Neither Ritual nor Moral Law Can Justify
Romans 4:13-25
Since about Romans
2, we have been spending a lot of time on justification. I hope that everybody here could give a pretty good explanation of what
justification means and could at least describe it in more than one sentence
and hopefully go to two or three different passages in Scripture to do so. So we will start here on the front row and
just go one by one! I remember the Teen
Class when Pastor Thieme used to do that to the
teenagers. “OK, you stand up. Last week I covered such and such. Now tell me what I said.” So you always felt like you had to be
prepared. That was excellent training.
Sometimes I think
that we hear things so much that we sort of put our mind in neutral, and we
think we have heard and understood something and really do not. I remember about 10 years ago I was down from
I want to start
tonight in Philippians 3. I want to go
to other passages of Scripture to correlate what Paul says elsewhere on
justification with what he is saying in Romans.
Last time I went back to Job 9:2 (NASB) “Truly I know it is so, but how
can a man be righteous before God?” That
is really the question. I think we live in an era today when the average person
is so surrounded, especially if you are younger, with so many stimulants. By that I do not mean drugs or alcohol,
although that is certainly one area of a problem. But I mean media in terms of Facebook, Twitter, email, internet,
all of the things that constantly barrage people. People generally do not have time to stop and
reflect and just think about some things.
There are many
people in life who never want to look at this question,
part of it is because of what Romans 1 says that they are suppressing the truth
in unrighteousness. If there is a God
and I have to stand before that God, how can I hope to make a claim to righteousness? Do I need to make a claim to
righteousness? What would be the basis
for saying that I am righteous? That is
the term that the Scripture uses. It
does not use the term in the sense of “are you good enough?” It is “are you righteous enough?” I think in the process of talking to people
about the gospel and about Christianity, it is important for us in to express
our thinking in these biblical terms.
“Have you ever really thought about how you can be righteous enough to
get into heaven? What does righteous
mean?” You are expressing the idea that
this is an absolute standard related to the character of God.
As Job 9:2 says,
“…how can a man be righteous before God?”
How can we meet that standard?
Can we do it through ritual?
There are only a few answers that have ever been offered down through
history. One is that we accomplish it
through ritual. Another answer is that
it is accomplished through doing as good as you can. But doing as good as we can when that is
measured against an absolute standard, such as the righteousness of God, is not
going to be enough. Yet man constantly
tries to convince himself that God is somehow going to overlook the negatives
in his life, the failures, the sin, the immorality, the disobedience to God
because that is who God is.
But we think of
how the Scriptures describe God as the Everlasting Judge. As Abraham put it in Genesis
Those who reject
the standard idea just leap into antinomianism or licentiousness, and they just
try to ignore the whole thing. That
group is more prone to understanding the grace of God. This is why Jesus had such a response from
the people that He spent most of His time ministering to. The prostitutes, the
outcasts of society, the tax collectors – those who were the social pariahs,
the unlovable segments of Jewish society at the time that Jesus came. Not because Jesus was justifying or
rationalizing in any way their sin; it is that they understood they were
sinners, as opposed to the religious groups (the Saducees
and the Pharisees) who thought that because of their position, education,
money, ritual, obedience to the Law that meant God should accept it.
This was the
mentality that the Apostle Paul had which he expresses in Philippians 3:1-2
“Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord [This is as Paul goes into the last
section of this epistle]. For me to
write the same things to you is not tedious, but for
you it is safe. Beware of dogs…” Notice his language here; it is not
politically correct. He is not talking
about collies, German Shepherds, Yorkshire Terriers, Cairn Terriers, and all of
the other cute little household domestic pets.
The term dogs was a pejorative, an insult that was used in relation
to Gentiles and those who had not kept the Law.
They were considered the unrighteous.
Yet he uses that term not in its traditional pejorative sense towards
the non-Jews, towards those who were on the margins of society. If you look at this context, he is applying
it to those who were attempting to become righteous by obeying the Law.
Philippians 3:2
“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation!” What does he mean when he uses this term to
“beware of the mutilation”? He is
referring to those who are insisting that for a man to be saved, to begin to
obey the Law, he had to first be circumcised.
Paul is very strong in the language he uses as he expresses this because
those who are insisting upon this have created such division and trauma among
all these different churches Paul had established. By the time he writes Philippians, he is under
house arrest in
He is attacking
them because by insisting upon circumcision and insisting upon observance of
the Mosaic Law as part of what needs to be observed in order to be justified,
it has caused great division. The dogs,
the evil workers, and the mutilation (the Judaizers
who were insisting on the observance of Torah as a means of gaining God’s
approval) are all referred to in this same group.
In contrast, in
verse 3 he says, “For we are the circumcision…”
He is contrasting “we,” meaning the Philippian
Christians and including himself within that
group. He is talking about spiritual
circumcision. We have not gotten quite
into that verse yet in Colossians 2:11, where we begin to get into the
spiritual circumcision which is another way of talking about the baptism by
means of God the Holy Spirit. When we
believe in Jesus Christ, trust in Him and are identified with Christ in His
death, burial and resurrection, the power of the sin nature is broken. It is that removal of the power of the flesh
Paul calls it in Colossians 2:11 that is what we have
in Christ. He does not mean the physical
flesh, but what it stands for, which is the sin nature. Being of the circumcision is not referring to
the physical circumcision but is talking about spiritual circumcision which
takes place at salvation.
Philippians 3:3
“For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ
Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.” What he says there is that we are not to
boast in the flesh; we are not to have confidence in anything we do that
originates with our own efforts, whether ritual or morality. Then in verse 4, he says “Though I might have
confidence in the flesh.” He is going to
use himself as an example. If anybody
could work their way to heaven, he could.
Then he begins to go through his resume.
He was just obsessed with fulfilling every jot and tittle
in the Mosaic Law.
He reminds them of
his accomplishments in the flesh (Philippians 3:5-6) “Circumcised the eighth day” according
to the Mosaic Law. A male child should
be circumcised the eighth day, so by saying that, he is pointing out that he
was not a proselyte, he did not come into Judaism later. From the very beginning of his life, he was
obedient to every detail of the Law. “Of
the stock of
“Concerning the
law [the Torah and its interpretation], a Pharisee” We as Christians tend to come to 1st
century Judaism or Second Temple Judaism period with sort of slanted or biased
view. We look at the Pharisees in terms
of their conflict with Jesus. Jesus is
the good guy and the Pharisees are the bad guys. If we were going to dramatize when the
Pharisees come onstage, we hear the bass notes, we see them dressed in black,
and they are the evil villains. But if
you were a 1st century Jew, your opinion of the Pharisees was that
there was no one better. No one was more
moral, no one was closer to God. If
anybody could get into heaven or if anybody could gain God’s approval by their
righteousness, it was a Pharisee.
I have had some
conversations with three or four different Jewish friends of mine who are not
religious and not observant, agnostic at best and atheist at worst. Yet when it
comes to the Day of Atonement, high holy days in the fall and Passover in the
spring, I have heard them make this comment that if they go to synagogue, they
will not go to reformed or conservative or even orthodox synagogue but will go
to Chabad House.
Chabad is ultra-orthodox, but they take the
text literally. They really believe that
the Bible was given to Moses directly by God.
In terms of how we believe, they have the closest view toward biblical
infallibility, inerrancy, and inspiration of any Jewish group. I find it interesting that here you have
agnostic, atheist Jews who think if it is true, they are the ones who have the
truth. People who are kind of massaging
the text and making it mean whatever they want it to mean say “how can that really
be true?” But the people who are taking
it literally and seriously, then they must be the ones who have it right.
I just used that
as sort of a modern day analogy because the modern “Chabadniks”
would be somehow analogous to the Pharisees of the 1st century. They are viewed as being the ones who if anybody
has got it, they have got it. In a
Jewish culture in the 1st century, the Pharisees were viewed as the
super good guys. When Paul says in
Philippians 3:5 “…concerning the law, a Pharisee…” what you would be hearing is
that if anybody could do it on their own, Paul could. He had checked off all the check boxes.
In verse 6,
“…concerning zeal, persecuting the church…”
He was so zealous he was persecuting the church, and other places we
know he was arresting and executing Christians.
Then he says, “…concerning the righteousness which is
in the law, blameless.” Couldn’t find anything wrong.
Then in verse 7,
he begins to shift. “But what things
were gain to me [that which I thought was of value, would bring ultimate,
lasting, enduring, eternal value] these I have counted loss for Christ.” I think he is being a little “puny” here
because he uses the word hegeomai [e(geomai] which is the same word that is usually
translated imputing for imputing righteousness, reckoning righteousness. He is saying “What things were gain to me,
these I have imputed or reckoned or considered as loss for Christ.” In other words, all the best that we can do
is loss, but he is going to expand that.
What we have here
is a chiasm, which is a kind of literary device for organizing material. If you have two basic concepts, you will have
the first concept and then the second concept.
Then you have the second concept repeated and then go back to the first
concept. It is A, B, B, A organization. It
drives the attention of the reader to the center pieces because the center of
those terms is where the writer wants the focus to be. You could have a much more extended list
where it goes A, B, C, D, D, C, B, A.
Again, what is in the center is what the writer wants you to focus your
attention on.
Here the A term is
“what things were gain.” The B term is “these
I have counted loss” at the end of verse 7.
Then verse 8 begins talking about the things that are counted loss and
expands on that a little bit. The real
focus here is what is counted loss.
Verse 8 “Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of
the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all
things…” In just this short section, you
have loss repeated three times and count repeated three times.
Then we bring in
the synonym for loss, which is the word in the Greek scubala that is translated as
rubbish in the KJV and NKJV. That really cleans it up – it is basically horse
manure or whatever synonym you wish to use.
That is how he is describing the best that he has done. Take a look at
any religious order where the leadership has been involved in giving up and all
this ritual – Paul says that none of that that man can do amounts to
anything. It is nothing more than a pile
of manure.
We need to count
it all loss for the purpose of gaining Christ.
Now we are back to our original A term focusing
on gain. The focal point here is on loss
and what constitutes loss. Verse 8-9
“…and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ
and be found in Him…” This is where we
get into the whole doctrine of justification.
It is the word heureo [e(urew] which is in the subjunctive passive – God
is the one who would be doing the evaluating.
The word for finding is really “being discovered under evaluation.”
Philippians 3:9
“And be found in Him [in Christ]…” Not
that he would be found in the synagogue praying, in the temple praying, giving
alms to the poor, but simply “be found in Him” because that is the only place
that there is justification. “And be
found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that
which is through faith in Christ…” We
have another use of that genitive construction that should be understood as an
objective genitive “the faith directed toward Christ” because that is what he
is talking about. He clarifies it even
more “…the righteousness which is from God by faith.”
The other day I
got an email with a question to comment on the phrase “justification means just
as if I had never
sinned.” That sounds like a nice little
way of remembering what justification means, but when we look at a passage like
verse 9, it shows us that it is not “just as if I had never sinned” because I
do not have any righteousness. If it was
“just as if I had never sinned,” it would be as if I do not have sin. It is more profound than that; it is that I
still have sin, but what God looks at is what is imputed or credited to my
account which is the righteousness that comes from God. I am never made internally righteous. The implication is that I am made righteous
and as if I have never sinned. It has
nothing to do with my experience; it has to do with what I now legally possess
which is a righteousness that comes from God by means of faith.
Philippians 3:10,
Paul goes on to show that getting this righteousness is not the end game. It is only the means to an end “that I may
know Him…” Knowing Him is not a synonym
for salvation. It is what comes as a
result of salvation or justification and the process of spiritual growth. Verse 10-11 “That I may know Him and the
power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings being conformed
to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the
dead.”
This is a really
interesting term here. The way it is
expressed is a first class condition, eipos [e)ipoj]
in the Greek. It indicates not an “if,
maybe” I’ll attain to the resurrection of the dead. It is an expression of certainty. Paul is confident that he will attain to the
resurrection of the dead. This term that
we find in verse 11, exanastasis,
literally means the out resurrection of the dead.
For a long time, I
thought of this as a rapture synonym, but just recently in preparation for a
paper that I am going to be giving next week at Pre-Trib
on three central rapture passages, I recognized that there are two things that
happen at the rapture. 1 Thessalonians
Who is caught up
together with them? The “them” are the
dead in Christ. They rise first – that
is a resurrection term. The only people
who are raptured are those who are alive when Jesus
returns in the air. The other group is
resurrected, and they receive their resurrection body because they have
died. Technically, the only ones who are
raptured are those who are alive when the Lord
returns; everybody else just gets resurrected.
This is why Paul
uses this term. He knows that one way or
the other, he is going to go up. He is
close to the end of his life and is beginning to recognize that he is probably
going to go through physical death, so he uses this term exanastasis,
[e)canastasij] the out resurrection. He is beginning to anticipate that he will
not be raptured, but he is confident he will be
resurrected out from the dead when Jesus Christ returns. His confidence comes from his understanding
of justification. It is not on the basis
of anything he has done, but righteousness is a gift from God.
In Romans
“For if those who
are of the law are heirs” – he uses a 1st class condition which
assumes for the sake of argument that this is true, even though it is not. “Faith is made void and the promise made of
no effect” – faith is what perceives and what grabs hold of a promise.
In verse 15 he
explains it by saying, “Because the law brings about wrath…” I pointed out last time that if we disobey
the Law, we get God’s discipline. Wrath
in Romans refers to God’s divine discipline in time; whereas, wrath in 1
Thessalonians also refers to God’s discipline in time, but it has a more
technical sense of the judgments to come during the tribulation period. Throughout Romans, it is focusing on God’s
judgment on those who reject His free gift of righteousness. The Law brings about wrath because nobody can
fully obey it.
He goes on to
explain it “for where there is no law, there is no transgression.” What you hear is “there is no sin,” but the
word transgression is the Greek word parabasis
[parabasij], which means transgressing the Law
literally. So what he is saying is that
where there is no Law, there is no breaking of the Law. Even though there was no Law prior to Moses,
there was still sin. We know what Paul
is going to say in Romans 5:12-15.
Romans
Verse 16 “…not
only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of
Abraham…” So here the phrase “of the
law” refers to Jews, and “of the faith of Abraham” refers to those Gentiles who
are following in Abraham’s footsteps.
Abraham is described as the “father of us all.” This plays an important role because what
Paul is showing here is that the promise was not just to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob
and their descendants, but there is a blessing promise in the Abrahamic Covenant that is for everyone – Jew and Gentile
alike.
Verse 17 “(as it
is written, ‘I have made you a father of many nations’) in the presence of Him
whom he believed – God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which
do not exist as though they did.”
The original quote
is from Genesis 17. This is where God
gets specific with Abraham and Sarah about when they are going to have this
child. This is where we have the
circumcision sign of the covenant given.
Abraham at this time is in his late 90s.
God has waited until it is very clear to Abraham and everybody else that
there is nothing natural about this process of Sarah’s pregnancy.
In Genesis 17:4-6,
God articulates the promises that go with this covenant. “As for Me, behold
My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram,
but your name shall be Abraham [Father of a Multitude]; for I have made you a
father of many nations. I will make you
exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from
you.” He continues to go on and explain
the promise that he has given to Abraham.
In Genesis
17:15-16, He makes it clear that this child is going to be through Abraham and
Sarah. “Then God said to Abraham, ‘As
for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. And I will bless her and also give you a son
by her; then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of
peoples shall be from her.’ ”
Verse 17 “Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed…” Sarah is not the only one who laughed. We often think of Sarah laughing because she
is hiding around the corner. Because she
chuckled, God said “You will name him Isaac, which
means laughter.”
Based on Romans 4,
Abraham finds this so incredible that he laughs. He says in Genesis 17:17, “…’Shall a child be born to a man who is one hundred years
old? And shall Sarah, who is ninety
years old, bear a child?’ ”
Abraham is still trying to work the angles and solve the problem
on his own and in verse 18-20 “And Abraham said to God, ‘Oh, that Ishmael might
live before You!’ Then God said: ‘No,
Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will
establish My covenant with him for an everlasting
covenant, and with his descendants after him.
And as for Ishmael [God had a different plan], I have heard you; Behold,
I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will
make him a great nation.’ ”
Ishmael is not viewed as a bad guy. He receives the grace of God, and I believe
Ishmael was probably saved. He receives
a blessing from God. It is not the
blessing that goes to the Jewish people and is related to the Abrahamic Covenant.
Verse 21 “ ‘But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah
shall bear to you at this set time next year.’ ” Now they have a specific time. Verse 24-27 “Abraham was ninety-nine years old
when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old
when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. That very same day
Abraham was circumcised, and his son Ishmael; and all the men of his house…” They fulfill the covenant because
circumcision is part of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Romans
Verse 17 “…in the
presence of Him whom he believed…” This
kind of cleans up the translation a little bit.
Some of the translators have gotten a little too wordy here. It begins in the Greek with an adverb that is
really a combination of two prepositions, and it governs the genitive
case. The only noun in the genitive case
is God, and God happens to be separated by three words from this adverb. In Greek you can do that without having to
put English in between. So it is really
“in the presence of God.” The “of”
indicates a genitive case. Then you have
a relative pronoun “whom he believed.” It
is a real clean, crisp translation. “…in
the presence of Him whom he believed – God, who gives life to the dead and
calls those things which do not exist as though they did.” That is the NKJV
translation which is better. The NASB shifts it for some reason “calls those things into
existence that did not exist.” In the
Greek, it says “calls those things that did not exist into existence.” It is a much stronger statement of ex nihilo creation, creation out of
nothing. God brings life where there is
death.
Think how many
times you read through the Old Testament and had this juxtaposition between
life and death. Moses tells the
Israelites as he gets ready to leave them “You need to choose this day between
life and death.” Joshua does the same
thing before he dies. “You need to
choose life or death.” When you get into
the prophets and you read especially in Kings, many times God is referred to as
the Living God. How many times did we
see episodes and miracles with Elijah and Elisha where those who died are given
life. There is
a healing related to life. Even when
Elisha dies and is in the grave, a person is thrown into the grave who is dead, and he is healed just by his contact with Elisha. I am not sure all the aspects that God is
trying to communicate, but one of the things is that He is a living God and is
the God of life and brings life where there is death.
This is what
Abraham understood. We recognize because
of Hebrews 12 that Abraham finally got it by Genesis 22 when God told him to
sacrifice Isaac that God was going to fulfill His promise. Even if he killed Isaac, God could raise him
from the dead. According to Romans, as
early as Genesis 17, Abraham is finally getting the picture that God is the one
who is going to bring life where there is death, so he just needs to trust Him.
Romans
You hear today in
all kinds of evangelical circles that “we just need to believe God.” But what exactly are we
believing is what I want to say?
“Well, just trust God that this will happen tomorrow.” I do not recall anywhere that God promised
that X would happen tomorrow. I can
trust God to sustain me, to give me wisdom in the midst of whatever circumstances
present themselves so that I can apply the word to that, but I cannot just
believe that God is going to do whatever I would like Him to do. It seems a little bit presumptuous and
arrogant, if you ask me.
But here that is
not what Abraham is doing. Abraham has a
specific promise from God to him. That
is one of the most important things in claiming promises: Make sure it is a promise that you can
claim. Make sure that you are not
reading your neighbor’s mail. That is
what happens a lot of times with some Old Testament promises because it is a
promise in a particular situation to a particular group of people in a specific
historical set of circumstances. We sort
of grab it because it is a nice promise and say, “Well, that relates to
me.” The trouble is that it was
addressed to your next door neighbor, the Jewish people, and not addressed to
the church. You have to make sure that a
promise really is for us, and then when it is, we can claim it. We see the dynamics of what it means to claim
a promise in these verses.
Romans
In Romans 4:19, he
is not being weak in faith, and it is not that faith is viewed here as being in
grades – a little faith or a lot of faith.
It is simply that he was not weak in faith. It is a positive way of saying that he was
strong. In verse 20, the English
translations usually mess it up a little and say that he was fully persuaded. You are either persuaded or not
persuaded. Fully does not enter into it
– there are no gradations of persuaded.
If I tell you that it is raining outside, you either believe me or you
do not believe me. You do not say,
“Well, I believe you a little bit.”
(That is like being a little bit pregnant.)
The Greek word
that is used there does not present a gradation of confidence either. It is a certainty. He is not weak in faith, which is just
another way of saying, he was strong in faith.
“…he did not consider his own body…”
That word for consider is the Greek word katanoeo [katanoew], which means simply to observe, to notice, to
contemplate. He kind of looked at
himself like some of us have as we have gotten older and thought “I guess my
football playing days are over.” It is
just not going to happen anymore. He
looks at his own body and just does not take that into account. The promise of God is more real to him than
what he sees, how he feels when he wakes up in the morning, what has been going
on for the last 20 years – none of that matters. The promise of God is more real to him than
any experience, which is the way it should be for any of us.
Verse 19 “…he did
not consider his own body, already dead [incapable of sexual reproduction]
(since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s
womb.” They are both incapable. Verse 20 “He did not waver at the promise of
God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith…” He was either strengthened by means of faith,
or God strengthened his faith. I think
his conviction was strengthened by means of faith, by means of what he understood
to be true and what he believed that God was doing.
“He did not
waver…” That has the clear idea that he
did not doubt or hesitate. The Greek
word is diakrino [diakrinw], but it is used as an idiom of a person
who is striving with himself. They are
not really sure what kind of a decision to make. It is used in the context like this that he
was not indecisive about “the promise of God through unbelief, but was
strengthened in [by means of] faith, giving glory to God, (vs. 21) and being
fully convinced …”
Fully convinced is the Greek word plerophoretheis [plhroforhqeij], which has the idea of just being absolutely certain,
absolutely assured of a specific set of results. It is not fully convinced; it is just
convinced. How much more convinced do
you need to be than just being convinced?
If you are filling out your income tax return and you have double
checked all of your figures and are convinced you have done it right, do you
need to be any more convinced? No. Just like faith – faith means you believe
something is true. There are no grades
of faith; you do not have to have more faith or less faith. You just need to trust. When we trust, we know that something is
certain.
In Romans
Verse 22 “And
therefore it was accounted [imputed] to him for righteousness.” We have gone over the doctrine of imputation
that it is reckoned to him as righteousness.
This is an application now of that that because he believed God, he was
credited with righteousness.
In verses 23-25,
Paul is now going to summarize what he has said in terms of application for his
audience. He has gone through all this
Old Testament analysis, and he says in verse 23, “Now it was not written for
his sake alone…” This is not just dusty
old manuscripts in ancient history; it is not legendary myth. He says it was not just for Abraham’s sake
alone that it was imputed to him but also for us. “…It shall be imputed to us who believe in
Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.” Notice the object here is in the Father,
believing the promise of God in relation to Jesus Christ as our Savior. Jesus is identified as the one who was raised
from the dead.
Verse 25 “[Jesus]
who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our
justification.” We have two interesting
phrases. Both of them translate the same
Greek preposition. The first word which is
translated “delivered up” is the Greek word paredothe [paredoqh], which is an aorist passive indicative,
indicating that he receives the action of being given up. That word paradidomi [paradidomi] is the same word that is being used of
betrayal, Judas betrayed Him. It has the
idea also of being arrested and taken into custody by the Roman soldiers.
He is “delivered
up because of our offenses.” This is
where it gets really interesting in terms of understanding the Greek here. In this first use of this preposition dia [dia], it indicates that he is delivered, arrested, taken to the cross
because of our offenses, because He has to pay the price for our sins. It is very clear that that is the statement
related to accomplishing the work that is necessary for our justification. But the work that is done for our
justification, payment for our sins, was completed at the cross, not the
resurrection. Some people get confused
when they read the next clause “and was raised because
of our justification.” The resurrection
did not have anything to do with the soteriological
work of Christ on the cross. But this is
the same construction that we have in the previous causal phrase. Both of them have a dia plus the accusative.
The second use
should probably have the sense that He was raised on account of our
justification. In the sense that it was
a necessary effect of the payment of sin to express God’s approval of what had
been accomplished on the cross. Because
the payment for sin was complete, it was then necessary for God, as a
consequence, to raise Jesus from the dead.
So it has a little different sense, a causal sense, than the first
use. One writer has called the first one
“a perspective reference” in the sense of because of the need to or for the
sake of. It is the idea that Jesus was raised with the view to or for the sake
of our justification because the payment for sin had been accomplished already
on the cross.