Note: In the development of my thinking unpacked in this post, I am indebted to Andrew Rillera and what he has written in his superb book: Lamb of the Free, specifically the penultimate chapter (Chapter 7: When Jesus' Death Is Not a Sacrifice). Before reading his book, the Greco-Roman understanding of hilasterion he discusses there had never been brought to my attention.
[21] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—[22] the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation (hilasterion) by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [26] It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Romans 3:21–26
Martin Luther referred to this passage as "the chief point, and the very central place of the Epistle [to the Romans], and of the whole Bible."
Leon Morris speaks of it as "possibly the most important single paragraph ever written."
And John Piper calls this "the most important paragraph in the book [of Romans], which I think is the most important paragraph in the Bible."
While I might not use the superlative language that these brothers use in describing this passage, I share with them the sentiment that this passage is of critical importance. Specifically, it's of critical importance in how we understand God: His deepest character and His ultimate purpose in history. What I intend to do in this post is make the case that we've traditionally misunderstood these verses and, as a result, misunderstood God: His deepest character and His ultimate purpose in history.
The first thing I want to do is show an interlinear rendering of Romans 3:25, where the Greek is overlaid with the English, revealing how translators—in this case the ESV—chose to convey the meaning of the Greek text in the English language.
- Notice that "dia" to start line two is rendered in English as "to be received by". "dia" in Greek literally means "through" or "by". There's alot of interpretation going on in turning that into "to be received by".
- Notice at the end of line three again we have "dia" (which is most often in the NT translated as "dia" or "through") rendered in English as "because".
- Notice that at the start of line four the three English words "his", "he", and "had" are added before "passed over" even though there are no Greek terms there. So it seems like English words were basically added where no Greek words are in the original.
- In line four, the term translation "passed over" gives you the impression (together with the three English words added before it) we are dealing with a verb. In fact, that's really a noun in the Greek! So the most literal translation should be "through the passing over".
who God put forward as a hilasterion through faithfulness by his blood for a demonstration of his righteousness through the passing over of former sins in the truce of God.Romans 3:25
I didn't translate hilasterion in this rendering—the key word in this text—because it's arguably the hardest word to translate here. Hilasterion is traditionally translated as "propitiation" (ESV) or "sacrifice of atonement" (NIV). A propitiation is traditionally understood to be a wrath-absorbing sacrifice so these two traditional translations are roughy equivalent in what they intend to communicate. It's important to note that Paul doesn't explicitly refer to God's wrath with respect to Jesus and the cross in Romans 3 so the entire weight of the traditional interpretation of this passage hangs on this single word: hilasterion understood as a wrath-absorbing sacrifice.
The term hilasterion appears only once (hapax legomenon) in Paul's writings and one other time in the New Testament:
Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat (hilasterion). Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
Hebrews 9:5
In the only other instance where hilasterion is used in the New Testament apart from Romans 3:25, it's translated as "mercy seat." It is clearly not a "propitiation" or "sacrifice of atonement". If we look to the LXX (Septuagint/Greek Old Testament), hilasterion isn't used to refer to a sacrificial offering (instead "hilasmos" is used). It is used instead to refer to the lid on the ark of the covenant (i.e. mercy seat, as in Hebrews 9:5) or a place of revelation. So this seems to render the "propitiation" or "sacrifice of atonement" reading of hilasterion Romans 3:25 dubious in and of itself.
To further make the case against "propitiation" being the correct reading of hilasterion in Romans 3:25, the idea of propitiation is one that wasn't unique to Israel. In the ancient context, propitiation had to do with people presenting an offering to a god to appease the god or turn away his wrath. But it's important to see in Romans 3:25 that this order is inverted. It's God presenting a hilasterion publicly before humanity and not humans presenting a hilasterion before God in the context of a sanctuary, as propitiatory sacrifices usually work. Is God seeking to appease the wrath of humanity? I think that's possible given what Paul has just said of humanity's universal disposition to violence in Romans 3:15-17. But there's probably a better way to read the text.
To make that case, I want to begin by noting that while the letter to the Hebrews is written in a Jewish cultic context where we are dealing with the levitical ideology of clean/unclean and a sanctuary that needs to be preserved in a condition fit for the presence of God, Romans is not.
In the Greco-Roman context in which Paul is writing Romans, one common usage of the word hilasterion in ancient Roman literature was as a "votive gift." Given that Paul is writing to Romans, he most likely has the Greco-Roman usage of hilasterion in mind rather than the Jewish usage. This is an important distinction. There was a usage of hilasterion in Greco-Roman thinking which differed from its usage in Jewish thinking and almost all readings of hilasterion in Romans 3:25 assume Paul is using it based on Jewish thinking. In what follows, I assume Paul is using hilasterion in Romans 3:25 based on Greco-Roman thinking so this is the rendering I propose:
who God put forward as a votive gift (hilasterion) through faithfulness by his blood for a demonstration of his righteousness through the passing over of former sins in the truce of God.Romans 3:25
After the death of Julius Caesar, there was a war that ensued between Octavian and Mark Antony. Once Antony was defeated and committed suicide, Octavian was the undisputed victor. For those who had been loyal to Antony, Octavian could then bring the sword down on them or he could show them mercy. History attests that he showed them mercy and this was what led to the establishment of the Pax Romana (Roman peace). Citizens under his reign subsequently set up altars as votive gifts, a celebration of his mercy and to demonstrate devotion to his reign. Such altars were found in the Roman Empire with inscriptions using a variation of the term hilasterion and being attributed to Caesar as the "reconciling Caesar". For example, see here or here.
The idea in Romans 3:25, based on this line of thinking, is that Paul is using this backdrop of "reconciling Caesar" and hilasterion as a kind of subversion of Roman ideology. This is fairly common throughout Paul. Where terms like "King" (We have no king but Caesar) and "Lord" (Caesar is Lord) and "Father" (Father of the Fatherland) and "Gospel" (Gospel of Caesar) and "Peace" (Pax Romana) were already in circulation outside of the context of religion in first century Rome, Paul re-purposes them to apply them to God and His kingdom as a way to demonstrate the superiority of God's kingdom to earthly kingdoms, and the Roman empire in particular. Paul's usage of hilasterion here is consistent with this re-purposing to show the superiority of God's kingdom. Yes, Octavian granted mercy to those under his reign. But God in Christ grants a far greater mercy!
Where subjects of Caesar establish an altar as a votive gift (hilasterion) that testifies of their devotion to Caesar as well as testifying to Caesar's mercy, God puts forward Jesus as a votive gift (hilasterion) to testify to His own mercy and, more specifically, to testify to His devotion to being merciful to humanity.
An important aspect of this reading of hilasterion in Romans 3:25 is that the Greek phrase pistis Christou in Romans 3:22 is understood to be a subjective genitive construct rather than an objective genitive construct. This is a longstanding debate among scholars between the idea that pistis Christou in Romans 3:22 and other places in the NT is "faith IN Jesus" (objective genitive — Jesus is the object faith is being placed in) versus "faith/faithfulness OF Jesus" (subjective genitive — Jesus is the subject performing the act of faith/faithfulness). The "faith/faithfulness" (pistis) in Romans 3:25 picks up on the same faith/faithfulness mentioned in 3:22, both of which refer in this reading to the faithfulness of Christ, not human faith in Christ. But that's an entirely separate discussion so I only mention it here in passing.
At the center of this most important paragraph in the Bible is the nature of God's righteousness. And the traditional reading of hilasterion based on Jewish thought presents a stark contrast to the reading of hilasterion based on Greco-Roman thought proposed here.
The traditional reading of hilasterion based on Jewish thought conveys that God's righteousness is founded on retributive justice. Because humans sin and sin must be retributively punished due to God's righteous character, Jesus on the cross is a manifestation of God's righteousness because Jesus takes this retributive punishment from God in place of sinful humans as a punishment-absorbing sacrifice (propitiation). Jesus is a propitiation (hilasterion). And this paves the way for God to show mercy. But the inescapable impression in this reading seems to be that retributive justice is front-and-center, not mercy. (i.e. God can't be merciful unless He demonstrates retribution somehow)
The reading of hilasterion based on Greco-Roman thought proposed here conveys that God's righteousness is founded on mercy. Even though God in His power could retributively bring the sword down on rebellious humanity if He wanted to because of how much they've sinned against Him, instead of spilling the blood of His enemies, He doesn't count His enemies' sins against them and instead He allows His enemies to spill His own blood. It's actually not just mercy. It's mercy of the most sacrificial kind possible. And it's this sacrificial mercy that demonstrates His righteousness. This is His unique righteousness (surpassing any kind of righteousness revealed by Octavian or any other earthly king). Jesus in His obedient faithfulness—refusing to return evil for evil or call down a legion of angels—is a votive gift (hilasterion) from God to violent, rebellious humanity. As such, He is the token of devotion that the sovereign God puts forward in calling a truce with humanity at war with Him, all rooted in a heart that is merciful rather than retributive.
In further support of this reading, Paul's conceptualization of sin in Romans (particularly chapter 6) is that of a power that humanity is enslaved to and needing to be delivered from rather than a contaminant that humanity needs to be cleansed from (again, the latter paradigm is more appropriate for the context of the letter to the Hebrews than for the context of the letter to the Romans). This actually fits well with the idea of the war between Octavian and Mark Antony. Octavian ultimately prevails and he extends mercy to those who move from serving Antony to serving him. In the context of Romans 6, Jesus is the master at war with sin as master and Jesus ultimately prevails, extending mercy to those who oppose Him, with them eventually moving from serving sin to serving Him. Though in the case of the battle between Antony and Octavian, Antony dies, in the case of the battle between Jesus and sin, sin as master doesn't die but through Jesus' death and our union with Him in that death, we die and thus are delivered from sin (and the law, in Romans 7).
Paul picks up on this paradigm towards the end of Romans 8: "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things" (Romans 8:32)? Because God has already put Jesus forward as a votive gift, pledging His devotion to His truce with sinful humanity, how will He not follow that up with continued goodness to humans? Because Jesus as a votive gift is the greatest pledge of His love, there is nothing that could possibly separate us from that love (Romans 8:38-39). That's the reason the votive gift was put forward, to be an unfading testimony to God's love.
As an aside, Paul certainly speaks of the existence of the "elect" as a group, for example, in the Romans 8 text I make reference to in the last paragraph (Romans 8:33). But I propose that the "elect" should be understood as a vessel that God appoints not just to be the recipient of blessing (as in traditional reformed thinking) but to be the channel through whom blessing flows to a larger group. This view of election finds its roots in the Old Testament where Abraham was elect/chosen to be the means through whom blessing would flow to the nations or even Christ as God's elect through whom blessing would flow to Israel and the nations. Paul in Romans fluidly moves between benefits to the elect and benefits to all of humanity because God's blessing is ultimately to be received by all (Romans 11:32). So God's love for His enemies in Romans 5:8,10 is of the same fabric of God's love for His Spirit-filled people in Romans 8:38-39. And this is all consistent with the universalistic reading of Romans 5:18-19. Additionally, recent scholarship suggests that Romans 8:28, consistent with its translation in the RSV, conveys that God's elect are agents with and through whom God is working for good rather than the elect primarily being the recipients of that good: "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28, RSV).
This reading also best fits the contextual situation that Paul is writing into at Rome where there is a rift between Jews and Gentiles. The Roman church was originally predominantly Jewish, with Gentiles as minority. But Emperor Claudius banished Jews from Rome around 40AD. Once Claudius died, the Jews returned to Rome but they had become the minority in a now Gentile-majority Roman church, thus with a shifted power dynamic and Jews and Gentiles at odds with one another, judging and despising each other (Romans 14). Paul's appeal for them to live reconciled by extending mercy to each other (because both need mercy!) is rooted in God's reconciliation with humanity by extending mercy to us all (Romans 15:5-9).
When it's all said and done, one reading of Romans 3:21-26 leads us to understand God's deepest character to be rooted in retributive justice and His ultimate purpose in history to be to show mercy to some but not others based on a seemingly arbitrary choice. And another reading of Romans 3:21-26 leads us to understand God's deepest character to be rooted in sacrificial mercy and His ultimate purpose in history to be to show mercy to all. If not the most important paragraph in the Bible, Romans 3:21-26 is certainly among the most important paragraphs in the Bible because it is a watershed passage for how we understand God: His deepest character and ultimate purpose in history.
Comments
Post a Comment