Romans 3:24–26

The word translated "propitiation" here should certainly read "mercy-seat." Hebrews 9:5 uses the same word and translates it that way. That explains the term "set forth." In the tabernacle, no one saw the mercy-seat in the holiest place except the high priest, and only on the day of atonement. So it was a hidden mercy-seat. By contrast, Christ as the mercy-seat stands in the open — open to everyone in this day of grace, in the preaching of the gospel. Everyone is free, and indeed invited, to approach.

The word "propitiatory" is the one the Greek Old Testament uses for the "mercy-seat." ... The mercy-seat was the place in Israel where atonement, or propitiation, stood "set forth." It was the formal basis on which God dwelt in relationship with a sinful people. It was the throne of God, where He dwelt between the cherubim, and the blood sprinkled on it made it a "mercy-seat."

This passage is hard to translate, as you can see from the different views people have put forward... The question is this. Do we link "in His blood" with faith? Or do we connect "in His blood" with propitiation, as the means by which propitiation has been made? We adopt the second view without any hesitation. What happened on the day of atonement makes it very clear: the blood sprinkled on the mercy-seat was the propitiation. If that reading is right, faith is how we take hold of Christ, whom God has set forth as the propitiation.

Propitiation is what we may call the Godward side of the death of Christ. It deals with the most basic matter of all: meeting God's claims against sin. Meeting the sinner's need must come second. So when Paul unfolds the Gospel in the letter to the Romans, he first mentions the death of Christ as "a propitiation through faith in His blood" (Romans 3:25). Paul does not state substitution plainly until Romans 4:25, where we read of Him as "delivered for our offences."

paresis (from pariemi, "to let pass, relax") occurs only in Romans 3:25. There the Authorised Version renders it "remission." That misses the distinction the passage makes between God's ways with the sins of those before the Cross and after it, now that propitiation has been made through faith in His blood... here we must read "for the passing over of sins done beforehand, through the forbearance of God." The Cross declared God's righteousness in passing over the sins of past ages. At the same time it laid the ground for Him now to be "just and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus."

In the first case He showed His righteousness in passing by the sins that had gone before. Strictly speaking, He could not have remitted their sins in justice, because the atoning work was not yet done. But He did pass them over, and this through His forbearance. In the second case He shows His righteousness in the present time. Forbearance is no longer the question, because the work of atonement is done. For who speaks of a creditor's "forbearance" when the debt is paid in full?

May I not ask any fair mind, Who is meant here? "That He might be just and the justifier," etc. — that who might be just? Answer honestly. "That He might be just." Who is He? Is it Christ just? Or is it not God just by virtue of Christ? There can be no doubt in the world... It is by virtue of Christ, or God could not be righteous in this way on behalf of the sinner. Redemption is the righteous groundwork. The blood of Christ deserves at God's hands that the believer should be justified. And God Himself is just in justifying him.

The phrase "the sins that are past" in our translation does not mean what the wording may suggest. It is not the sins of a man's past life, up to the moment of his justification. It is the sins committed in the ages before Christ, while God held back. But the ground of His forbearance was not yet made clear. Now, "in the present season" of gospel grace, God does not just hold back or "pass over." He justifies: He pronounces righteous. The cross, the blood of atonement, now declares His righteousness both as to the past and in the present.

Christ took my place in death and judgment on the cross, and now I get Christ's place before God, by faith in His blood. Is this right? Clearly so... So God, against whom I have sinned, is "just" when He now justifies me. Jesus was delivered up and condemned for my sin. God then raised Him, to prove His satisfaction and delight in Him and in His work of redemption for me. I might go further and say He would be unjust to Christ to condemn me for those very sins for which He condemned His Son... He judges sin, and justifies the sinner who believes in Jesus.

The sinner feared God's righteousness. He imagined that justice was against him. Now he finds it is for him. Instead of being against him to condemn him, it is the very thing that witnesses for him. God shows His righteousness by justifying the believer in Jesus — by justifying the ungodly. I am a poor sinner with all my sin on me. I am a wretched, guilty soul standing before a righteous God. And I find that His very righteousness is my friend. It is the thing that justifies me.

It is the believer, and the believer only, whom God justifies... But someone may answer that in the next chapter we read of God justifying "the ungodly." True — but not in his ungodliness. The next words add, "his faith is counted as righteousness." So the word describes his state up to the time when he became a believer. God justified him not as ungodly at that moment, but as a believer.

What comfort, what deep peace it brings into a life! What stability it gives to faith to understand that it is God who justifies! He is "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:26). In this bright gospel day He can take to Himself the title of "Him who justifies the ungodly" (4:5). Yes, this title is His glory, the righteous triumph of His grace in a world where sin abounded.