A discussion took place in paltalk a couple of months ago and I think I may have been misunderstood on the matter. Because I can articulate much better in writing than by speech I have decided to clarify my position. The issue is one of importance because getting this wrong creates a bad theology. Bad theology does not save a soul because bad theology is really heresy with lip stick.
Many today believe we are saved by the resurrection rather than the death of the Messiah. In fact, anyone who has read the ECT document knows they too (heretics like Chuck Colson, et al) support the same false doctrine due to their ignorance of the work on the cross. However, in fairness to Roman Catholics, I do not expect them to understand what they read in the Scriptures because they have not the eyes to see or the ears to hear. On the other hand, Chuck Colson and specifically men like Richard Gaffin claim to be a Protestant and neither have an excuse for their misunderstanding theology.
This article is not about Chuck Colson. I will write on his heresies at another time. However, Richard Gaffin has taken his theology and has been the pied piper to many students at Westminster Seminary East. And as a result, his heresy has spread false teaching behind the pulpits in the OPC, PCA and even within some Baptists circles.
Having attended the OPC, I can safely say many souls are confused because many Pastors have sat under same error due to their ignorance.
Dr. Richard Gaffin, former President of the Westminster Seminary East, is one of the men who promoted this false teaching when he did his dissertation back in the 1960′s. It began with the title “The Centrality of the Resurrection,” but was later changed to “Redemption and Resurrection” and this was put into book form.
As I alluded to a bit ago, to show what a broad audience this has effected, even the signers of the ECT document were incorrect (both Protestant and Romanists) and translate/quote Romans 4 incorrectly and thus, the document reflects the same false teaching.
Dr. Gaffin was reviving an idea that it was not the death of Messiah by itself that was the basis of our justification, but the resurrection. This is contrary to the Scriptures as I shall point out. Gaffin used one passage, Romans 4:25, to make the case for his argument.
When the Messiah said “It Is Finished” this should have ended any speculation that the resurrection was to be included in declaring a man justified by faith alone. When we look at the Levitical Law, which was the shadow of what was yet to come we read no mention in the book of Leviticus of resurrection. The sacrificial system was to provide a picture of what the savior would accomplish.
What details are given to us? The requirement of an unblemished animal being killed as a substitute for the sinner. No mention by word or inference of the resurrection. Why? It is the death of Messiah that is the basis of our justification.
Resurrection is not a part of the legal process called acquittal!
The Messiah was resurrected because a proper sacrifice was accepted. It is the satisfaction of his obedience and death that is the basis. Not the resurrection.
1 Corinthians 11:23; For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
The above passage tells us that it is the broken body which we are to proclaim until he returns. Not the resurrected body. We are to proclaims the Lords death. Redemption brought about the work of salvation is was accomplished at the cross. Not in the resurrection and not in his ascension.
The whole system of the Old Testament focuses on the the substitute. The New Testament proclaims the Lord’s death. In the Passover meal we pass out the broken body and the shed blood.
Isaiah 53 makes no mention of the resurrection making payment for our sins.
Isaiah 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned–every one–to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
Wounded, crushed, chastisement and stripes brought us peace and healing.
Stricken for the transgression of His people and by the will of the Father.
The Hebrew word “daka” means to be crushed, but within the larger picture we must consider something not seen in the act of animal sacrifice. What do I mean? Not to go off on a bunny trail, letme quickly say the animal had no choice in the matter. To get a better understanding of the voluntary act of Messiah we have to look at Genesis 22 where something is often looked past because we tend to focus so much on Avraham’s obedience and overlook the obedience of Isaac.
With the animal, It was not a voluntary act. The animal was not hoping one day to be slaughtered and sacrificed because he knew he would be laying his life down for human friends or a kind Master who grass fed him instead of feeding him corn.
This de-icide was the opposite. In Genesis 22, we have to also look at the compliance and submission of Isaac to see a model of what would take place down the road one day.
We do not read of Isaac arguing, fist fighting or attempting to break free from the binds where he was tied to the alter. We do not hear of him yelling “heeeeeeelp, my dad has lost his mind and is trying to kill me. My dad likes to play with fire. Call social services. Someone call the police or get the straight jacket!”
Instead, we read of a very calm submission to his Father.
Genesis 22:7; And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here am I, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together. When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”
With the Messiah it was an overt act of love. This is further proven by the words in John 10:11, 15, 17 and 18, where He claims that no one takes His life from Him. It was a volutary submission where he did not press his will, but the will of the Father.
He lays down His life for His sheep; I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
15; just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
17; For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.
18, No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”
Crushing and grief was brought upon Him as an offering for sin. In the context of Isaiah we are told that the Messiah allowed himself to be crushed. Through the death of the Messiah, our iniquities have been placed upon the lamb of God and thus, by his stripes we are healed and therefore, we have been counted righteous.
The following passages demonstrate that “death” is the basis for justification, righteousness and salvation.
Romans 5; Now that we have been justified by his blood, how much more will we be saved from wrath through him!
Leviticus 17; For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.
Colossians 1; Through him he also reconciled all things to himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven, thus making peace through the blood of his cross.
It is His blood that justifies. It is blood that makes atonement for our souls. It is through His blood that we have made peace with God.
Romans 6; Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into union with Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Ephesians 5; Live in love as Christ also loved us and gave himself for us as an offering and sacrifice, a fragrant aroma to God.
I do not see how these people getthe idea that resurrection is a part of justification. As I go back to the initial reason for this article, Richard Gaffin made his argument around one passage. Most translations have erred in the translation of this passage and the error hinges on one word. One word changes the entire meaning of the text.
In this case it is the word “for.” (The NASV, NKJ and the ISV have it right.) The ESV the text reads like this;
Romans 4; who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
But, when the word is properly translated the passage is correctly translated like so from the ISV;
Romans 4 He was handed over to death because of our sins and was raised to life because of our justification.
I believe it is crucial to get this right. This is not some silly little argument over some trivial matter. To misunderstand this passage is to misunderstand the basis for our salvation. To say Messiah was raised for our justification changes the meaning from retrospectively to prospectively. In other words, to say he was raised for our justification implies that we are saved because of the resurrection.
But, he was not raised to complete our salvation.
He was not raised for the completion of justifying us.
He was not raised for our peace with God.
He was raised because of our salvation.
He was raised because of our justification.
He was raised because we have made peace with God.
When the High Priest went in to make a sacrifice for himself and the Nation of Israel, once he walked out the people knew their sins were covered. He did not walk out for their sins to be covered. He walked out because their sins were covered. Walking out validated the work of the High Priest and proved the sacrifice was accepted by the Lord. The covering of the sins already had been accomplished.
Likewise, before the resurrection took place, our justification had already been accomplished. Why the mistranslation? Because the English word “for” is capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways. The word is ambiguous. The word “for,” is ambiguous and if taken in the wrong sense, can create a false doctrine.
There are several words used in the Greek that are translated “for.”
Gar, dia and eis. In Romans 4:25, the word dia is the Greek word used. “For,” usually assigns a reason for what was just stated. It can explain what was just said.
Because of vs. in order to accomplish? For example to explain another way; My son is rewarded with ice cream because he did his chores vs. my son is rewarded with ice cream on the condition of doing his chores. Messiah was resurrected because of our justification vs. Messiah was raised in order to accomplish our justification.
Like I said earlier, one looks prospectively and the other looks retrospectively. We must look at the resurrection retrospectively because of the life and death of Messiah. Because of the wrong translation in the ESV and numerous others, this word “for” is defined prospectively and therefore, the meaning of the text is altered in such a way it makes the personal application of justification being conditional only because the resurrection takes place.
Returning to the theme of justification, the Messiah did not meet the just demands of the Law by his resurrection. He did this by his blood and death. Again, it is the death of the Messiah that is the basis for our salvation. The thief on the cross, all those in the past who died in faith were justified before the resurrection took place.
The song we will sing for all eternity does not include or involve the resurrection. We are redeemed, purchased for God by the blood of the lamb.
Revelation 5: They sang a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, because you were slaughtered. With your blood you purchased people for God from every tribe, language, people, and nation.
Revelation 7; I said to him, “Sir, you know.” Then he told me, “These are the people who are coming out of the terrible suffering. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb.
Revelation 12; Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say, “Now the salvation, the power, the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ have come. For the one accusing our brothers, the one who accuses them day and night in the presence of our God, has been thrown out. They conquered him by the blood of the lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they did not love their life even in the face of death.
Revelation 13; All those living on earth will worship it, everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life belonging to the lamb that was slaughtered from the foundation of the world.
I hope this clarifies the position I took. I was accused of denying the gospel because I separated the resurrection from justification. My point was, the gospel includes the resurrection, but the resurrection is not a part of justification.
The reason for the explanation was to tackle a problem within many Presbyterian churches. As I said, many graduates from Westminster East have a confused theology because of the Dr. Gaffin and his mistranslation of Romans 4:25. The specific point was to draw out justification and isolate it from the gospel in order to show it alone is the basis for our salvation. As we run the event through, of course the resurrection will spring forth in the end. The point of the article was to show that Messiah was not raised for our justification. He was raised because of our justification. In other words, he was raised as a result of our justification. Yes, the resurrection is a part of the gospel as a whole, but men are saved by the death, not the resurrection.
The Disciples did not even understand the Scripture, that Messiah had to rise from the dead, yet they were saved.
John 20:5-9; Bending over to look inside, he noticed the linen cloths lying there but didn’t go in. At this point Simon Peter arrived, following him, and went straight into the tomb. He observed that the linen cloths were lying there, and that the handkerchief that had been on Jesus’ head was not lying with the linen cloths but was rolled up in a separate place. Then the other disciple, who arrived at the tomb first, went inside, looked, and believed. For they did not yet understand the Scripture that said that he had to rise from the dead.
The issue with Richard Gaffin is that he teaches the resurrection is associated with purchase of souls. He believes the resurrection is a part of the atonement. The problem is, justification is a forensic term, a legal declaration in which God declares a person right. We are made right with God by the finished work.
On a side note; justification requires a more serious “faith” while the resuurection does not. Dont misunderstand me; there are those Christians who may need some faith to believe in the resurrrection. We are all given a measure of alien faith to believe the gospel. But, I, on the other hand believe in the resurrection as sure as I believe yesterday has come and gone. Faith takes on more meaning when justification is to be believed. What do I mean? Being justified is not tangible. It is unseen. It is believing God without anything other than His word. This is what pleased God with Avraham.
Galatians 3:6; In the same way, Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
On the other hand, the resurrection was a historical event. It was tangible. It was documented and there were witnesses. It can be verified through research if a person researches the facts as they would any other event and make a conclusion after the evidence is collected and considered.
In the life of a believer it is not the resurrection that we have to struggle over in our minds. Why? Because we believe the Bible to be the word of God. The Scriptures teach Messiah rose from the dead and this should be enough to satisfy us. But, being declared “not guilty” by God is unseen and unverifiable. Justification can only be believed by faith. On the other hand, the resurrection can be believed either by faith alone or faith plus historical facts or just historical facts.
My point is, it pleases the Lord in a greater way to believe we have been declared not guilty based upon trust in the life and death of Messiah.
Returning to the article, the resurrection MUST be believed. I am not saying it is not equally important. But, it is not the key component that saves us. It is the death of Messiah which is the key component. The thief on the cross probably did not have an understanding of the Lord rising from the dead since the Apostles didn’t get it either. But, his faith in the King was sufficient to save his soul. He, the thief, thought he was headed to a kingdom and probably never foresaw that the Lord’s cadaver would rise from the dead.
It was the blood shed in our place. At the moment of faith in the life and death of Yeshua we are saved. To draw this out further, I can proclaim the gospel to someone and not mention the resurrection at that point in time and the soul that believes shall be saved. If that person says “how do I know I am saved?” I would answer because of the resurrection. The resurrection confirms our salvation.
I think it is also important to realize the message of atonement, Yom Kippur, the sacrificial system in general was not something the Gentiles were familiar with. Therefore, the priest exiting the Holy of Holies was not on their minds. So, the message of the cross was emphasised and message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. The preaching of the resurrection is not said to be foolishness to those that are perishing. The cross is! It is easy for us to look at matters after the fact, but I think it is important to look at them before they took place and with the Gentiles in mind.
When the seventy were sent out, there was no resurrection that had taken place, but the men were said to have had their names written in heaven.
Luk 10:17 The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” Luk 10:20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
What message were they sent out to preach? It couldn’t have contained the resurrection because it had not taken place
Go back and look at the passages in the original post. 1 Corinthians 15 is viewed in light of a multitude of passages teaching us that belief in the life and death of Messiah justifies a soul. It is the death that makes atonement. Revelation 5 says “with your blood you purchased people for God.”
His resurrection did not purchase souls.
His resurrrection did not make atonement.
His resurrection verified the purchase. His resurrection verified atonement.
I would have to respectfully disagree that the resurrection was a part of our justification. The resurrection had other reasons for taking place. He was raised from the dead in keeping with the Scriptures. This included the fulfillment of prophecy. That is, the Messiah would sit on the throne of David.
2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
Sitting on the throne of David never had anything to do with justification, rather, it had to do with Messiah’s kingship. It was also the fulfillment of God’s word that He would not allow his holy one to see decay.
Psalm 16:10 For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.
Rising from the dead also proved that He was God. The resurrection also demonstrated that we would live again because he lives. He was the firstfruits to prove that we who believe in Him would live again.
Believe on the one whom God has sent is the only work required to be saved. Joh
4:34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.
When he said it is finished, the work of the Father was completed and souls were ransomed before the resurrection.
Romans 5:9; Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Reconciliation was completed before the resurrection. We are justified by his blood (past tense) not his resurrection. We are reconciled to God through the death of Messiah and as a result of reconciliation we are justified. as I keep reading Romans 5, I see death meets the demands of God and that death is payment which brings reconciliation and that reconciliation brings justification. His righteousness imputed to our account.
Rom 5:18 Consequently, just as one offense resulted in condemnation for everyone, so one act of righteousness results in justification and life for everyone. For just as through one man’s disobedience many people were made sinners, so also through one man’s obedience many people will be made righteous.
Through his active work we are made righteous. Not through the resurrection, but through his death are we reconciled.
Again, i am in no way downplaying resurrection. It is crucial to believe the resurrection, but for other reasons other than making a man just before God. It does not have any meritorius value and was done for many reasons as I suggested in the last post.
Belief that Yeshua is the Messiah is crucial, but that particular doctrine has no propitiatory attachment. Believing Jesus is the Messiah does not justify a person nor make that person righteous before the Lord, but his death does. We are given hope by his resurrection, but resurrection does not contain anything propitiatory. Resurrection is our hope of eternal life in a tangible way.
I also wanted to mention that since the book of Hebrews explains the chain of events which took place in the Temple ceremony, one would want to consider the absence of resurrection emphasis in relation to death and blood atoning for sins.
I am in no way discounting the resurrection in any way. My contention is over the doctrine of justification in light of the word “dia.” A wrongly translated word can lead to a wrong understanding and a wrong commentary. The problem commentators face is commenting on a passage when the word “for” is mistranslated by the KJV which is used by many commentators. But, when someone picks up the ISV and reads “because of,” they cannot make the same comments or arguments as they would reading from the KJV.
Apparently, I am not being clear when I mention this.
Haldane favors the word “for” instead of the word “because” and this is why he comments the way he does. But, there are a multitude of other commentators who favor the word “because” instead of “for” and their comments show it.
This is not splitting hairs. I know we all agree justification is the heart of the gospel. We would also agree that the death and resurrection are basic for the believer’s salvation.
The argument is that the resurrection is not what justifies a person. Justification has already been accomplished. That is the gist of my argument.
I think we may be missing the context or Romans 4 in which Paul brings out justification. Avraham was counted righteous in Genesis15. Avraham had a present righteousness before God and he embraced the promises of God right then. Romans 4:25 and also Romans 5:1 state it in the past tense. Look again at Romans 5:8 which tells us the love of God was demonstrated in the death of Messiah.
Rom 5:8 But God demonstrates his love for us by the fact that Christ died for us while we were still sinners. Now that we have been justified by his blood, how much more will we be saved from wrath through him!
The just shall live by faith is used in the Old Testament. Justification was an accomplished reality for both Avraham and King David. We are talking about two issues here. Nowhere does it say that Avraham believed in the resurrection of Jesus. However, Avraham did believe in the God who resurrects from the dead.
Romans 4:17 As it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations.” Abraham acted in faith when he stood in God’s presence, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence things that don’t even exist.
Avraham is called the Father of all who believe both under the Old and the New Covenant. So, there is continuity between the faith of Avraham and the faith of the modern day Christian.
One commentary says that
“many scholars resist the idea that the resurrection would depend on justification. They suggest that the second “dia” is final, that Jesus was raised with a view to our justification. But a casual sense should be maintained if possible to preserve the parallelism of the two clauses, and a casual rendering makes good sense. To say Jesus was raised because of our justification is to say that his resurrection authenticates and confirms that our justification has been secured. The resurrection of Christ constitutes evidence that his work on our behalf has been completed. The death and resurrection of Christ fulfill the promise of universal blessing to Abraham , for they are the means by which all peoples enter into the new people of God.”
John Robbins edited an article and here is just a small portion;
“The doctrine of final rewards and punishments is illuminated by the cross of Christ. “He who by faith is justified shall live” (Romans 1:17). In the one who was raised because of our justification (Romans 4:25) and who bodily ascended to glory at God’s right hand we are given a clear preview of eschatology. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). The saints shall be “glorified together” with Christ. While he who believes is justified unto life eternal, he who believes not is condemned already.
Justification Exposes Errors If the doctrine of justification by faith alone illuminates all other doctrines, it exposes errors at the same time. It is a divine plumb line to test every doctrinalstructure. It is a principle that must call all our creeds, ideas, and traditions into radical question. Perhaps this is one reason why the professing church has pushed the Reformation doctrine into the background. If it is allowed to stand in the forefront, it is too revolutionary and might upset the status quo. Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda* is a confession that the Reformation was not completed with Luther and Calvin.
The sanctuary of truth must yet be cleansed from all the errors that were smuggled in during the Dark Ages. We have no reason to suppose the restoration was completed by the Reformers. Error is like an octopus. It has many tentacles, but one heart. Most of the books written to expose the errors of certain cults or false systems tediously fight with all the tentacles of the doctrinal octopus. Few effectively slay it at the heart with the sharp sword of justification by faith alone.
Look how Luther dealt with the papacy. Others before and after him spent their energies crying out against the abuses of Rome. Doubtless this one article [justification], by little and little, as it began, had overthrown the whole papacy, with all her brotherhoods, pardons, religious orders, relics, ceremonies, invocation of saints, purgatory, masses, watchings, vows, and infinite other like abominations. .†.†. We moreover did teach and urge nothing but this article of justification, which alone at that time did threaten the authority of the Pope and lay waste his kingdom. .†.†. Images and other abuses in the church would have fallen down of themselves, if they [the sects] had but diligently taught the article of justification (Commentary on Galatians, Middleton ed., 218, 219).
Luther cut through the complicated maze of medieval theology and reduced all theology to the principle of sola fide. The Christian church today is inundated with isms of every stripe and hue. We could spend forever and aye fighting the tentacles of error, but we need to get to the heart. All error is united in its common opposition to the principle of justification by faith alone. All error obscures the bright light of the Gospel. What the church and the world desperately need is the truth of justification by faith alone without the encumbrance of the popular errors which have obscured it.”
Now that I have brought to our attention something we have in common I want to again emphasize that a man is made right with God when he or she is justified. There is no doubt that the resurrection is the completion of the process, but what I am trying to point out (which it is evident that some disagree) that expiation and propitiation is completed on the cross and does not include the resurrection.
The resurrection completes the process, and is also said to apply the process, but the payment is initiated and fulfilled in the death of Messiah which results in making peace with God at that point.
Both Poole and Henry agree as I shall show. Both say Messiah’s death paid our debt and, the resurrection was the application of the acquittal. OJ Simpson was declared not guilty, but walking out of the court room verified and applied the declaration. Walking out did not cause the verdict.
Matthew Poole says this;
By his death he paid our debt in his resurrection he received our acquittance, Isa 53:8; when he was discharged, we in him, and together with him, received our discharge from the guilt and punishment of all our sins. This one verse is an abridgement of the whole gospel.
Matthew Henry says almost the same thing as Poole;
Christ did meritoriously work our justification and salvation by his death and passion, but the power and perfection thereof, with respect to us, depend on his resurrection. By his death he paid our debt, in his resurrection he received our acquittance, Isa 53:8. John Gill repeats what I have already stated before. That is, there are a number of other reasons for the resurrection.
John Gill said this;
he was raised again from the dead by his Father, to whom this is often ascribed; and by himself, by his own power, which proves him to be the mighty God; and this was done not only that he might live an immortal and glorious life in our nature, having finished the work he undertook and came about, but for “our justification”. He died in the room and stead of his people, and by dying made satisfaction for their sins; he rose again as their head and representative, and was legally discharged, acquitted, and justified, and they in him. Christ’s resurrection did not procure the justification of his people, that was done by his obedience and death, but was for the testification of it, that it might fully appear that sin was atoned for, and an everlasting righteousness was brought in; and for the application of it, or that Christ might live and see his righteousness imputed, and applied to all those for whom he had wrought it out.
Justification is;
1. A declaration by God in heaven concerning a man, that he stands righteous in God’s sight.
2. God justifies a man, on the basis or ground of the “redemption that is in Christ Jesus”
Romans 3:24; By his grace they are justified freely through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God offered as a place where atonement by Christ’s blood could occur through faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because he had waited patiently to deal with sins committed in the past.
We are “justified by Messiah’s blood”;–the blood the procuring ground, or means; God the acting Person.
3. God who has already acted judicially, in pronouncing the whole world guilty, now again acts judicially concerning that sinner who becomes convinced of his guilt and helplessness, and believes that God’s Word concerning Christ’s expiatory sacrifice applies to himself; and thus becomes “of faith in Jesus” God’s judicial pronouncement now is, that such a believing one stands righteous in His sight.
James Boice had this to say;
There are a number of explanations of the meaning of the phrase ‘raised to life for our justification,’ but the one that has commended itself to most expositors is that the resurrection is God’s proof, provided for our benefit, that a full payment for sins has been made. The resurrection proves a great many things….. But chiefly the resurrection proves that every believer in Christ is justified from all sin, as Romans 4:25 declares. In other words, it is God’s evidence to us the penalty for our transgressions has been fully paid by Jesus.”
Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones said this;
“The resurrection is the proclomation of the fact that God is fully and completely satisfied with the work that his Son did upon the cross.”
I dont know if I made any one think outside the box, but I hope to at least show that others who have gone before me would argue on my behalf.
He was raised “because of” our justification.”
Moshe