The Cross & God's Righteousness
The NIV of Romans 3:25b says God set Jesus
forth as an atoning sacrifice and that "He did this to demonstrate his
justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins done beforehand
unpunished." The NRSV says, "He had passed over the sins previously
committed."
In this text it's clear that the cross not only saves us—it saves God!
If the world in general and Israel in particular were as evil as Paul
said they were in 1:18—3:20 how can it be that the holy God didn't
utterly obliterate it? If Paul had told the truth about humanity's sin
then God must have been soft on sin all those centuries. As Godet would
have it, there existed a "four thousand year scandal." It would appear
from the text that whatever else we aren't sure about, we can be sure
that sin wasn't adequately dealt with until God dealt with it in Jesus
and the cross. It isn't necessary to adopt a penal substitution theory
of atonement to see that in the text. It isn't necessary to claim that
Christ had to bear the full quota of punishment for sin if forgiveness
were to be made possible. It's clearly Paul's point that God's
righteousness was not proved in this ultimate sense until the cross of
Christ.
The translation of paresis as "left unpunished"
doesn't make sense to me in light of the Old Testament record that
tells us about the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Korah rebellion and
the exile. I don't see how "pass over" makes a lot of sense either in
light of Noah's flood and Romans 1:24, 26 and 28.
It appears to be true that the word paresis is a weak word to use if Paul was speaking of forgiveness but it can
be used for the remission (of taxes, 1 Maccabees 11:34) and the verb
form for the remission of debts and other obligations (Arndt &
Gingrich, 626). So maybe he intends to say sins were "remitted" (as in
the KJV) but uses a weaker word for the process.
But why would he choose a weaker word and avoid the stronger words (aphesis and aphiemi)? Maybe he did it not to
deny full remission in the Old Testament but to stress that the atoning
sacrifices by which forgiveness was gained were only provisional and
shadowy. The Hebrew writer who knew full well that forgiveness was
gained via atonement in the Old Testament still insisted in 10:4 that
the blood of animals couldn't take away sin. And despite the fact that
we're expressly told repeatedly that if ancient worshippers offered
sacrifices "their sins shall be forgiven" (Leviticus
4:14-15,20,26,31,35; 5:5,10 as examples from many) the Hebrew writer
still says (9:15) that Christ's sacrifice redeemed from
transgressions that were under the first covenant. So while forgiveness
was genuine (compare Romans 4:7) and it was mediated most often by
sacrifices (Hebrews 9:18-22) there was still a sense that sin had not
adequately been dealt with via the sacrificial system. Maybe this is why
Paul used the weaker word, to suggest this rather than develop
it. He contrasted the openness of Christ's sacrifice as over against
the hiddenness of the Yom Kippur sacrifices. Perhaps he's also
contrasting the fully satisfying atoning sacrifice via Christ as over
against the provisional means in the Old Testament. If this has merit
then he could be saying that the pre-Christ sacrifices dealt with sin
but didn't fully deal with them though they mediated forgiveness to the worshippers.
It's vital that we remember that no punishment of sins
can possibly reveal in fullness the righteousness of God. Retribution is
only one "weapon" in God's armory in his all-out war against sin. His
full purpose is redemption and salvation and not simply punishment. (I've extracted this from my little book "The Dragon Slayer," pages 133-34.)
Or email Beth at raybeth@sssnet.com
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.