, though they already knew something of his character. The death of Louis XVI was not wholly due to Jacobin ferocity, nor to his own misconduct, but to the policy of ancestors who had bequeathed the fatal legacy of the disaffection and discontent of a great people. Certainly the application of this principle is modified partly by the gospel doctrine of individual responsibility: but it is not abrogated or forgotten. St. Paul applies this consideration to the relation of our first parent to the whole human family. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners. Adams representative relation made his acts representative, and every child of Adam must consequently say, Behold, I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin hath my mother conceived me. This representative character belonged to our Lord not less truly than to our natural parent Adam. This is the deepest meaning of His name–the Son of Man–and this is why St. Paul calls Him the second Adam. There are, of course, important differences. Adam represents all the descendants who derive their physical life from him; Christ represents all who derive their spiritual life from Him. But the representation is as real in the one case as in the other, and it relieves our Lords vicarious sufferings of the imputation of capricious injustice. He is the Everlasting Father, or the parent of the coming age, who pays the penalty for the misdeeds of His children; and in claiming by faith our share in His work we are falling back on a law of representation which is common to nature and to grace, and which can only be charged with injustice if God is to be debarred on some arbitrary ground from treating His creatures as members of a common body, as well as in their individual capacity. It was Christs good pleasure to take our place upon the Cross. Surely there is no injustice in accepting a satisfaction which is freely offered. When a savage tribe would expiate its offences by the sacrifice of a victim against his will, this destruction of a life against the will of its owner would alone involve the forfeiture of any moral value attaching to the proceedings. If we could conceive any compulsion in our Lords case, it would be impossible to make good a moral basis for the atoning virtue of His death; but No man, He said, taketh My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. Christ through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God; and, therefore, because our Lord took a nature which represented the race, and freely willed the act, and suffered in that nature as its representative, His death has without any slur on the law of justice a propitiatory virtue.

4. But how could the penalty paid by one man be accepted as a penalty sufficient to atone for the sins of millions, the sins of the centuries that may be to come as well as of the ages that are past? Had the life which was offered been only a human life, it could not have made any such atonement. He who died on Calvary was more than man, and it is His higher and Divine nature which imparts to all that Christ did and suffered an infinite value. If we contemplate the infinitude of God, our wonder will be not that the death of Christ should have effected so much, but rather so far as we know it should have effected so little. I say so far as we know, for it may have had relations to other worlds of which we know nothing, although it may have had no effect beyond the redemption won for and offered to man. To achieve that redemption it was plainly more than equal. How large a number of blossoms drop off without bearing fruit; how few seeds fall where they can germinate, and of those which do take root how small a proportion do anything more; how out of all proportion to the lives which actually survive, are the preparations for life in the animal world! These things have led people to ask whether it would not have been better to create only so much life as was wanted. This is the reasoning of a finite creature surveying from his petty point of view the boundless resources and the magnificent profusion of the great Creator. And if, as we may think, He does more than He need do in order to save us without tampering with His own eternal law of right, it is because His resources, and His ungrudging generosity, are alike without limit. At any rate, if the death of our Lord offered more than a satisfaction, there can be no question that the satisfaction which it offered was fully adequate, that the blood of Him, the Son of God, cleanses from all sin. (Canon Liddon.)

The necessity of the atonement

I. The atonement was necessary entirely on Gods account. It is easy to see that it could not be necessary on the account of sinners. When Adam sinned, God might have destroyed him and the race, or He might have saved them in a sovereign manner, without doing injustice to them or any other created beings. But the apostle assures us that an atonement was necessary on Gods account, that He might be just, and the justifier.

II. Why the atonement was necessary on Gods account.

1. If we can only discover why Adam, after he had sinned and incurred the penalty, despaired of pardon, we shall see this. Adam knew that God was good, but he knew, too, that God was just; that it was morally impossible that He should exercise His goodness inconsistently with His justice; and that His perfect justice implied an inflexible disposition to punish the guilty. It is not probable that Adam thought of an atonement; and if he did, he could not see how an atonement could be made. Now as God could not have been just to Himself in forgiving Adam, so He cannot be in forgiving any of His guilty posterity without an atonement. And as God did determine to show mercy to sinners, so it was absolutely necessary that Christ should make an atonement for their sins, and its necessity originated entirely in His immutable justice. There was nothing in men that required an atonement, and there was nothing in God that required an atonement, but His justice.

2. Now there never was any difficulty in Gods doing good to the innocent, nor in His punishing the guilty; but there was a difficulty in forgiving the wicked.

(1) Gods goodness is a disposition to do good to the innocent; His justice a disposition to punish the guilty; and His mercy a disposition to pardon and save the guilty. The great difficulty, therefore, was to reconcile Gods disposition to punish with His disposition to forgive.

(2) This was a difficulty in the Divine character, and a still greater difficulty in the Divine government. For God had revealed His justice in His moral government, There was a clear exhibition of retributive justice in the first law given to man. In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. This law, clothed with all the authority of God, man violated, and involved all his posterity. What now could be done? The fallen angels had been doomed for their first offence. But how could pardoning grace be displayed? This none of the intelligent creation could tell. The angels of light could not tell; for they had seen those who kept not their first estate, excluded from heaven. Man could not tell. This question God alone was able to solve. He know that He could be just to Himself, if His justice were displayed by the sufferings of a proper substitute in the room of sinners. Christ was the only substitute to be found who was competent to the great work. Him, therefore, the Father set forth to be a propitiation, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins.

III. What follows? If the atonement of Christ was necessary entirely on Gods account, that He might be just in exercising pardoning mercy, then–

1. It was universal, and sufficient for the pardon of all. What can be more unjust than to punish sinners for not accepting a salvation which was never provided for them? And it never was provided for them, if Christ did not, by His sufferings and death, make atonement for them.

2. It did not satisfy justice towards sinners themselves. Nothing which Christ did or suffered altered their characters, obligations, or deserts. His obedience did not free them from their obligation to obey the Divine law, nor did His sufferings free them from their desert of suffering the penalty.

3. Christ did not merit anything at the hand of God for Himself, or for mankind. There is no phrase more misunderstood than the merits of Christ. Though Christ suffered the just for the unjust, yet He did not lay God under the least obligation, in point of justice, to pardon. God is above being bound by any; and He cannot bind Himself otherwise than by a free, gratuitous promise. Gods promise to pardon is an act of grace, and not an act of justice. Accordingly, the apostle says that believers are justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. And as Christ did not merit pardon for believers by His sufferings, so He did not merit a reward for them by His obedience. It is true, God has promised to reward Him for His obedience unto death, but His promise is a promise of grace, and not of justice. So He has promised to reward every man for the least good he does, even for giving a cup of cold water in sincerity. But His promise is a promise of grace, not of justice, and without the least regard to Christs obedience as the ground of it. By obeying and suffering in the room of sinners, He only rendered it consistent for God to pardon or to reward.

4. God exercises the same free grace in pardoning sinners through the atonement, as if no atonement had been made.

5. It is absurd to suppose that the atonement was merely expedient. There was no other possible way of saving sinners. There is no reason to think that God would have subjected the Son of His love to the Cross if He could have forgiven it without such an infinitely costly atonement.

6. We may safely conclude that the atonement consisted in Christs sufferings, and not in His obedience. His obedience was necessary on His account, to qualify Him for making atonement for the disobedient; but His sufferings were necessary on Gods account, to display His justice.

7. God can consistently pardon any penitent, believing sinners on account of Christs atonement. He can now be just, and be the justifier of everyone that believeth. (N. Emmons, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 26. To declare, I say, at this time] To manifest now, by the dispensation of the Gospel, his righteousness, his infinite mercy; and to manifest it in such a way, that he might still appear to be the just God, and yet the justifier, the pardoner, of him who believeth in Jesus. Here we learn that God designed to give the most evident displays both of his justice and mercy. Of his justice, in requiring a sacrifice, and absolutely refusing to give salvation to a lost world in any other way; and of his mercy, in providing THE sacrifice which his justice required. Thus, because Jesus was an atonement, a ransom price, for the sin of the world, therefore God can, consistently with his justice, pardon every soul that believeth in Jesus. This is the full discovery of God’s righteousness, of his wonderful method of magnifying his law and making it honourable; of showing the infinite purity of his justice, and of saving a lost world.

Hitherto, from the ninth verse, Ro 3:9 the apostle had gone on without interruption, proving that Jew and Gentile were in a state of guilt and condemnation, and that they could be saved only by the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. The Jew, finding his boasted privileges all at stake, interrupts him, and asks:-

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; he repeats the final cause of justification, viz. the making the after said declaration of the righteousness of God, in the time of the gospel, and dispensation and ministry thereof, 2Co 6:2, which is taken out of Isa 49:8.

That he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus; i.e. that no wrong might be done to the essential purity of his nature, or rectitude of his will; nor yet to his immediate justice, by which he cannot but hate sin, and abhor the sinner as such; though in the mean time he gives a discharge to him that is of the faith of Jesus, (as it is in the original), or of the number of those that believe, and cast themselves upon a Saviour.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

26. To declare . . . at thistimenow for the first time, under the Gospel.

his righteousness: that hemight be just, and the justifier of him that believeth inJesusGlorious paradox! “Just in punishing,” and”merciful in pardoning,” men can understand; but “justin justifying the guilty,” startles them. But the propitiationthrough faith in Christ’s blood resolves the paradox and harmonizesthe discordant elements. For in that “God hath made Him to besin for us who knew no sin,” justice has fullsatisfaction; and in that “we are made the righteousness of Godin Him,” mercy has her heart’s delight!

Note, (1) One way of asinner’s justification is taught in the Old Testament and in the Newalike: only more dimly during the twilight of Revelation; inunclouded light under “its perfect day” (Ro3:21). (2) As there is no difference in the need, so isthere none in the liberty to appropriate the providedsalvation. The best need to be saved by faith in Jesus Christ; andthe worst only need that. On this common ground all saved sinnersmeet here, and will stand for ever (Ro3:22-24). (3) It is on the atoning blood of Christ, as the onepropitiatory sacrifice which God hath set forth to the eye of theguilty, that the faith of the convinced and trembling sinner fastensfor deliverance from wrath. Though he knows that he is “justifiedfreely, by God’s grace,” it is only because it is “throughthe redemption that is in Christ Jesus” that he is ableto find peace and rest even in this (Ro3:25). (4) The strictly accurate view of believers under the OldTestament is not that of a company of pardoned men, but of menwhose sins, put up with and passed by in the meantime, awaited afuture expiation in the fulness of time (Rom 3:25;Rom 3:26; see on Lu9:31; Heb 9:15; Heb11:39, 40).

Ro3:27-31. INFERENCES FROM THEFOREGOING DOCTRINESAND AN OBJECTIONANSWERED.

Inference first: Boasting isexcluded by this, and no other way of justification.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

To declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness,…. This end is further explained, it being to declare the righteousness of God “at this time”, under the Gospel dispensation; in which there was such a display of the grace, mercy, and goodness of God:

that he might be just; that is, appear to be so: God is naturally and essentially just in himself; and he is evidentially so in all his works, particularly in redemption by Christ; and when and while he is

the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus: Jesus, the Saviour, is the object of faith, as he is the Lord our righteousness; the believer in Jesus is a real, and not a nominal one; God is the justifier of such in a declarative way, and God only, though not to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit; and which sentence of justification is pronounced by him on the foot of a perfect righteousness, which neither law nor justice can find fault with, but entirely approve of; and so he appears just and righteous, even though he justifies the sinner and the ungodly.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

For the shewing ( ). Repeats point of of 25 with instead of .

At this present season ( ). “In the now crisis,” in contrast with “done aforetime.”

That he might himself be ( ). Purpose with to and the infinitive and the accusative of general reference.

Just and the justifier of ( ). “This is the key phrase which establishes the connexion between the and the ” (Sanday and Headlam). Nowhere has Paul put the problem of God more acutely or profoundly. To pronounce the unrighteous righteous is unjust by itself (Ro 4:5). God’s mercy would not allow him to leave man to his fate. God’s justice demanded some punishment for sin. The only possible way to save some was the propitiatory offering of Christ and the call for faith on man’s part.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “To declare, I say, at this time,” (pros ten endeiksin en to nun Kairo) “For the purpose of showing forth in the present and continually coming age,” to declare by the word and by the way the Christian walks and talks that God and His Son are Holy and Righteous, Mat 5:13-15; Joh 8:12; Eph 5:16-18.

2) “His righteousness,” (tes dikaiosunes autou) “His righteousness;” By obeying and following Jesus, the holiness of God and His Son are vindicated in his children, Mat 6:33; Mar 8:36-37; Joh 14:15; Joh 15:14.

3) “That he might be just,” (eis to eninai auton dikaion) “That he should be (exist as) just;” or appear as He is-just, righteous, and holy; He died as the “just one for the unjust,” 1Pe 3:18.

4) “And the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus,” (kai dikaiounta ton ek pisteos lesou) “And justifying the one who trusts in Jesus,” or who places the gift of the faith of Jesus in him. Rom 5:1; Rom 5:9; Gal 2:16-17. Believers, the justified, the redeemed should live or walk so that the righteousness of God might be seen in them, Eph 5:15-20.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

26. For a demonstration, (121) etc. The repetition of this clause is emphatical; and Paul resignedly made it, as it was very needful; for nothing is more difficult than to persuade man that he ought to disclaim all things as his own, and to ascribe them all to God. At the same time mention was intentionally made twice of this demonstration, that the Jews might open their eyes to behold it. — At this time, etc. What had been ever at all times, he applies to the time when Christ was revealed, and not without reason; for what was formerly known in an obscure manner under shadows, God openly manifested in his Son. So the coming of Christ was the time of his good pleasure, and the day of salvation. God had indeed in all ages given some evidence of his righteousness; but it appeared far brighter when the sun of righteousness shone. Noticed, then, ought to be the comparison between the Old and the New Testament; for then only was revealed the righteousness of God when Christ appeared.

That he might be just, etc. This is a definition of that righteousness which he has declared was revealed when Christ was given, and which, as he has taught us in the first chapter, is made known in the gospel: and he affirms that it consists of two parts — The first is, that God is just, not indeed as one among many, but as one who contains within himself all fullness of righteousness; for complete and full praise, such as is due, is not otherwise given to him, but when he alone obtains the name and the honor of being just, while the whole human race is condemned for injustice: and then the other part refers to the communication of righteousness; for God by no means keeps his riches laid up in himself, but pours them forth upon men. Then the righteousness of God shines in us, whenever he justifies us by faith in Christ; for in vain were Christ given us for righteousness, unless there was the fruition of him by faith. It hence follows, that all were unjust and lost in themselves, until a remedy from heaven was offered to them. (122)

(121) There is a different preposition used here, πρὸς, while εἰς is found in the preceding verse. The meaning seems to be the same, for both prepositions are used to designate the design, end, or object of any thing. This variety seems to have been usual with the Apostle; similar instances are found in Rom 3:22, as to εἰς and ἐπὶ, and in Rom 3:30, as to ἐκ and διὰ. “By both,” says [ Wolfius ] , “the final cause ( causa finalis ) is indicated.” [ Beza ] renders them both by the same preposition, ad , in Latin; and [ Stuart ] regards the two as equivalent. There is, perhaps, more refinement than truth in what [ Pareus ] says, — that εἰς intimates the proximate end — the forgiveness of sins; and πρὸς, the final end — the glory of God in the exhibition of his justice as well as of his mercy. There is, at the same time, something in the passage which seems favorable to this view. Two objects are stated at the end of the passage, — that God might appear just, and be also the justifier of such as believe. The last may refer to ἐις, and the former to πρὸς; and this is consistent with the usual style of the Apostle; for, in imitation of the Prophets, where two things are mentioned in a former clause, the order is reversed in the second. — Ed.

(122) A parallel passage to this, including the two verses, Rom 3:25, is found in Heb 9:15; where a reference, as here, is made to the effect of Christ’s death as to the saints under the Old testament. The same truth is implied in other parts of Scripture, but not so expressly declared. [ Stuart ] makes here an important remark — that if the death of Christ be regarded only as that of a martyr or as an example of constancy, how then could its efficacy be referred to “sins that are past?” In no other way than as a vicarious death could it possibly have any effect on past sins, not punished through God’s forbearance. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(26) To declare.The second object of the death of Christ was to remove the misconceptions that might be caused by the apparent condoning of sins committed in times anterior to the Christian revelation. A special word is used to indicate that these sins were not wiped away and dismissed altogether, but rather passed over or overlooked. This was due to the forbearance of God, who, as it were, suspended the execution of His vengeance. Now the Apostle shows by the death of Christ that justice that had apparently slept was vindicated.

Thus God appeared in a double character, at once as just or righteous Himself, and as producing a state of righteousness in the believer. Under the Old Testament God had been revealed as just; but the justice or righteousness of God was not met by any corresponding righteousness on the part of man, and therefore could only issue in condemnation. Under the New Testament the justice of God remained the same, but it was met by a corresponding state of righteousness in the believer a righteousness, however, not inherent, but superinduced by God Himself through the process of justification by faith. In this way the great Messianic condition of righteousness was fulfilled.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

26. At this time In antithesis with the past time of forbearance.

Just Affording no pretext for doubting his condemnation of sin. There is a chime of words between just and justifier.

Strictly, St. Paul’s picture of the atonement is now complete. Yet, supplementarily, he next calls attention to three points in the picture, namely, its exclusion of boast, (27, 28,) its impartial universality, (29, 30,) and its true grounding in the Old Testament, (31.) All these three he will illustrate more fully in the future. It is upon the Jew specially that he strongly presses these points.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Rom 3:26. To declare, I say, &c. “He has, I say, proposed his Son for a demonstration of his righteousness, or method of justifying; which now, in this present ever-memorable and signal time, is so wonderfullyillustrated in the great transactions of our own age; intended for this purpose, that he might be and appear strictly just, and yet at the same time, without impeaching in any degree the rights of his government, the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus; that is, of every one who sincerely believes in him; and acquiesces in that method of salvation, which God has published by him, and established in his perfect obedience and meritorious sufferings.” It is no way wonderful that God should be merciful, or faithful to his promises, though the justifier of believing sinners,as some would have us understand this passage; but that he should be just in such an act, might have seemed incredible, had we not received an account of the propitiation and atonement, by whom made, and in how aweful a manner. Thus the perfections of God, which were dishonoured by our rebellion, are glorified. He appears, by this method of justification, inconceivably rich in shewing mercy; yet steady, inflexibly steady, in executing vengeance. The sceptre of grace and the sword of justice have each their due exercise, each their full scope. The holiness of the divine nature, and the dignity of the divine government, are not onlymaintained,butmostmagnificentlydisplayed.Indeeditisthepeculiar excellence of this wonderful expedient, that it renders all the divine attributes supremely venerable, and supremely amiable. The words at this time, , the now time, or the time that now is, meaning the time when the Gospel was promulged, are emphatical. They distinguish the justification which God at that time exhibited to the world, from the justification which he will manifest to them who do good, that is, produce all the fruits of justifying faith, in the day when he will judge the world by Jesus Christ. See Doddridge and Fletcher.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Rom 3:26 . ] Resumption of the in Rom 3:25 , and that without the , Rom 3:22 (comp on Luk 1:71 ); while is exchanged for the equivalent unintentionally, as Paul in Rom 3:30 , and also frequently elsewhere (comp on Eph 1:7 and Gal 2:16 ) changes the prepositions. [901] The article, however (see the critical notes), serves to set forth the definite , historically given , which is in accord with the progress of the representation; for Paul desires to add now with corresponding emphasis the historical element not previously mentioned. The resumption is in itself so obvious, and also in such entire harmony with the emphasis laid upon the as the chief point, that for this very reason the interpretation of Rckert and Gurlitt (comp Beza), which joins . . [903] with . . , and takes it as the aim of the or the (Baumgarten-Crusius; comp Hofmann and Th. Schott), at once falls to the ground. Mehring, rendering in reference to or in view of , understands the in Rom 3:26 to mean imputed righteousness, and finds the of the latter, Rom 3:26 , in the resurrection of Jesus; but a decisive objection to his view is that Paul throughout gives no hint whatever that his expressions in Rom 3:26 are to be taken in any other sense than in Rom 3:25 ; and a reference to the resurrection in particular is here quite out of place; the passage goes not beyond the atoning death of Christ.

. . [905] cannot stand in an epexegetical relation to the previous . . [906] because that has in fact already been doubly expressed, but now the further element . . [907] is added, which first brings into full view the teleology of the . . . [908] is therefore the definition presenting the final aim of the whole affirmation from to . It is its keystone: that He may be just and justifying the believers , which is to be taken as the intended result (comp on Rom 3:4 ): in order that, through the of Christ, arranged in this way and for this , He may manifest Himself as One who is Himself righteous, and who makes the believer righteous (comp . . , Rom 3:25 ). He desires to be both , the one not without the other. The however is the being in the appearance corresponding to it. The “ estimation of the moral public ” (Morison) only ensues as the consequence of this. Regarding . comp on , Rom 2:8 . The however has not the force of ipse or even alone (Luther), seeing it is the subject of the two predications . ; but it is the simple pronoun of the third person. Were we to render with Matthias and Mehring [912] : even when He justifies, the would be very superfluous and weakening; Paul would have said , or would have perhaps expressed himself pointedly by . . Observe further that the justus et justificans , in which lies the summum paradoxon evangelicum as opposed to the O. T. justus et condemnans (according to Bengel), finds its solution and its harmony with the O. T. in (see chap. 4, Rom 1:17 ). The Roman Catholic explanation of inherent righteousness (see especially Reithmayr) is here the more inept. It is also to be remarked that according to Rom 3:24-26 grace was the determining ground in God, that prompted Him to permit the atonement. He purposed thereby indeed the revelation of His righteousness; but to the carrying out of that revelation just thus , and not otherwise, namely through the of Christ , He was moved by His own . Moreover the of the divine righteousness which took place through the atoning death of Christ necessarily presupposes the satisfactio vicaria of the . Hofmann’s doctrine of atonement (compensation) [913] does not permit the simple and on the basis of the O. T. conception of atoning sacrifice historically definite ideas of Rom 3:25-26 , as well as the unbiassed and clear representation of the in Rom 3:24 (comp the , Mat 20:28 , and , 1Ti 2:6 ) to subsist alone with it. On the other hand these ideas and conceptions given in and homogeneously pervading the entire N. T., and whose meaning can by no means be evaded, exclude the theory of Hofmann, not merely in form but also in substance, as a deviation evading and explaining away the N. T. type of doctrine, with which’ the point of view of a “ befalling ,” the category in which Hofmann invariably places the death of Jesus, is especially at variance. And Faith in the atoning death has not justification merely “ in its train ” (Hofmann in loc [915] ), but justification takes place subjectively through faith (Rom 3:22 ; Rom 3:25 ), and indeed in such a way that the latter is reckoned for righteousness, Rom 4:5 , consequently immediately ( , Chrysostom).

[901] Comp. Khner, II. 1, p. 475 f.

[903] . . . .

[905] . . . .

[906] . . . .

[907] . . . .

[908] . . . .

[912] They are joined by Ernesti, Ethik d. Ap. P. p. 32.

[913] “In consequence of man’s having allowed himself to be induced through the working of Satan to sin, which made him the object of divine wrath, the Triune God, in order that He might perfect the relation constituted by the act of creation between Himself and humanity into a complete fellowship of love, has had recourse to the most extreme antithesis of Father and Son, which was possible without self-negation on the part of God, namely, the antithesis of the Father angry at humanity on account of sin, and of the Son belonging in sinlessness to that humanity, but approving Himself under all the consequences of its sin even unto the transgressor’s death that befell Him through Satan’s agency; so that, after Satan had done on Him the utmost which he was able to do to the sinless One in consequence of sin, without obtaining any other result than His final standing the test, the relation of the Father to the Son was now a relation of God to the humanity beginning anew in the Son , a relation no longer determined by the sin of the race springing from Adam, but by the righteousness of the Son.” Hofmann in the Erl. Zeitschr. 1856, p. 179 f. Subsequently (see espec. Schriftb . II. 1, p. 186 ff.) Hofmann has substantially adhered to his position. See the literature of the entire controversy carried on against him, especially by Philippi, Thomasius, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Schneider, Weber, given by the latter, vom Zorne Gottes , p. xliii. ff.; Weizzcker in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol . 1858, p. 154 ff. It is not to the ecclesiastical doctrine, but to Schleiermacher’s, and partially also Mencken’s subjective representation of it, that Hofmann’s theory, although in another form, stands most nearly related. Comp. on ver. 24; and for a more detailed account Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und Vershnung , 1870, I. p. 569 ff., along with his counter-remarks against Hofmann at p. 575 ff. As to keeping the Scriptural notion of imputed righteousness clear of all admixture with the moral change of the justified, see also Kstlin in the Jahrb. fr Deutsche Theol . 1856, p. 105 ff., 118 ff., Gess, in the same, 1857, p. 679 ff., 1858, p. 713 ff., 1859, p. 467 ff.; compared however with the observations of Philippi in his Glaubenslehre , IV. 2, p. 237 ff., 2nd edition.

[915] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

26 To declare, I say , at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Ver. 26. To declare ] Gr. , for a clear demonstration or pointing out with the finger.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

26. . . . .] The art. distinguishes this from the former, as the fuller and ultimate object , of which that was a subordinate part: with a view to the (or His) manifestation of his righteousness in this present time . The shewing forth that He was righteous throughout His dealings with the whole world, by means of setting forth an adequate and complete propitiation in the death of Christ, was towards , formed a subsidiary manifestation to, His great manifestation of His righteousness (same sense as before, judicial righteousness, justice ) under the Gospel . The joining . . . . with . (Beza, Rckert Exo 2 , Thol., al.) would draw off the attention from the leading thought of the sentence to a digression respecting the . ., which is not probable.

. . .] in order that He may be ( shewn to be : the whole present concern is with , the exhibition to men of the righteousness of God) just and (yet, on the other side) justifying him who is of (the) faith in Jesus ( . ., him who belongs to, stands in, works from as his standing-point, faith in Jesus: see ch. Rom 2:8 , note, and reff.).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

at this time = in (Greek. en) the present season (App-195).

that, &c. = to (Greek. eis) His being.

just. Same as “righteous”, Rom 3:10.

which believeth, &c. Literally the one out of (App-104.) faith of Jesus; i.e. on the principle of faith in Jesus. Compare Rom 1:17.

Jesus. App-98.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

26. . …] The art. distinguishes this from the former, as the fuller and ultimate object, of which that was a subordinate part:-with a view to the (or His) manifestation of his righteousness in this present time. The shewing forth that He was righteous throughout His dealings with the whole world, by means of setting forth an adequate and complete propitiation in the death of Christ, was towards, formed a subsidiary manifestation to, His great manifestation of His righteousness (same sense as before, judicial righteousness, justice) under the Gospel. The joining . … with . (Beza, Rckert ed. 2, Thol., al.) would draw off the attention from the leading thought of the sentence to a digression respecting the . ., which is not probable.

…] in order that He may be (shewn to be:-the whole present concern is with , the exhibition to men of the righteousness of God) just and (yet, on the other side) justifying him who is of (the) faith in Jesus ( . ., him who belongs to, stands in, works from as his standing-point, faith in Jesus: see ch. Rom 2:8, note, and reff.).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Rom 3:26. [Rom 3:25, Engl. Vers.] , in marks the time of forbearance [but Engl. Vers., through]. The antithesis [to that, the time of forbearance] is, in the present time [ ] where also the , present, corresponds to the , before, in – , that He might be just and the justifier) The justice of God not merely appeared, but really exercised itself in the blood-shedding of Christ. Comp. the notes on the preceding verse, , He Himself, in antithesis to the person to be justified. We have here the greatest paradox, which the Gospel presents; for, in the law, God is seen as just and condemning; in the Gospel, He is seen as being just Himself, and, at the same time, justifying the sinner.- ) him who is of faith [who believeth, Engl. Vers.] comp. the , ch. Rom 2:8, [ , influenced by contention].

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Rom 3:26

Rom 3:26

for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season:-To declare at this time Gods plan of justifying man which so provided that God might be just, act with justice, while justifying those who believe in Christ.

that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.-The redemption that was provided in Jesus was only for those who believe in Christ. No provision is made to justify any out of Christ, or one who refuses to believe on him. God must respect his sense of justice before he can show mercy. Then the example of punishment is needed by the universe.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

righteousness

“His righteousness” here is God’s consistency with His own law and holiness in freely justifying a sinner who believes in Christ; that is, one in whose behalf Christ has met every demand of the law Rom 10:4.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

that he: Deu 32:4, Psa 85:10, Psa 85:11, Isa 42:21, Isa 45:21, Zep 3:5, Zep 3:15, Zec 9:9, Act 13:38, Act 13:39, Rev 15:3

and: Rom 3:30, Rom 4:5, Rom 8:33, Gal 3:8-14

Reciprocal: Lev 12:7 – make Job 36:3 – ascribe Psa 116:5 – and righteous Psa 145:17 – righteous Isa 33:5 – The Lord Isa 42:6 – called Jer 9:24 – lovingkindness Mic 6:5 – know Joh 11:51 – that Jesus Joh 17:25 – righteous Rom 3:5 – But if Rom 3:25 – to declare Rom 3:28 – General Rom 4:11 – father Rom 5:1 – being Rom 10:3 – God’s righteousness Rom 10:19 – I say Rom 15:8 – I say 1Co 6:11 – but ye are justified Heb 2:10 – it Heb 7:2 – King of righteousness Heb 11:40 – they without 1Jo 1:9 – just 1Jo 2:2 – he is 1Jo 4:10 – and sent

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

JUSTIFICATION

That he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Rom 3:26

This text brought peace to the mind of Cowper the poet. It suggests

I. The source of our justification.Salvation has its origin in the grace of God. Only when we understand the heinousness of sin are we in a position to magnify His grace.

II. The manner of our justification.Freely by His gracewithout condition, unmerited, unbought. Yet this is the pardon against which natural heart rebels. Like Naaman we would do some great thing. The parable of the Prodigal Son shows how freely God pardons.

III. The instrument of our justification.Through faith in His blood. Faith identifies us with Christ. This faith is a Divine gift.

IV. The design of this whole dispensationas set forth to declare His righteousness. Christ as propitiation justifies the righteousness of God, that He might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Rev. Canon C. D. Bell.

(SECOND OUTLINE)

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION

The instrumental cause or receptive organ of justification is Faith.

I. Justifying faith.

(a) Faith is the acceptance of the testimony of God concerning His purposes and acts of mercy to man (Heb 11:1; 1Jn 4:16).

(b) It is also a resting upon Jesus Christ for salvation (2Ti 1:12). This implies an acceptance of Christ as our righteousness and our ransom. The righteousness by which we are saved is therefore called the righteousness of faith (Php 3:9).

(c) Faith is not the mere root-principle of spiritual life: it is the continuously sustaining principle of it during the whole life of a believer (Gal 2:20). We live by faith.

(d) It is the principle which supports all other Christian graces. It produces love, for it works by love (Gal 5:6); it produces peace, joy, hope (Rom 5:1-5); it is of immense power (Mat 17:20).

II. Notice the harmony of justice and grace.To declare, I say, His righteousness.

(a) The Atonement exhibits love and righteousness together. This is the express teaching of the textGod is seen to be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

(b) It is a one-sided theology which represents the Atonement as an exhibition merely of love. If there was no righteousness demanding the death of Christ, or making that death necessary, there could be no love in it any more than in the death of any other good man. There is no force and no beauty in causeless self-sacrifice.

(c) The light of this blessed truth flashed over the Old Testament dispensation as well as the New: Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other (Psa 85:10).

Let us humble ourselves under a sense of our unworthiness and sin. Let us glorify the grace of God that devised such a plan of mercy. Let us exalt the love of Christ so conspicuous in His suffering and death. Let us seek to enjoy ever more and more the fullness of His grace, mercy, and peace.

Illustration

A man had once injured his master. He was entrusted with large responsibilities; and when his employer heard that the servant had abused his trust, he sent for him and said, John, youve wronged me. I forgive you, but I shall not want you any more. Some years after, John and his former master met again. John said, Oh, master, when you said you forgave me, that quite broke me down; but you need not have turned me away. I would have served you faithfully all my life after that! Now, God forgivesbut He does not turn us away. He receives us. He reinstates us in our lost position. He does more. He calls us sons of God, and recreates us to a new life. Even although the bare word Justification may not include this last item of renewal, yet, practically, in the Divine dealing, justification and renewal are never sundered.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

:26

Rom 3:26. Might be just, and the justifier. The word and is the key to this profound proposition. The justice of God demanded payment of the million dollars, which man was unable to meet. But God cannot be anything but just, for that is a part of His eternal personality. The blood of Christ was offered in payment of that great debt on condition that the debtor believe on this divine blood Donor. By that arrangement it was possible for God to show mercy to the debtor (the sinner), and at the same time retain the eternal attribute of justice.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Rom 3:26. For the exhibition. The noun is the same as in Rom 3:25, but a different preposition has been chosen, perhaps for euphony. This verse, however, points more to the historical demonstration, Rom 3:25 to the purpose.

Righteousness, as in Rom 3:25.

In the present time, when the historical demonstration has taken place, in contrast with formerly(E. V. past), not with in the forbearance of God.

That he might himself be. This is the purposed result, the final aim of the whole transaction. Himself rives an emphasis to the fact that it is the personal God whose character is to be displayed; this alone is a fitting end, Might be, in this connection, is equivalent to might be shown and seem to be; but it does not refer merely to the human estimate. What God did (Rom 3:25), actually had as its purpose and result that He was just and the justifier, etc. Not just and condemning, but just and justifying (the comma after just is unnecessary). By setting forth Christ, in His blood, as a propitiation, to be appropriated by faith, God not only demonstrated His judicial righteousness which had been obscured in past ages, but also and mainly, He accomplished this purpose and result, that His own character was displayed, as just and justifier, as righteous and accounting righteous him that hath faith in Christ. Not one without the other; not one in contrast with the other; but both in harmony. Every notion of making righteous confuses and weakens the whole passage, but especially this phrase. God could not show Himself righteous in any simpler way than by making men righteous; the gospel paradox is that He is righteous and accounting righteous believing sinners. The fact that righteousness in the immediate context refers to Gods judicial righteousness, as well as the leading thought of propitiation, combine with the lexical requirements of the passage itself in warranting the statement, that every reference to sanctification is a gratuitous importation, the result of theological prejudgment. Plain facts in the history of Gods people warrant the further assertion, that such an importation ultimately leads away from Gods method of sanctification.

Of him who is of faith in Jesus; lit., him of faith of Jesus. More fully expressed: him who is of the part of faith, whose essential characteristic is faith. The object of this faith is Jesus, called here by His human name, probably with tender emphasis. At the close of this profound passage our thoughts are led back to the personal Redeemer. In the death of Christ, God punished sin and saved the sinner; Divine justice was vindicated in the culminating act of redeeming love. The Son voluntarily, and in accordance with the holy love of the Father, assumed the whole curse of sin, and, as the representative Head of the human family, in its stead and for its benefit, satisfied the demands of Divine justice. His sacrifice was a real propitiation, in contrast with the types of the Old Testament. The design was that God might righteously account the believer righteous. To this view, the only one exegetically defensible, it has been objected that it seems to conflict with morality, that Gods design is to make men holy; but the sufficient answer is, that the sacrificial death of Christ has taught most of Gods righteousness, that Gods freely accounting men righteous has done most to make them righteous.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Vv. 26. The first words of this verse: during the forbearance of God, depend naturally on the word , tolerance: the tolerance (shown) during the forbearance of God. It is less simple to connect this clause with the participle : committed formerly during the forbearance of God. For the principal idea in what precedes, that which needs most to be explained, is that of the tolerance, and not that expressed by this participle. Meyer gives to the preposition the meaning of by: the tolerance exercised toward the sins that are passed by the forbearance of God. But the following antithesis: at this time, imperatively requires the temporal meaning of the clause .

At the first glance it seems strange that in a proposition of which God is the subject, the apostle should say, not: during his forbearance, but: during the forbearance of God. The reason of this apparent incorrectness is not, as has been thought, the remoteness of the subject, nor the fact that Paul is now expressing himself as it were from his own point of view, and not from that of God (Mey.). Rather it is that which is finely given by Matthias: by the word God the apostle brings more into relief the contrast between men’s conduct (their constant sins) and God’s (His long-suffering).

We have seen that Rom 3:26 should begin with the words reproduced from Rom 3:25 : for the demonstration of His justice. To what purpose this repetition? Had not the reason which rendered the demonstration of righteousness necessary been sufficiently explained in Rom 3:25? Why raise this point emphatically once more to explain it anew? This form is surprising, especially in a passage of such extraordinary conciseness. De Wette and Meyer content themselves with saying: Repetition of the (for the demonstration), Rom 3:25. But again, why the change of preposition: in Rom 3:25, ; here, ? We get the answer: a matter of style (Mey.), or of euphony (Gess), wholly indifferent as to meaning. With a writer like Paulour readers, we hope, are convinced of thissuch answers are insufficient. Rckert and Hofmann, to avoid these difficulties, think that the words: for the demonstration…should not be made dependent, like the similar words of Rom 3:25, on the verb , had established, but on the substantive forbearance: during the time of His forbearance, a forbearance which had in view the manifestation of His justice at a later period. De Wette replies, with reason, that were we to connect these words with so subordinate an idea, the reader’s mind would be diverted from the essential thought of the entire passage. Besides, how can we fail to see in the (for the manifestation) of Rom 3:26 the resumption of the similar expression, Rom 3:25? The fact of this repetition is not, as it seems to us, so difficult to explain. The moral necessity of such a manifestation had been demonstrated by the tolerance of God in the past; for it had thrown a veil over the righteousness of God. But the explanation was not complete. The object to be gained in the future by this demonstration must also be indicated. And this is the end served by the repetition of this same expression in Rom 3:26 : for the demonstration, I say, in view of…Thus at the same time is explained the change of preposition. In Rom 3:25 the demonstration itself was regarded as an end: whom he set forth beforehand as a propitiation for the demonstration (, with a view to)…But in Rom 3:26 this same demonstration becomes a means, with a view to a new and more remote end: for the demonstration of His justice, that He might be (literally, with a view to being) just, and the justifier…The demonstration is always the end, no doubt, but now it is only the near and immediate objectsuch is exactly the meaning of the Greek preposition , which is substituted for the of Rom 3:25 -compared with a more distant and final end which opens up to view, and for which the apostle now reserves the (with a view to): with a view to being just, and the justifier. Comp. on the relation of these two prepositions, Eph 4:12 : for () the perfecting of the saints with a view to a () work of ministry. Here we may have a convincing proof that nothing is accidental in the style of a man like Paul. Never did jeweller chisel his diamonds more carefully than the apostle does the expression of his thoughts. This delicate care of the slightest shades is also shown in the addition of the article before in Rom 3:26, an addition sufficiently attested by the four Alex. Mjj., and by a Mj. from each of the other two families (D P). In Rom 3:25 the notion of demonstration was yet abstract: in demonstration of righteousness. In Rom 3:26 it is now known; it is a concrete fact which should conspire to a new end; hence the addition of the article: for that manifestation of which I speak, with a view to…The following words: at this time, express one of the gravest thoughts of the passage. They bring out the full solemnity of the present epoch marked by this unexampled appearance, preordained and in a sense awaited by God Himself for so long. For without this prevision the long forbearance of the forty previous centuries would have been morally impossible; comp. Act 17:30 (in regard to the Gentiles), and Heb 9:26 : But now once in the end of the ages hath He appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (in regard to Israel).

And what was the end with a view to which this demonstration of righteousness was required at this time? The apostle answers: that he might be just and justifyingthat is to say, that while being and remaining just, God might justify. It was a great problem, a problem worthy of divine wisdom, which the sin of man set before Godto remain just while justifying (declaring just) man who had become unjust. God did not shrink from the task. He had even solved the difficulty beforehand in His eternal counsel, before creating man free; otherwise, would not this creation have merited the charge of imprudence? God had beside Him, in Christ (, Rom 3:25; comp. Eph 1:3-4), the means of being at once just and justifyingthat is to say, just while justifying, and justifying while remaining just.

The words: that He might be just, are usually understood in the logical sense: that He might be known to be just. Gess rightly objects to this attenuation of the word be. The second predicate: and justifying, does not suit this idea of being known. If God did not once show Himself perfectly just, would He be so in reality? Gess rightly says: A judge who hates evil, but does not judge it, is not just: if the righteousness of God did not show itself, it would not exist. In not smiting those sinners at once with the thunderbolt of His vengeance, those who had lived during the time of forbearance, God had not shown Himself just; and if He had continued to act thus indefinitely, mankind and the entire moral universe would have had good right to conclude that He was not just. It is obvious that the words: that He might be just, do not, strictly speaking, express a new idea: they reproduce in a different form the reason for the demonstration of righteousness already given in Rom 3:25 in the words: because of the tolerance exercised toward sins done aforetime. If this tolerance had not at length issued in a manifestation of justice, justice itself would have been annihilated. The thought is nevertheless of supreme importance here, at the close of this exposition. Men must not imagine, as they might easily do, especially with pardon before them, that the justice of God is somehow completely absorbed in His grace through the act of justifying. There is in the firm and immovable will of God to maintain right and order in the universe

His justice, that is to saythe principle of the justification of believers no doubt, but not less certainly that of the judgment of the impenitent. Now, if God did not show Himself just at the moment when He justifies the unjust, there would be in such a pardon what would plunge sinners into the most dangerous illusion. They could no longer seriously suppose that they were on their way to give in an account; and judgment would burst on them as a terrible surprise. This is what God could not desire, and hence He has exercised the divine privilege of pardon only through means of a striking and solemn manifestation of His justice. He would really have given up His justice if, in this supreme moment of His manifestation, He had not displayed it brightly on the earth.

After having secured His righteousness, He is able to justify the unjust; for He has, in Christ, the means of justifying him justly. We have seen that the cross re-establishes order by putting each in his place, the holy God on His throne, rebellious man in the dust. So long as this homage, making reparation for the past, remains without us, it does not save us; but as soon as we make it ourselves by faith in Jesus, it avails for us, and God can justly absolve us. This is what is expressed by the last words, to which the passage pointed from the first: and justifying him who is of the faith in Jesus. By adhering to this manifestation of divine righteousness accomplished in Jesus, the believer makes it morally his own. He renders homage personally to the right which God has over him. He sees in his own person the malefactor worthy of death, who should have undergone and accepted what Jesus underwent and accepted. He exclaims, like that Bechuana in his simple savage language: Away from that, Christ; that’s my place! Sin is thus judged in his conscience, as it was in that of the dying Jesusthat is to say, as it is by the holiness of God himself, and as it never could have been by the ever imperfect repentance of a sinner. By appropriating to himself the homage rendered to the majesty of God by the Crucified One, the believer is himself crucified as it were in the eyes of God; moral order is re-established, and judgment can take end by an act of absolution. As to the impenitent sinner, who refuses to the divine majesty the homage contained in the act of faith, the demonstration of righteousness given on the cross remains as the proof that he will certainly meet with this divine attribute in the judgment.

The phrase: to be of the faith, has nothing surprising in Paul’s style; comp. the , Rom 2:8; Gal 3:7; Gal 3:10, etc. It forcibly expresses the new mode of being which becomes the believer’s as soon as he ceases to draw his righteousness from himself and derives it wholly from Jesus.

Three Mjj. read the accusative , which would lead to the impossible sense: and the justifier of Jesus by faith. This error probably arises from the abridged form IY in the ancient Mjj., which might easily be read IN. Two MSS. (F G) wholly reject this name (see Meyer). The phrase: him who is of the faith, without any indication of the object of faith, would not be impossible. This reading has been accepted by Oltramare. But two MSS. of the ninth century do not suffice to justify it. Nothing could better close this piece than the name of the historical personage to whose unspeakable love mankind owes this eternal blessing.

The Expiation.

We have endeavored to reproduce exactly the meaning of the expressions used by the apostle in this important passage, and to rise to the sum of the ideas which it contains. In what does the apostolical conception, as we have understood it, differ from the current theories on this fundamental subject?

If we compare it first with the doctrine generally received in the church, the point on which the difference seems to us to bear is this: in the ecclesiastical theory God demands the punishment of Christ as a satisfaction to Himself, in so far as His justice ought to have an equivalent for the penalty merited by man, to permit divine love to pardon. From the point of view to which the exposition of the apostle brings us, this equivalent is not intended to satisfy divine justice except by manifesting it, and in re-establishing the normal relation between God and the guilty creature. By sin, in short, God loses His supreme place in the conscience of the creature; by this demonstration of justice He recovers it. In consequence of sin, the creature no longer comprehends and feels the gravity of his rebellion; by this manifestation God makes it palpable to him. On this view it is not necessary that the sacrifice of reparation should be the equivalent of the penalty incurred by the multitude of sinful men, viewed as the sum of the merited sufferings; it is enough that it be so as regards the physical and moral character of the sufferings due to sin in itself.

The defenders of the received theory will no doubt ask if, on this view, the expiation is not pointed simply to the conscience of the creature, instead of being also a reparation offered to God Himself. But if it is true that a holy God cannot pardon, except in so far as the pardon itself establishes the absolute guilt of sin and the inviolability of the divine majesty, and so includes a guarantee for the re-establishment of order in the relation between the sinner and God, and if this condition is found only in the punishment of sin holily undertaken and humbly accepted by Him who alone was able to do so, is not the necessity of expiation in relation to the absolute Good, to God Himself, demonstrated? His holiness would protest against every pardon which did not fulfil the double condition of glorifying His outraged majesty and displaying the condemnation of sin. Now, this double end is gained only by the expiatory sacrifice. But the necessity of this sacrifice arises from His whole divine character, in other words, from his holiness, the principle at once of His love and justice, and not exclusively of His justice. And, in truth, the apostle nowhere expresses the idea of a conflict between justice and love as requiring the expiation. It is grace that saves, and it saves by the demonstration of justice which, in the act of expiation, restores God to His place and man to his. Such is the condition on which divine love can pardon without entailing on the sinner the final degradation of his conscience and the eternal consolidation of his sin.

This view also evades the grand objection which is so generally raised in our day against a satisfaction made to justice by means of the substitution of the innocent for the guilty. No doubt the ordinary theory of expiation may be defended by asking who would be entitled to complain of such a transaction: not God who establishes it, nor the Mediator who voluntarily sacrifices Himself, nor man whose salvation is affected by it. But, in any case, this objection does not apply to the apostolic conception as we have expounded it. For whenever the question ceases to be one of legal satisfaction, and becomes a simple demonstration of God’s right, no ground remains for protesting in the name of justice. Who could accuse God of injustice for having made use of Job and his sufferings to prove to Satan that he can obtain from the children of the dust a disinterested homage, a free submission, which is not that of the mercenary? Similarly, who can arraign the divine justice for having given to sinful man, in the person of Jesus, a convincing demonstration of the judgment which the guilty one deserved at his hand? Deserved, did I say? of the judgment which will visit him without fail if he refuses to join by faith in that homage solemnly rendered to God’s rights, and rejects the reconciliation which God offers him in this form.

It seems to us, then, that the true apostolical conception, while firmly establishing the fact of expiation, which is, historically speakingas no one can denythe distinctive feature of Christianity, secures it from the grave objections which in these days have led so many to look on this fundamental dogma with suspicion.

But some would perhaps say: Such a view rests, as much as the so-called orthodox theory, on notions of right and justice, which belong to a lower sphere, to the legal and juridical domain. A noble and generous man will not seek to explain his conduct by reasons taken from so external an order; how much less should we have recourse to them to explain that of God?

Those who speak thus do not sufficiently reflect that we have to do in this question not with God in His essence, but with God in His relation to free man. Now, the latter is not holy to begin with; the use which he makes of his liberty is not yet regulated by love. The attribute of justice (the firm resolution to maintain order, whose existence is latent in the divine holiness) must therefore appear as a necessary safeguard as soon as liberty comes on the stage, and with it the possibility of disorder; and this attribute must remain in exercise as long as the educational period of the life of the creature lasts, that is to say, until he has reached perfection in love. Then all those factors, right, law, justice, will return to their latent state. But till then, God, as the guardian of the normal relations between free beings, must keep by law and check by punishment every being disposed to trample on His authority, or on the liberty of His fellows. Thus it is that the work of righteousness necessarily belongs to God’s educating and redeeming work, without which the world of free beings would soon be no better than a chaos, from which goodness, the end of creation, would be forever banished. Blot out this factor from the government of the world, and the free being becomes Titan, no longer arrested by anything in the execution of any caprice. God’s place is overthrown, and the creatures destroy one another mutually. It is common to regard love as the fundamental feature of the divine character; and in this way it is very difficult to reach the attribute of justice. Most thinkers, indeed, do not reach it at all. This one fact should serve to show the error in which they are entangled. Holy, holy, holy, say the creatures nearest to God, when celebrating His perfection (Isaiah 6), and not good, good, good. Holiness, such is the essence of God; and holiness is the absolute love of the good, the absolute horror of evil. Hence it is not difficult to deduce both love and justice. Love is the goodwill of God toward all free beings who are destined to realize the good. Love goes out to the individuals, as holiness to the good itself which they ought to produce. Justice, on the other hand, is the firm purpose of God to maintain the normal relation between all these beings by his blessings and punishments. It is obvious that justice is included no less necessarily than love itself in the fundamental feature of the divine character, holiness. It is no offence therefore to God to speak of His justice and His rights. The exercise of a right is only a shame when the being who exercises it makes it subservient to the gratification of his egoism. It is, on the contrary, a glory to one who, like God, knows that in preserving His place He is securing the good of all others. For, as Gess admirably expounds it, God, in maintaining His supreme dignity, preserves to the creatures their most precious treasure, a God worthy of their respect and love.

Unjustifiable antipathy to the notions of right and justice, as applied to God, has led contemporary thought to very divergent and insufficient explanations of the death of Christ.

Some see nothing more in this event than an inevitable historical result of the conflict between the holiness of Jesus and the immoral character of his contemporaries. This solution is well answered by Hausrath himself: Our faith gives to the question: Why did Christ require to die on the cross? another answer than that drawn from the history of His time. For the history of the ideal cannot be an isolated and particular fact; its contents are absolute; it has an eternal value which does not belong to a given moment, but to the whole of mankind. Every man should recognize in such a history a mystery of grace consummated also for him (Neutest. Zeitgesch. 1:450).

Wherein consists this mystery of grace contained in the Crucified One for every man? In the fact, answer many, that here we find the manifestation of divine love to mankind. The ray of love, says Pfleiderer, such is the true saviour of mankind….And as to Jesus, He is the sun, the focus in whom all the rays of this light scattered elsewhere are concentrated (Wissensch. Vortrge ber religise Fragen). On this view, Jesus sacrificed himself only to attest by this act of devotion the full greatness of divine love. But what, then, is a devotion which has no other object than to witness to itself? An exhibition of love, which might be compared to that of the woman who committed suicide, a few years ago, to awake, as she said, the dormant genius of her husband by this token of her love. Besides, how could the sacrifice of his life made by a man for his fellow-men demonstrate the love of God? We may, indeed, see in it the attestation of brotherly love in its most eminent degree, but we do not find the love of the Father.

Others, finally, regard the death of Christ only as the culminating point of His consecration to God and men, of His holiness. These texts, says Sabatier, after quoting Romans 6 and 2 Corinthians 5, place the value of the death of Jesus not in any satisfaction whatever offered to God, but in the annihilation of sin, which this death brings about (L’ap. Paul, p. 202). To the same effect M. de Pressens expresses himself thus: This generous suffering, which Jesus voluntarily accepts, is an act of love and obedience; and hence its restoring and redeeming character….In the name of humanity Christ reverses the rebellion of Eden; He brings back the heart of man to God….In the person of a holy victim, humanity returns to the God who waited for it from the first days of the world (Vie de Jsus, pp. 642 and 643). Most modern theories (Hofmann, Ritschl), if we mistake not, are substantially the same, to wit, the spiritual resurrection of humanity through Christ. By the holiness he so painfully realized, and of which His bloody death was the crown, Jesus has given birth to a humanity which breaks with sin, and gives itself to God; and God, foreseeing this future holiness of believers, and regarding it as already realized, pardons their sins from love of this expected perfection. But is this the apostle’s view? He speaks of a demonstration of justice, and not only of holiness. Then he ascribes to death, to blood, a peculiar and independent value. So he certainly does in our passage, but more expressly still in the words,Rom 5:10 : If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled (justified, Rom 3:9) by His death (His blood, Rom 3:9), much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (through him, Rom 3:9). It is by His death, accordingly, that Jesus reconciles or justifies, as it is by his life that he sanctifies and perfects salvation. Finally, the serious practical difficulty in the way of this theory lies, as we think, in the fact that, like the Catholic doctrine, it makes justification rest on sanctification (present or future), while the characteristic of gospel doctrine, what, to use Paul’s language, may be called its folly, but what is in reality its divine wisdom, is its founding justification on the atonement perfected by Christ’s blood, to raise afterward on this basis the work of sanctification by the Holy Spirit.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

for the showing, 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. [God set forth (or exhibited in his blood on the cross) Jesus Christ to be a propitiatory sacrifice (i. e., a sacrifice which would justify God in pardoning sinners) for the benefit of those who, through faith in him, would present him to God as such. And God thus set him forth as a bloody sacrifice, that he might, in him, show his righteousness (i. e., his retributive justice, his hatred of sin, and firmness in punishing it), for this retributive justice of God had for a long time been obscured by his conduct towards sinners, for he had passed over, or left only partially punished, the sins done aforetime (i. e., all sins committed before Christ’s death), for he had neither fully forgiven nor fully punished them, but had passed them over, reserving the full punishment of them to inflict it upon Jesus when suffering upon the cross (Isa 53:4-6); that full forgiveness also might flow from the cross (Joh 1:29; 1Jo 1:7; Rev 1:5; Rev 7:14), God forbearing to punish man because he anticipated this method of pardoning him. Thus God explained, or made clear, his former conduct, by setting forth, in these days, his crucified Son as a propitiatory sacrifice, that he might show himself, not just in condemning, but just and yet the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. Thus Paul makes it apparent that the sacrifices of the Old Testament were types, and because of them God showed forbearance, looking forward to Christ, the real propitiatory sacrifice, in whose sufferings on the cross God punished sin, that he might show mercy and grant pardon to the sinner. The propitiatory sacrifice of Christ could only take place with his free and full consent, for it would have else been unjust to punish one being for the sin of another.]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

26. Through the forbearance of God, unto the manifestation of his own righteousness at the present time, that he should be righteous and the one justifying him who is of the faith of Jesus. What a burning emphasis we have here on the fact that the sinner in justification does not receive his own righteousness, the normal fruit of legal obedience, nor the absolution of an interceding priest, administering church ordinances and ritualistic obligations; but he receives the righteousness of Christ Himself, Gods own righteousness, purchased by the vicarious death of His Son, not at some future period, but now conferred on the humble, believing penitent, the very identical righteousness of Christ Himself, and appropriated through faith without works.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

3:26 To declare, [I say], {a} at this time his righteousness: that he might be {b} just, and the {c} justifier of him which {d} believeth in Jesus.

(a) That is, when Paul wrote this.

(b) That he might be found exceedingly truth and faithful.

(c) Making him just and without blame, but putting Christ’s righteousness to him.

(d) Of the number of those who by faith lay hold upon Christ: contrary to whom are those who seek to be saved by circumcision, that is by the law.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

This verse explains the significance of Jesus Christ’s death since the Cross. It demonstrates God’s righteousness, the subject of Romans, by showing that God is both just in His dealings with sin and the Justifier who provides righteous standing for the sinner. Note that it is only those who have faith in Jesus who stand justified.

Rom 3:21-26 constitute an excellent explanation of God’s imputation of righteousness to believing sinners by describing justification. These verses contain "God’s great statement of justification by faith." [Note: Newell, p. 92.] To summarize, God can declare sinners righteous because Jesus Christ has paid the penalty for their sins by dying in their place. His death satisfied God’s demands against sinners completely. Now God declares those who trust in Jesus Christ as their substitute righteous.

"Justification is the act of God whereby He declares the believing sinner righteous in Christ on the basis of the finished work of Christ on the cross." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:522.]

". . . the direct exposition of the righteousness by faith ends with the twenty-sixth verse. If the epistle had ended there it would not have been incomplete. All the rest is a consideration of objections [and, I might add, implications], in which the further unfolding of the righteousness is only incidental." [Note: Stifler, p. 67.]

The characteristics of justification are that it is apart from the Law (Rom 3:21), through faith in Christ (Rom 3:22 a), for all people (Rom 3:22-23), by grace (Rom 3:24), at great cost to God (Rom 3:24-25), and in perfect justice (Rom 3:26). [Note: Wiersbe, 1:523-24.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)