Peter SmytheA Different Kind of Word Preacher

Who was delivered up on account of our offenses, And was raised on account of the declaring us righteous. (Romans 4.25, Rotherham)

Who was handed over on account of the trespasses of us and was raised on account of the righteousness [δικαιωσιν] of us. (Smythean)

Romans 4.25 is one of those wonderful verses that appears to give theologians fits because of their love of imputation, their hate for the idea (read: “fact”) that Jesus literally became sin (see our 2 Corinthians 5.21 - This Imputin’ Ain’t Computin’), and their cross-centered theology.

Before unpacking the verse, let’s set out the ordinary readings and treatment. First, most of our modern Bibles do not use the word “righteousness” for δικαιωσιν, but “justification” instead:

He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. (NASB)

who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification - (ESV)

who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification - (ASV)

who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification - (NRSV)

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. (NIV)

He was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. (Holman CSV)

So what of “justification?” If so many well-respected translations use the word, then it can’t be all bad, right? That depends. In this case, we believe that the translators impute their own theological biases into the verse (which affect our own views of Jesus’s work) by using “justification” instead of “righteousness.” How so? John MacArthur, an eminent pastor and theologian, speaks the company line about justification when he writes:

Theologically, justification is a forensic, or purely legal, term. It describes what God declares about the believer, not what He does to change the believer. In fact, justification effects no actual change whatsoever in the sinner’s nature or character. Justification is a divine judicial edict. It changes our status only, but it carries ramifications that guarantee other changes will follow. (John MacArthur, Truth Matters at 32) (italics supplied).

As MacArthur puts it, while justification might have something to do with a judicial declaration, it has nothing to do with a changed nature. Of course, a changed nature is mankind’s most fundamental need (see John 8.44 - “ye are of your father, the devil” and John 10.10 - “I’ve come that they may have life”).

The idea of a legal justification is also anathema to doing justice to the verse (ironic, huh?). As the first phrase - who was handed over on account of the trespasses of us - is parallel to the second - was raised on account of the righteousness of us. - they both must be translated or interpreted the same way. Consequently, if one translates the one phrase with an imputational gloss, then the other one must be smeared the same way:

who was handed over on account of the trespasses of us [judicially in God’s mind] and who was raised on account of the righteousness of us [judicially in God’s mind]

That creates the kinds of problems that only advanced theological minds with many letters after their names can solve, e.g., why would Jesus have to undergo the torture of the damned just for some theological legal edict, or why doesn’t the verse say “judicial edict” in the first place? While others might not have a problem with that, personally, we don’t wish to base our eternal destiny on the vagaries of theological debates and ivory tower disputes.

Righteousness as Divine Life

When we look at Romans 4.25 from the standpoint of nature, it fits snugly in the redemption mosaic that holds that Jesus had to ontologically (in nature) become sin in order to redeem us. In the first part of the verse, we read:

Who was handed over on account of the trespasses of us (Smythean)

This is a reference from Isaiah 53.12:

Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death: and he was numbered among the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities.

As we’ve discussed previously, Isaiah 53 is all about the spiritual side of the crucifixion. Isaiah does not write as one in the shoes of John or one of the other apostles, but as a spiritual spectator. Consequently, “who was handed over on account of the trespasses of us” refers to a spiritual handing over, not one to Pontius Pilate or the Jewish ruling authorities. This handing over was Jesus’s separation from God at the cross until the time of his resurrection. This is perfectly consistent with our previous essays such as :

1. 1 Corinthians 2.8 - Ruling on the Rulers
2. 2 Corinthians 5.21 - A Tale of Two Goats
3. Romans 6.9 - Jesus and the Lordship of Death

When the first phrase is viewed in its proper light, then the rest of the verse becomes clearer. In Hebrews 10.5-10, the writer of Hebrews invokes Psalm 40 as the very first-person prayer of Jesus, himself (see Psalm 40: No Self-Help Here). In Psalm 40, we hear of Jesus’s torment until “raised on account of our righteousness”:

I waited patiently for Yahweh, -

And he inclined unto me, and heard my cry for help;

So he brought me up

Out of the destroying pit,

Out of the swampy mire, -

And set upon a cliff my feet,

Making firm my steps:

Then put he into my mouth a new song, Praise to our God, -

Many shall see and revere, And shall trust in Yahweh. (Psalm 40.1-3, Rotherham)

Jesus was delivered over to spiritual death and was required to remain in it until every last sinner could become born-again. This answers, in part, the reason why Jesus was in the belly of the earth for three days and three nights and redemption didn’t end at the cross. Notice that “raised on account of the righteousness of us” directly and specifically ties our righteousness to the resurrection and not the crucifixion (cf. 1 Corinthians 15.13-17 - if Jesus is not raised then we’re still in our sins).

And that brings us to that word all-terrific word of “righteousness.” As discussed, theologians use “justification” because it “changes status only.” In their minds and in their preaching, “justification” has nothing to do with divine life or a changed nature (that begs the question of Jesus’s original mission to give us “life,” doesn’t it?). Paul, however, saw “divine life” as part and parcel of righteousness [δικαιωσιν]. Indeed, in Paul’s thinking (and therefore God’s), one can not be righteous without having the God-kind of life that Jesus described in John 10.10. How do we know? It’s in Galatians 3.21 which reads:

… if a law had been given which had been able to give life, verily in law would have been our righteousness [δικαιοσυνη]. (Rotherham)

Paul says in Galatians that if the Law had been able to “give life” - the God-kind of life of John 10.10 - then there wouldn’t have been the need for Jesus - the life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15.45). The Law, however, could not regenerate mankind’s fallen-satanic nature where man could again approach God. Indeed, Paul’s statement demonstrates that even a theological judicial edict would not be enough. A judicially acquitted man might have his sins blotted out, but he still remains the filthy rat that he was when he committed them in the first place (any good lawyer knows that much).

When Paul speaks of “righteousness,” he is speaking of divine life in the same breath. It is the divine born-again nature, the “new creation” (Gal. 6.15 - nothing matters but a new creation) which makes man completely and perfectly righteousness before God Almighty. And this new creation is not just some mealy-mouthed change for the better, but the utter transformation of the sinner’s nature into that like Christ himself (see 1 Corinthians 15.45 (Christ is a life-giving spirit) and Romans 8.9 (he that hasn’t the spirit of Christ is none of his)).