Sola Gratia

6 · Carson establishes the hermeneutical principle that context determines meaning, then summarizes Romans 1:18–3:20 as demonstrating universal human guilt under divine wrath, positioning the coming passage as God's response to the problem just established

Let me offer one or two preliminary comments before we plunge in. My father was a Baptist pastor, and he taught me early on that a text without a context becomes a pretext for a proof text. So we need to pause and remind ourselves what the context of this paragraph is. The section immediately following it we'll look at in the second hour. The section immediately preceding it runs from 1.18 to 3.20, and essentially what Paul does is demonstrate that the entire world, Jew and Gentile alike, is under sin, under wrath from God.

7 · Carson clarifies that divine wrath is not emotional irritability but God's righteous opposition to rebellion, then unpacks Romans 1:18 to show that sin's essence is truth-suppression—a theological redefinition that challenges contemporary moral categories

Not that God is bad-tempered, but that he is in his character so adamantly opposed to all that is in rebellion against him that he must be just and condemn those who practice sin. In fact, the language is really startling. The wrath of God, 118, is being revealed from heaven against all godlessness and wickedness of people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. In other words, wickedness is not presented as doing naughty things, but first of all as that which suppresses the truth.

8 · Carson illustrates contemporary biblical illiteracy and changing cultural sensibilities through his decades of university evangelism, setting up a contrast between what students find interesting versus offensive, demonstrating how cultural shifts affect gospel reception

I have been doing university missions now for about 45 years, and during that time I have seen the questions that students ask change a little bit from generation to generation. Nowadays, there are two things that upset students. There is so much biblical illiteracy on our campuses that most students who are unbelievers at these meetings have never heard of Abraham. They don't know the Bible has two testaments. They probably haven't heard of Moses, or else they confuse him with Charlton Heston, or the latest cartoon rendition, Thereof. But there are two things that will upset them.

9 · Carson catalogues core Christian doctrines that contemporary students find intellectually curious but not morally offensive—substitutionary atonement, the Trinity, and the resurrection—establishing that traditional theological distinctives no longer trigger hostility in secular culture

If I start talking about substitutionary atonement and try to present it in contemporary form, they're not upset. They think it's a bit odd, but is that what Christians believe? I haven't heard that before. And if I try to unpack in an introductory way that God is triune, They think it's a really odd way of doing mathematics, but nevertheless, if that's what Christians believe, it's interesting. They're not offended by it. If I insist that Jesus rose from the dead and was touched and handled and so on, well, that's a lot to believe, but okay, if that's what Christians believe, fair enough, interesting.

10 · Carson diagnoses contemporary Western culture's hostility to the doctrine of sin, explaining that the modern ideal of authenticity—living consistently with self-chosen identity—creates a moral framework in which biblical categories of sin and divine moral standards become culturally offensive

What upsets them? Where will they get angry with me? in two places. Number one, when I say anything about sin. For sin in the contemporary Western world is a social construct. We define our own rights and wrong. Not only so, but We establish our own identities. We choose our own identities. As the Canadian cultural commentator Charles Taylor points out, people today admire what they call authenticity. This is the age of authenticity. And people are judged to be truly authentic when they live in line with what they choose. Now, what you choose may be, from some perspectives, bizarre. But if you live in line with what you choose, authentically, then you are an authentic person. And you have that right, indeed even that mandate, to choose your identity. Whether it's your gender identity, your intellectual identity, your cultural identity, nowadays increasingly even your racial identity. And if you live in line with your self-chosen identity, which includes your conduct and your reading and your value systems and so on. And you live consistently with that self-chosen identity. You are an authentic person and therefore to be admired.

11 · Carson reframes contemporary authenticity as the biblical category of sin by identifying its essence as the assertion of autonomy over God's creational design, maintaining the creator-creature distinction as the boundary authenticity transgresses

But from a biblical perspective, of course, that really means admiring sin. We have turned everyone to his own way. For the very heart of sin is the suppression of the truth of who God is and what human beings are in relation to him, his creatures, not the Creator, with an immense gap between creator and creature.

12 · Carson identifies Christ's exclusive claims as the second major offense to contemporary culture, cataloguing the cultural epithets deployed against this doctrine while quoting Jesus' own words from John 14:6 to establish the biblical basis for exclusivity

The second thing that they find offensive is the exclusive claim of Christ. I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except by me. It's just too narrow. It's too bigoted. It's too right-wing. It's too narrow. It's too exclusive.

13 · Carson concludes his cultural diagnosis by asserting that removing the doctrines of sin and Christ's exclusivity empties Christianity of substance, establishing that gospel offense is not incidental but essential to its character

But there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved. So if you rule out the biblical view of sin, and you rule out the exclusive claims of the gospel, you don't have a whale of a lot left. For the truth of the matter is that the gospel still causes enormous offense.

14 · Carson establishes the hermeneutical principle that theological solutions must correspond to the problems they address, arguing that Romans 3:21-26's solution of justification can only be understood in light of Romans 1:18–3:20's problem of universal human guilt under wrath

And it is impossible to get a right understanding of chapter 3, 21 to 26, unless you get a right understanding of 118 to 320. 118 to 320 sets out the problem to be addressed. 321 to 26 provides the solution. And the problem and the solution must match. That is to say, to understand what it is that the solution is fixing, you must have some knowledge of the problem.

15 · Carson establishes the theological interdependence of sin and grace, arguing that the doctrines mutually interpret each other—understanding either requires understanding both, and the credibility of one depends on the credibility of the other

You cannot get a good understanding of the cross and of the grace of God without having some sort of good understanding of the nature of sin and our lostness. And vice versa, they hang together, they hang together or they fall together.

16 · Carson quotes Romans 3:10-18's catena of Old Testament passages to summarize Paul's indictment of universal human sinfulness, allowing the accumulating biblical testimony to establish the comprehensive nature of human moral failure

Now, we don't have time to unpack 118 to 320, but it is important to understand that all that is said in those chapters about the wrath of God, about Jews and Gentiles alike being under the curse, about the perversion of our identities, including our sexual identities, is all summarized finally in this catena of quotations that is frankly scary toward the end of the section, 310. There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands. There is the suppression of the truth. There is no one who seeks God. All have turned away. They have together become worthless. There is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves. Their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. Ruin and misery mark their ways. The way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

17 · Carson pivots from exposition to pastoral application by addressing the congregation directly, insisting that Romans 3's indictment applies to the church itself apart from grace, preventing them from externalizing the diagnosis of sin onto unbelievers

Understand, brothers and sisters, this is not being said of them out there, it's being said of us, of human beings, who fall under this description by nature and by choice, apart from the grace of God.

18 · Carson signals the completion of his first preliminary point about the contextual relationship between Romans 1:18–3:20 and 3:21-26, preparing to introduce his second preliminary observation

So that's the first preliminary thing to observe.

19 · Carson establishes that justification by faith is not confined to Pauline epistles but pervades the entire biblical canon, often appearing in different theological vocabularies, thereby establishing the doctrine's canonical breadth and preventing an artificially narrow proof-texting approach

Second, this I can mention only briefly in passing, what the Bible says about justification before God turns on much more than Paul's letters to the Romans and the Galatians. We think of those passages because justification language is used very powerfully in them. But with a little biblical theology, we quickly discover that these themes run through the entire canon, sometimes in different expressions.

20 · Carson demonstrates justification theology in Jesus' teaching by retelling the parable of the Pharisee and tax collector, showing that the concept appears in narrative form in the Gospels, not just propositional form in Paul, while adding the contemporary detail about the OPC to highlight self-righteousness

Think of a passage like Luke 18. Two men went up to the temple to pray. And one lifted his face to heaven and said, I thank you, God, that I am not as other men are. I fast. I pray, I give alms, I go to the local OPC. I am not like other men. And the other, the other, a poor sinner, doesn't even have the courage to raise his face to heaven, but beats his breast and cries, God, be merciful to me, a sinner. And Jesus says, This one went home justified. The other man went home self-justified.

21 · Carson demonstrates that while Hebrews uses priestly rather than forensic categories, it addresses the identical soteriological problem—acceptance before God—establishing that different biblical authors tackle the same core theological question using their tradition's distinctive vocabulary

It doesn't take Romans and Galatians. It takes the parables of Jesus, amongst other things. Or consider the letter to the Hebrews. Less in forensic category, more in priestly categories. But again, the question of how to handle sin before God is at the very heart of it. How does one get accepted before God? That is the problem that runs right through scripture.

22 · Carson articulates Luther's famous dictum about justification as the article by which the church stands or falls, then contrasts the Reformation's central question—acceptance before God—with contemporary culture's therapeutic questions about happiness and fulfillment, diagnosing a categorical mismatch between biblical and cultural concerns

Number three. It is for this reason that Luther insists that the church stands or falls on the doctrine of justification. That is, the fundamental question that the reformers recognized faces all of us is, how shall we be right with God? Not, how shall we be happy? How shall we be fulfilled? How shall we have a blessed existence? But how shall we be acceptable to God? How shall we be right with God? Granted the Bible's storyline, that is the fundamental question that must be asked, the fundamental question that is almost never asked in our culture.

23 · Carson shifts from diagnosis to missional strategy, arguing that effective gospel communication requires first raising the question of acceptance before God in a culture that no longer asks it, positioning evangelism as consciousness-raising before answer-giving

It is very difficult to get a hearing that answers that question when the question itself is not being asked. So part of our job in bearing witness and speaking and preaching in this culture is how to raise that question to a level of consciousness. Do you see?

24 · Carson restates his earlier hermeneutical principle—that theological solutions must correspond to their problems—now applied apologetically to show why gospel communication fails when the cultural conversation operates with different problem definitions

Because once again, unless we agree on what the problem is, we certainly aren't going to agree on what the solution is.

25 · Carson establishes the theological framework of inaugurated eschatology—the already-not-yet tension of living between Christ's first and second advents—using standard examples (Christ's contested reign, eternal life without resurrection) to prepare for his novel application of this framework to justification

Finally, still by way of introduction, justification by grace alone through faith alone, is one of the most startling elements of inaugurated eschatology. Let me explain. Eschatology, as I'm sure you know, focuses on the last things. But it is a truism to observe that in many ways the things that belong to the end of the age have already, in some measure, dawned. So Christ is reigning but of course his reign is still being contested. Already we have eternal life, but not yet resurrection life. Already we have the spirit as the down payment of the promised inheritance, but there is so much we do not yet have. So the end has already been inaugurated. It's a kind of inaugurated eschatology. We live between, as so many have said, between the already and the not yet. That's common enough.

26 · Carson argues that justification exemplifies inaugurated eschatology by bringing forward the final judgment's verdict into the present—God pronounces now the sentence that properly belongs to the eschaton, declaring believers just before the final tribunal based on Christ's completed work

But we sometimes forget that justification is one of the best indications of this inaugurated eschatology. Because God's determination of where we will end up in eternity, you would think, belongs to the end. You die and face judgment and you say, as it were, I'd like in. And God says, as it were, why should I let you in here? And if he says, all right, all right, you're in, then you are justified, you are declared just, you are acceptable before God. And if he says you are not in, you are not just, then you are guilty and you are condemned. You think that would take place at the end, the last judgment. But the notion of justification in the New Testament is that God declares some men and women by His grace, received by faith, just now. It's inaugurated eschatology. The final sentence at the end has already been pronounced on the basis of what another has done, Christ Jesus Himself.

27 · Carson draws out the logical entailment of present justification—if God's eschatological verdict is already rendered, believers can have present assurance of their eternal standing, establishing the connection between justification and the doctrine of assurance

In other words, the doctrine of justification, well and truly understood, is one of the most powerful evidences of inaugurated eschatology that you find in all of holy writ. And it is for this reason that another doctrine is kicked up in the discussion, namely the doctrine of assurance. If God has pronounced that you are just, then you can be assured that you are just in his sight.

28 · Carson contrasts Protestant and Catholic teaching on assurance, showing that the Reformed doctrine flows from justification's eschatological structure while Catholic teaching forbids present certainty of justification, supporting his claim with a citation from 1 John that explicitly promises present knowledge of eternal life

And thus, there was a huge hiatus that developed between, on the one hand, the Reformers, and on the other hand, the Catholic Church. Buy a copy for yourself of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the latest English edition is 1993, and read what it says about assurance. It condemns to perdition those who claim that now they can know that they are truly justified before God. Whereas the Apostle John can write, I have written to you these things in order that you may know that you have eternal life.

29 · Carson completes his preliminary observations and pivots to the main exposition by acknowledging the paragraph's theological density, diagnosing the congregation's likely experience (comfort with familiar vocabulary without comprehension of argument), and setting the agenda to understand how the passage's logic flows rather than merely defining individual terms

So now we come to our text. What Paul does in this paragraph is establish four points. He sets forth four things. Now, this paragraph is dense. It's one of those paragraphs with many theological words, and when you read it through, you are comforted in some ways by hearing so many theological words tumble one after the other, but that doesn't mean you understand them. You understand each individual word, and you may understand each when you pull it out and look at it all by itself, but how does the argument of the paragraph as a whole work? That's what we're aiming toward now.

30 · Carson announces his expositional structure—four major theological moves in the passage—and introduces the first: the relationship between the revelation of God's righteousness under the new covenant and the Old Testament witness, establishing verse 21 as the text for this first point

Paul sets forth four things, and when you see the four things flowing together, you will understand this paragraph better than if you approach the verses piecemeal. So he sets forth four things. Number one, he sets forth the revelation of God's righteousness in its relationship to the Old Testament. I repeat, he sets forth the revelation of God's righteousness in its relationship to the Old Testament, verse 21.

31 · Carson performs close textual analysis of the word 'now' in verse 21, arguing that it functions as a temporal marker signaling a shift in redemption history rather than merely a logical transition, thereby setting up the question of what distinguishes the new covenant from the old

Begin with the word now. The expression but now can be merely a kind of logical, inferential particle. But, in fact, there's good reason for thinking that the now is to be taken seriously as a temporal marker. But now, at this point in the history of redemption. But if that's the case, what is the contrast between the old and the now? But now, something new is coming in, otherwise you don't have to stress the now. What is the difference?

32 · Carson introduces a common interpretation of the old-new contrast—that the old covenant emphasizes wrath while the new emphasizes love—acknowledging its intuitive appeal before signaling his disagreement, setting up a rebuttal of this popular reading

Some commentators say that in the past, under the old covenant, there is a greater demonstration of the judgment of God, of the wrath of God. But now, under the terms of the new covenant, things are gentler, softer, a greater demonstration of God's love. But with the best will in the world, I find that hard to swallow. I know how it looks almost intuitively with a superficial reading.

33 · Carson confesses his own past tendency toward this bifurcated reading of the Testaments, demonstrating pastoral vulnerability while showing how Romans 5:8 can be misread to support the wrath-then-love-now schema, establishing sympathy with the congregation's likely intuitions before correcting them

I have caught myself in the past on occasion reading through the Old Testament depictions of God's relationship with his people and thinking to myself, boy, I'm sure glad I didn't live then. And all those plagues and wars and judgments and famines, and here we go again, an exile. And over against that, God commences love toward us, and while we're yet sinners, Christ died for us. That sounds pretty good to me. So therefore, that's the old, and now we live in the but now.

34 · Carson begins his rebuttal by marshaling Old Testament evidence of divine grace, mercy, and patience, demonstrating that the Hebrew Scriptures contain abundant testimony to God's love that contradicts the wrath-then-love-now schema

The problem is, of course, that the Old Testament stresses again and again and again the grace and goodness of God. As a father pities his children, so the Lord remembers our frame. He knows that we're dust. He's slow to anger, abounding in mercy. Even when there is violence and sin in the people of God, God extends his patience often for a generation, two generations, three generations.

35 · Carson completes his rebuttal by showing the New Testament contains intensified wrath language, especially from Jesus, thereby establishing that the covenant transition does not move from wrath to love but intensifies both simultaneously

And in the New Testament, yes, it's true, we have the cross. turn the other cheek, and so on. But we also have, from the lips of Jesus himself, far, far more depiction of eternal torment than we get in the Old Testament.

36 · Carson reads Revelation 14:18-20's graphic depiction of divine judgment, allowing the apocalyptic imagery to speak for itself as evidence that the New Testament's portrayal of wrath is not softer than the Old Testament's but if anything more severe

What do you do with a passage like this at the end of Revelation 14? Still another angel, 1418, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth's vine, because its grapes are ripe. The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes, and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. They were trampled in the wine-press outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horse's bridles for a distance of sixteen hundred stadia.

37 · Carson explicates the Revelation 14 imagery by explaining ancient winepress mechanics, then applies the metaphor to judgment, arguing that even granting metaphorical reading does not soften the horror—metaphors point to realities proportionate to their graphic intensity

The picture, of course, is of an ancient wine press, a large stone vat into which the grapes were thrown. At the bottom of the vat were holes where the juice could flow out in stone channels to underground jars of stone that collected the grape juice from which the wine would be made. And the serving girls would kick off their sandals and start tromping down the graves, squishing out the Jews. But now people are being thrown into the great wine press of God's wrath until their blood rises to the height of a horse's bridle for a distance of 200 miles. Now leave all the space you like for saying it's metaphorical. The fact of the matter is it's metaphorical of something pretty hideous.

38 · Carson articulates his alternative interpretation: covenant transition intensifies both love and wrath simultaneously rather than moving from one to the other, then diagnoses why modern readers miss this—cultural conditioning makes temporal judgments seem more serious than eternal ones

Now try to convince yourself again that the depiction of God is softer in the New Testament. When we move from the old to the new, I don't think we are moving from harshness to softness or from wrath to love. Rather, when we move from the old to the new, Just as the picture of the love of God is ratcheted up in clarity and intensity, so the depiction of the wrath of God is ratcheted up in clarity and intensity. The reason we don't see it is because we are so attuned by our culture to have greater fear of famine, war and pestilence than we are of hell.

39 · Carson completes his theological argument by identifying the cross as the point where intensified wrath and intensified love converge, positioning this as Romans 3:21-26's central claim and preparing for his exposition of how the passage demonstrates this convergence

But take the Bible in its own terms and it seems to me almost self-evident that the wrath of God is ratcheted up with the more recent revelation and the love of God is ratcheted up with the more recent revelation until they come spectacularly together in the cross. That is what this paragraph finally is about.

40 · Carson returns to close exegesis of Romans 3:21, interpreting 'apart from the law' as referring to the law covenant structure rather than moral law, establishing that God's righteousness is now revealed in a different covenantal matrix—the new covenant rather than the old

So, but now, apart from the law, that is, apart from the law covenant, the righteousness of God has been made known. In other words, the context, the matrix in which the righteousness of God was made known under the terms of the old covenant is no longer the matrix in which it's made known now because we have passed to a new covenant.

41 · Carson addresses the heretical move of Marcionism by establishing that while believers are not under the law covenant, the Old Testament Scriptures remain authoritative because they testify to the new covenant righteousness, establishing continuity between the Testaments even while acknowledging covenantal shift

Now this does not warrant us for thinking that with the dawning of the New Covenant we can forget the Old Testament entirely. This is not warrant for the position of Marcion in the early church who wanted to get rid of the Old Covenant scriptures and indeed for part of the New Covenant if they sounded too Jewish. No, no, no. Because Paul immediately adds something else. But now, at this point in the history of redemption, apart from the Law Covenant, the righteousness of God has been made known. It's been made known in a different matrix, what he will elsewhere call the New Covenant. But to this, the Law and the Prophets testify. We may not be under the Law Covenant or under the New Covenant, which raises all kinds of questions about how you relate the Old Covenant to the New Covenant that Paul doesn't address here. What he does say, however, is that Whatever it is that we're under now, the law and the prophets testify to it. So we may not be under the law covenant, but the law and the prophets testify to what is going on now.

42 · Carson summarizes his first major point—that verse 21 establishes the relationship between new covenant righteousness and Old Testament testimony—completing the first of his four-part expositional structure

In other words, Paul sets forth the revelation of God's righteousness in its relationship to the Old Testament.

43 · Carson illustrates the Old Testament's testimony to new covenant realities through the Passover typology, showing how the annual memorial anticipated Christ as the ultimate Passover lamb whose sacrifice turns aside God's wrath, thereby demonstrating the principle just established about Old Testament witness to new covenant truth

Now, in many ways, this isn't anything new. It's something that we've known about for a long time if we've been Bible readers. After all, you have the Passover in the Old Testament with its continuing feast year by year, year by year, year by year, that looks back to the time when God, by his destructive angel, passed over the houses that were secured by the blood of the Lamb. Small wonder, then, that Paul writes to the Corinthians and says, Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed for us. Which means the wrath of God has passed over us, too. That is to say, the Law and the Prophets prophesied. They bore testimony, too. They anticipated. They look forward to the ultimate Passover sacrifice.

44 · Carson generalizes the typological principle beyond Passover, establishing that the Old Testament's prophetic testimony to new covenant realities operates across multiple fronts, reiterating that while the covenantal structure has changed, the Old Testament retains its witness-bearing function

And the same sort of reasoning takes place on front after front after front. The new covenant structure is that to which the law and the prophets testify. So although we do not approach the God of the Bible, as did the Jews who were under the law covenant, Yet the Law Covenant itself bore witness to, it testified to what is now here among us.

45 · Carson announces his second major expositional point, emphasizing the universal availability of justification across racial boundaries while maintaining faith as the necessary condition, establishing verses 22-23 as the textual location for this argument

Second, Paul sets forth the availability of God's righteousness to all human beings without racial distinction, but on condition of faith. Let me repeat. Paul sets forth the availability of God's righteousness to all human beings without racial distinction, but on condition of faith. Verses 22 and 23.

46 · Carson begins close exegesis of verses 22-23 by noting the repetition of righteousness language and the universal scope, then signals an interpretive controversy that has emerged in recent scholarship, setting up his engagement with the 'faithfulness of Christ' debate

Now, verse 21 spoke of the righteousness of God. Verse 22 picks it up. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Now, in the last few decades, these two verses have kicked up a fire of debate. You'd think it would be straightforward, but let me explain what the problem is.

47 · Carson explains English etymology to establish that while 'faith' and 'believe' sound different in English due to distinct linguistic roots, they translate the same Greek root, setting up his argument that the NIV's rendering obscures an apparent repetition in the Greek text

In English, and in a lot of languages, but certainly in English, our noun, faith, sounds different from our verb, to believe. That's because they come from different roots. The reason for that is that English had... many languages that have contributed to the formation of our words. So some come from Indo-European roots through Greek and Latin and so on, and others have come from other sources, Celtic sources and so on, so that we sometimes have different words with roughly the same meaning. or one set of words has fed into our nouns and another set of words has fed into our verbs. That's the way it is with faith and belief. But in Greek it's the same root.

48 · Carson re-translates verse 22 using 'trust' for both noun and verb to replicate the Greek's repetition, making audible what English translations obscure—that Paul uses the same root twice in quick succession, which sets up the scholarly debate about whether this repetition is intentional or merely stylistic

So now, reminding us that it's the same root, let me translate this again using words that are the same. This righteousness is given through trust in Jesus Christ to all who trust. You see, I use trust both ways, it's given through trust the noun to all who trust the verb, in which case you immediately notice that it does sound a bit repetitive. This righteousness is given through trust in Jesus Christ to all who trust, that's the way it reads in Greek with the same sounding word, do you see?

49 · Carson explains the alternative 'faithfulness of Christ' translation that has gained scholarly popularity, showing how it eliminates the apparent repetition by making the first instance refer to Christ's faithfulness rather than human faith in Christ, establishing the interpretive stakes before offering his rebuttal

But people have noticed that the Greek word for faith can sometimes mean faithfulness. Don't they want to render it this way? This gets rid of the repeated notion. This righteousness is given through. Faithfulness of Jesus Christ instead of faith in Jesus Christ, it's given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe. Now that way, you don't have any repetition. You've got faithfulness of Jesus Christ to those who trust, to those who believe in Jesus Christ, and no repetition. This has become a very popular rendering today.

50 · Carson rejects the 'faithfulness of Christ' reading for this context while acknowledging Christ's faithfulness as a legitimate biblical theme elsewhere, then demonstrates that the repetition is intentional—serving Paul's rhetorical purpose of emphasizing universal access through faith by connecting verses 22-23 back to the universal guilt established in chapters 1-3

And for a large part, it is wrong. But it is popular. There's nothing heretical about it. Because in some ways, of course, it does come about through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. That's a big theme in the epistle of Hebrews, for example. But it's wrong here. The notion of faith is repeated, is right here in the text itself. This righteousness is given through trust in Jesus Christ. Now repeat it. To all who trust. Why? because there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned.

51 · Carson demonstrates the logical flow connecting verses 22-23 to Romans 1:18–3:20, showing how the double use of 'all' (all have sinned, all who trust) creates structural symmetry—universal guilt met by universal offer—establishing the passage's rhetorical architecture

In other words, all the emphasis is on the all. We've just had two and a half chapters to establish the universality of human guilt. Jews and Gentiles alike, all have sinned. And now we're told that this righteousness from God, to which the Law and the Prophets testify, this righteousness from God, is given through trust in Jesus Christ. Pick that up again to all trust, for there is no difference between Jew and Gentile for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. In other words, verses two and three are precisely what ties this paragraph to the previous three chapters. Do you see the logic?

52 · Carson draws out the anti-racist implications of universal justification by faith, cataloguing human diversity (height, skin color, language, culture) to emphasize that faith alone—not racial or cultural category—determines access to God, grounding the ethical rejection of racism in the doctrine of justification

In other words, Paul sets forth the availability of God's righteousness to human beings without racial distinction, Jew and Gentile, and thus, in principle, to 4'6 Pygmies in Bolivia, to 6'6 Swedes, to people with very, very pale skin from Ireland. and from very, very black skin from Central Africa. People with red skin and brown skin and yellow skin and different languages and cultures. Around the throne on the last day there will be men and women from every tongue and tribe and people and nation. That's precisely why racism ought to be utterly abhorrent to Christians. We have the same access to God. We are all lost and damned. And the righteousness that we need that makes us acceptable before God is available to human beings without racial distinction, but on condition of faith.

53 · Carson qualifies his emphasis on faith as condition by acknowledging faith itself as God's gift while maintaining that this gift is distributed by divine sovereignty rather than racial category, thereby preserving both human responsibility (faith as condition) and divine sovereignty (faith as gift) without contradiction

I know that faith is a gracious gift of God, but God's gracious gift of faith is itself not given on the basis of racial distinction. but on the basis of God's sovereign sway. So here, Paul sets forth the availability of God's righteousness to all human beings without racial distinction, but on condition of faith.

54 · Carson announces his third major expositional point, identifying verses 24-25a as establishing Christ's atoning sacrifice as the source of the righteousness that has been made available universally through faith, connecting this third point to the preceding two through careful recap

Paul sets forth the source of God's righteousness in God's gracious provision of Christ Jesus as the sacrifice of atonement, as the propitiation, various words are used, we'll come to that in a moment, for our sins. God sets forth the source of God's righteousness, the righteousness that we need, that has come to us apart from the law covenant, but under the terms of the new covenant to which the law testifies, that which has come to Jews and Gentiles alike, verses 22 and 23. Now, the source of God's righteousness in God's gracious provision of Christ Jesus as the propitiation for our sins, verses 24 and 25 a.

55 · Carson reads verses 22-25a continuously to show grammatical flow, then catalogues the theological vocabulary compressed into this passage (justified, grace, redemption, sacrifice of atonement, blood, faith), preparing to unpack each term's meaning in what follows

So, picking up the flow grammatically from 22, this righteousness, mentioned in verse 21, this righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by His grace. Through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus, God presented Christ as the NIV sacrifice of atonement through the shedding of his blood to be received by faith. So think of all the theological words you've got packed in there. Justified. Grace. Redemption. Sacrifice of atonement. Blood. Faith.

56 · Carson diagnoses both cultural and Christian problems with theological vocabulary—unbelievers have lost religious language while believers use it as comfortable jargon without understanding—establishing the pastoral urgency of careful definition and preventing the congregation from assuming they understand terms merely because they're familiar

Now I guarantee that on the streets of Sheboygan, or on the streets of Chicago for that matter, there are not a lot of ordinary unbelievers who use those words commonly in their speech. One of the things that is most dramatic about the development of Western culture in the last half century is the loss of religious vocabulary. And we'll see in the next talk, in fact, that some of the crucial terms that are used are used in very different ways from the way they're used in the Bible. On the other hand, our problem as Christians is that we've picked up the jargon. We can use all the words, but that doesn't mean that we use them well. And sometimes they're sort of comforting. We can tag one theological word on to another in our prayers and make them sound really, really theological. without pausing to think how spectacularly revelatory these words really are. So let's pick up some of them as we run through.

57 · Carson begins unpacking theological vocabulary by defining 'justified' and 'grace' briefly, then focuses extended attention on 'redemption,' showing how the term has largely disappeared from contemporary vocabulary by contrasting ancient pawnshop usage with modern legal technicalities, establishing cultural distance from the biblical concept

All are justified. You've said a bit about that. That is declared just. Freely by His grace. I'll say more about that in a moment. God's unmerited favor. Through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. How many people in Sheboygan use the word redemption in their common language? In the era when there were more pawn shops, we spoke of redemption. You'd hawk your grandfather's watch to get a little bit of money. When you have enough money, you go and redeem it. You pay some money to buy it back, to release it from its captivity. captivity in the hands of the pawnbroker. But nowadays there aren't a lot of pawnshops around. Redemption language is still used in technical legal papers when you burn your mortgage. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's used here and there. But let's be quite frank. You could run from week to week and month to month and year to year and never use the word redemption in ordinary speech.

58 · Carson explains ancient slavery's economic basis through bankruptcy laws' absence, showing how debt-slavery differed from racial slavery and establishing the social context in which 'redemption' language naturally functioned in Paul's world—the buying back of those enslaved through economic misfortune

But in the first century, redemption was pretty common language. And where it was used most frequently in the secular world of the first century was in the slave trade. The reason is that in those times you could become a slave the way African-Americans became slaves, that is by being kidnapped and sold on the west coast of Africa and being brought across the Atlantic and bought. Yes, you could be slaved because of a war or a skirmish or the like. But you could be enslaved in the ancient world because there were no bankruptcy protection laws. There was no chapter 11 or chapter 13. So if you borrow some money from a friend, or an enemy for that matter, from an institution, in order to increase your business, and then the economy tanks, you have no choice but to sell yourself, and perhaps your family, into slavery.

59 · Carson contrasts ancient economic slavery with American racial slavery, showing that first-century slavery crossed all ethnic boundaries since it resulted from economic circumstances rather than racial category, which helps his audience avoid importing later racialized slavery concepts into Paul's redemption language

And that meant that slavery in the ancient world was not associated with a particular race. There were Africans who were slaves, but Africans who were free, and Africans who were noble. There were Germans who were slaves, and Germans who were free, and Germans who were noble. There were Italians, and Jews, and Brits who were slaves, and others who were free, and still others who were noble. It wasn't associated with race as it was in the American experience of slavery.

60 · Carson constructs a detailed hypothetical scenario of ancient redemption practice, showing how a relative would pay to free an enslaved family member, establishing the concrete transactional meaning of redemption—paying a price to secure freedom—before applying the metaphor to Christ's work

But if you became a slave, there was a means by which, at least in theory, you could be redeemed. Supposing you sell yourself into slavery because of the bankruptcy laws, and then your cousin, who lives 20 miles away, that's a full day's journey. Without a cell phone. Or a newspaper. Or an iPad. It might be weeks before he hears about this event, but eventually, your cousin, 20 miles away, hears about your enslavement and decides, I think I've got enough cash, I'll buy him back. So he comes, and there was a complicated procedure through the local pagan temples that I needn't go into, but in essence, what your cousin is doing is redeeming you. He is paying something to set you free.

61 · Carson transitions from the social practice of redemption to its theological use in the Exodus narrative, showing how God's redemption of Israel from Egypt becomes the canonical model for divine liberation, establishing redemption as the theological foundation for covenant obligation in the Decalogue's preamble

And that introduces us to the larger world of redemption. In the Old Testament, God redeems his people from slavery in Egypt. He pays it off, as it were, through the plagues and through his mighty arm and through what he does to save his people. And so the freedom from slavery becomes the quintessential type, the quintessential model of God's freeing his people in the Old Testament. Everybody looks back to what God has done in redeeming his people. In fact, the redemption of his people from slavery is the preface to the introduction to the Decalogue. Because God is the God who has redeemed us, now I'm giving you these laws. In other words, the redemption that God provides becomes the basis upon which God's demands are established.

62 · Carson applies the redemption metaphor to Christ's work, explaining that Christ bought believers out of slavery to sin, setting them free through a price (His blood) rather than silver or gold, while noting that the mechanism of this redemption will be explained in verses 25-26

So now we're told, all, that is without distinction, Not without exception, that would mean universalism. But all, without distinction, are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. That is, Christ Jesus bought them out and thus set them free. Now here we're not told yet exactly how He bought them out. paying not with silver or gold, as Peter says elsewhere, but with God's sacrifice in Christ Jesus, by the blood of Christ Jesus. That's going to be unpacked in the following verses.

63 · Carson introduces the translation controversy over the Greek term rendered variously as propitiation, expiation, or sacrifice of atonement, signaling that significant theological stakes depend on which English word is chosen, and preparing to define each option and defend his preferred rendering

God presented, God justified them freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. And then a little picture of how He did it. God presented Christ as a... Now our versions differ. The King James Version has propitiation. The RSV has expiation. The NIV has sacrifice of atonement. What do the terms mean? What difference do they make?

64 · Carson explains translation theory complications arising from vocabulary size differences across languages, using French's single word for both expiation and propitiation as example, establishing that the theological question can't be settled by English word choice alone but requires understanding the Greek term's semantic range

You have to realize once again that You must ask the question in the original language, because, for example, French, in which I was brought up, I was brought up a French-Canadian. There is no different word in French for expiation-propitiation. One word is used for both, so you have to explain what you mean. Some languages are richer in vocabulary than others. English has a total of about three times as many words as French does. And this leads to some real challenges sometimes in translation theory. But what is meant here?

65 · Carson systematically defines expiation (sacrifice that cancels sin), propitiation (sacrifice that makes God favorable), and sacrifice of atonement (general term embracing both), using pagan religious practice to illustrate propitiation's meaning while showing how the terms differ in their object—sin versus God

Well, understand what the words mean in English. In expiation, a sacrifice is provided that cancels sin. The object of expiation is sin. If Christ's sacrifice is an expiation, then Christ's sacrifice cancels sin. That's what expiation means. If the word is propitiation, then the sacrifice is that by which God is propitiated, that is, made propitious, made favorable. The word was used in a lot of pagan theology. The pagan gods were notoriously bad-tempered and whimsical. So you wanted to offer them sacrifices to make them propitious, to make them favorable. So you're going to go on a sea voyage across the Mediterranean. You offer sacrifices to Neptune. propitiatory sacrifices, because you want Neptune to be propitious, that is, to be favorable towards you. So, in the case of propitiation, the object of the sacrifice is the gods in the pagan world, or God himself in the biblical world. In expiation, the object of the sacrifice is sin. You cancel the sin by the sacrifice. In propitiation, you make God, or in the pagan world, the gods, propitious favorable by offering a sacrifice that pleases the gods. Sacrifice of atonement is a more general expression that embraces both of them.

66 · Carson introduces C

So what is meant here? Well, the King James Version, as I've said, has propitiation, and so that became the standard in English-speaking countries all around the world until the last century. The discourse changed in 1933. There was an English professor by the name of Dodd, D-O-D-D, C.H. Dodd. C.H. Dodd made a profession of faith during the Welsh Revival in 1904-1905. But although he retained his piety to the end of a long life, he nevertheless adopted more and more and more liberal positions. He had a massive mind.

67 · Carson illustrates Dodd's intellectual prowess through the BBC interview anecdote where Dodd claims he could reproduce the entire Greek New Testament from memory, using this story to establish Dodd's scholarly credibility before demonstrating that brilliant minds can misinterpret Scripture

I heard him on the radio, the BBC radio, when I was in first year of doctoral studies in 1972 in Britain. And everybody knew what a massive mind he had. And he had just celebrated his 90th birthday, if I recall. And he was being interviewed on BBC 4, Radio 4, being asked a lot of questions. He was a bit of a celebrity, very articulate man. He was asked this question, amongst others. If by some spectacular freak, some unbelievable accident, every single copy of the Greek New Testament were destroyed, how much of it could you reproduce from memory? Oh, he said, all of it. The radio announcer said, All of it? And he said, well, yes, of course, it's only a little book.

68 · Carson draws the pastoral lesson from the Dodd anecdote—that intellectual brilliance and even perfect biblical memorization don't guarantee right interpretation or submission to Scripture's authority—establishing the principle that theological soundness requires more than mental capacity

And you realize that there are some minds that are stronger than others. But nevertheless, you can memorize a lot of the text and not necessarily respect the text.

69 · Carson presents Dodd's core argument against propitiation—that if God already loved the world enough to give His Son, then God cannot need to be made propitious by the Son's sacrifice, therefore the Greek term must mean expiation (canceling sin) rather than propitiation (turning aside wrath)

And he developed a real dislike of any notion of propitiation. Initially, his argument went like this, in his 1933 essay, which was then published a year or so later in a book called The Bible and the Greeks. His argument went like this. The Bible says, after all, that God so loved the world that he gave his son. If God so loves the world that he gives his son, then why does the son, by a sacrifice, have to make God propitious? He's already so propitious, so favorable, that he gives the son in the first place. So how can you speak of the son, by a sacrifice, making God propitious? Therefore, whatever the word means, it can't be propitiation. It must be, he says, expiation, the cancelling of sin.

70 · Carson explains how Dodd handled the obvious objection about God's wrath—by redefining wrath as an impersonal moral order rather than personal divine anger, thereby eliminating the need for propitiation while preserving expiation, which reveals the theological trajectory of denying propitiation

And eventually he was asked the question, it was inevitable, yes, but then why does the Bible speak about the wrath of God? If God is angry with us, then surely that anger has to be set aside, that's propitiation. And Dodd replied, well, Because we know that God so loved the world that He gave His Son, you must interpret the wrath of God to be a kind of colorful, metaphorical way of saying, in effect, that if you do bad stuff, bad stuff happens to you. It's sort of the moral order of the universe or something. It's not that God is actually wrathful against you. It's nothing personal. It's just... Don't you see the way things happen? What you reap, what you sow. You do bad stuff, bad stuff happens to you. But to speak of setting aside God's wrath when God has already been so propitious that He sends His Son in the first place doesn't make any sense.

71 · Carson narrates Dodd's editorial work on the New English Bible where Dodd called the propitiation text 'rubbish,' then shares the limerick written in response, using British humor to reveal how Dodd's rejection of propitiation stemmed from theological bias rather than exegetical necessity

And eventually he became so opposed to the notion of propitiation that in the New English Bible, a translation of which he was the chief editor, published in the late 50s or early 60s, he was heard in the senior committee, as he worked through this paragraph in the Greek text with the senior committee around him, he was heard to mutter under his breath, what rubbish this is. whereupon a Brit who was in that editorial committee wrote a limerick. There was a professor called Dodd, whose name was exceedingly odd. He spelt, if you please, his name with three D's, while one is sufficient for God. This limerick has precisely no theological weight, but it is a quintessentially English way of handling debate.

72 · Carson begins his rebuttal of Dodd by citing Leon Morris's definitive response, then articulates the biblical answer—that God simultaneously stands over against sinners in wrath (due to His holiness meeting our sin) and in love (due to His character), establishing that these are not sequential but simultaneous divine postures

But how shall we respond? How shall we respond to the fact that God is already so propitious that he sends his son? The answer, of course, and it has been set forth many, many times, by Eugenie Cole in 1955 in Westminster Theological Journal, superbly by Leon Morris in a book in 1961 called The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, which book is still in print. Sell your shirt and buy it. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. The argument, really, is this. Don't you see that in the Bible, God stands over against us in wrath because he is holy and our sin attracts his wrath. He stands over against us in love because he is that kind of God. You don't pit one against the other, they're both true.

73 · Carson establishes that God's love in sending Christ and God's wrath against sin are not contradictory but complementary—the sending flows from divine character while the wrath flows from divine holiness confronting sin, and both must be believed and proclaimed simultaneously

He stands over against us in wrath because our sins attract his righteous condemnation. He stands over against us in love, not because we deserve his love, but because he's that kind of God. So God so loved the world that he sent his son. That's what the text says. Believe it. Proclaim it. And indeed, in particular, Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. Believe it. Proclaim it. But that doesn't stop the fact that God stands over against us in wrath, because His holiness insists on maintaining His integrity as God.

74 · Carson answers his own rhetorical question by connecting the Greek term to the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant where blood was applied on the Day of Atonement, establishing the Old Testament typological background that includes both turning aside wrath and cleansing sin

What handles the wrath of God? What turns aside the wrath of God? Now, the word itself, that is used in Greek, it's hilosteion, although that makes no difference, It's often used to refer, not exclusively used, but often used to refer to the top of the Ark of the Covenant on which the high priest shed the blood of the Day of Atonement, Leviticus 16. To turn aside the wrath of God and to cleanse from sin, not only the priest and his family, but also the people of Israel.

75 · Carson argues that the Day of Atonement background requires both expiation (canceling sin) and propitiation (turning aside wrath) to be included in the term's meaning, defending the NIV's 'sacrifice of atonement' as capturing both dimensions rather than forcing a choice between them

I would argue that in that context, The notion of this noun includes both the cancelling of sin and the turning aside of the wrath of God, which is precisely why I rather like the NIV's Sacrifice of Atonement. That is, it includes propitiation, but includes expiation. It's not the turning aside of the wrath of God without dealing with sin, it cancels sin. But it's not canceling sin with no entailment on the wrath of God. Of course, it turns aside the wrath of God and makes God propitious where he was over against us in wrath, in righteous wrath before.

76 · Carson provides his final translation of verse 25a incorporating his exegesis, showing how God presented Christ as simultaneously turning aside wrath and canceling sin through blood sacrifice received by faith, bringing together all the theological components he has established

So what does the text say? God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, a sacrifice that turned aside the wrath of God. and cancel sin through the shedding of his blood, through his death, and this to be received by faith.

77 · Carson summarizes his third major expositional point, establishing that verses 24-25a identify Christ's atoning sacrifice as the source of the righteousness needed for final acceptance before God, completing the third movement of his four-part argument

In other words, what Paul does is set forth the source of God's righteousness, the righteousness that we need to be acceptable before him, to make us acceptable before him on the last day. He sets forth the source of this righteousness, in God's gracious provision of Christ Jesus as the sacrifice of atonement for our sins.

78 · Carson introduces a common illustration of substitutionary atonement—a judge who steps down to take the condemned's place—admitting he himself used this illustration in the past before recognizing its theological inadequacy, setting up a critique of the metaphor's limitations

You see, I think that one of the reasons why we sometimes have trouble with this is because of the metaphors and illustrations we sometimes use to get this idea across. Have you ever explained the gospel to a friend along the following lines? I have. I don't anymore, but But I have in the past. We say it's like a judge who when he sees the thug before him pronounces guilty and pronounces the sentence and then steps down off the bench, takes off his judicial robes and takes the place of the condemned, whether to write out a check for five thousand dollars or go to jail for six months or whatever it is. He takes the place of the condemned. And so we say that's what God in Christ has done. He he pronounces the guilty and then takes the punishment himself.

79 · Carson critiques the judge illustration by showing it fails when mapped onto Western legal systems where judges are neutral administrators of law rather than the offended party, making substitution unjust since judges must treat all defendants equally—if one deserves substitution, all do

Now, the problem with this illustration is that in any judicial system in a civilized world, that really doesn't work. Because, you see, in our system, if a judge did that, he or she would be unjust. In our world, a judge is an administrator of a bigger system, namely the law. you offend against the law, or you offend against the state, or in Britain you offend against the crown. And the judge is merely an administrator, hopefully a neutral administrator, of this larger system. And because he's a neutral administrator, he's got to handle everybody the same way. If he stands in for somebody who deserves to be punished, then he needs to do it for everybody. He's supposed to be a neutral administrator of the system and even-handed in all that he does. Do you see? Which is why the illustration looks a bit silly. When you think of American law, or British law, or Canadian law, or Western law in general, it looks a bit silly.

80 · Carson identifies a second failure of the judge illustration—that judges must recuse themselves when they are the victim, making it unjust to be both offended party and judge, which further demonstrates the metaphor's inadequacy for explaining divine justice

Not only so, but the judge is supposed to recuse himself if he has any connection with the thug. Supposing the thug has been arrested because he in fact bodily attacked the judge some months earlier. When the judge recognizes that the thug is the one that attacked him, he's supposed to recuse himself because he cannot be both victim and judge. That would be unjust.

81 · Carson contrasts God's judicial role with human judges—God is always the most offended party (Psalm 51:4), never recuses Himself because His justice is perfect, and is not a neutral administrator of a system bigger than Himself but the source of law, showing why the judge metaphor fundamentally fails

But you see, God is the one who was attacked. God is the most offended party. Against you only have I sinned and done this evil in your sight, David says quite rightly in Psalm 51. God is always the most offended party. You cheat on your income tax this coming April. The most offended party is not Uncle Sam. It's God. You cheat on your spouse. You blow up at your kids with your bad temper. The most offended party is not your spouse or your kids. It's God. And God never recuses Himself. Because His justice is perfect. He never recuses Himself. And He is not only the most offended party, but He is not a neutral arbitrator in a bigger system. It's not as if he's the administrator of a law structure that is bigger than he is. He's given the law structure. He's the offended party. He's at all.

82 · Carson concludes his critique by acknowledging that human illustrations can gesture toward substitution but ultimately fail at crucial theological points, then restates the biblical truth—God as offended party stands in wrath yet provides righteousness in Christ received by faith out of grace

It's why human illustrations ultimately, though they show something of substitution, they fail. They fail at crucial points. God. is the offended party. He stands over against us in righteous wrath. But out of sheer grace, he loves men and women from every tongue and tribe and people and nation, such that the righteousness that he provides in Christ is received by faith.

83 · Carson announces his fourth and final major expositional point, identifying verses 25b-26 as demonstrating how the cross reveals God's righteousness, correcting himself mid-sentence from 'demonstrates' to 'sets forth' to maintain consistency with his earlier structural language

And finally, Paul demonstrates Paul establishes, Paul sets forth, rather, the demonstration of the righteousness of God through the cross of Jesus Christ. 25b to 26.

84 · Carson restates his final point and acknowledges translation controversies in verses 25b-26 while deferring detailed debate, positioning himself to offer his interpretation while noting time constraints and promising Q&A later, thereby managing the sermon's pace while signaling interpretive complexity

Now, let me repeat that again. He sets forth the demonstration of the righteousness of God through the cross of Jesus Christ. Now, once again, there is a nest of translation challenges in this verse and a half. I think that this NIV has it right. I won't go through the debates, they would take too long, and it's just about time for a break. There will be a Q&A at the end of the second session, not this first session, but there will be a Q&A at the end of the second session. Let me tell you what I think this verse and a half means.

85 · Carson expounds verses 25b-26a, arguing that God's primary purpose in the cross was to demonstrate His own righteousness, not merely to save sinners, and that 'sins committed beforehand' refers specifically to Old Testament believers' sins that were left ultimately unpunished under the old covenant

God did this, 25b, that is, this refers to the setting forth of Christ, presenting Christ as a sacrifice of atonement. God did this, we are told, to demonstrate his righteousness. Not first and foremost to save us, though he does that too, but to demonstrate his righteousness because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. That is, the sins to which he is referring, as far as I can see, are the sins of God's covenant people in the Old Testament. The sins committed beforehand, before the now, before the coming of Christ, before his crossword.

86 · Carson elaborates on how Old Testament punishments (exile, David's throne loss) were temporal rather than ultimate, then raises the theological question of Moses and Elijah's sins—they appear on the Mount of Transfiguration in glory, but who paid for their sins since Old Covenant sacrifices were insufficient?

You see, in some ways, the sins of the Old Covenant were met with certain kinds of punishment, people being sent off into exile, David being forced off his throne for a while and so on. But they weren't dealt with in any final way. They really weren't dealt with in any final way. Yes, Moses didn't get into the promised land, but that's not dealing with sin in the final way in which in which in which they're dealt with in scripture as a whole, in which they're dealt with under the terms of the New Covenant. In fact, the sins dealt with beforehand were left in some ultimate sense unpunished. We know that Moses and Elijah are swept into the presence of the living God. They joined Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, but they committed sins. Who paid for them?

87 · Carson answers his own question by citing Hebrews 10:4 to establish that animal sacrifices were insufficient, then argues that Christ's sacrifice demonstrates God's righteousness by retroactively paying for Old Testament believers' sins, vindicating God's acceptance of them despite their unpunished sins

When you recall what the New Testament says that in the last analysis, the blood of bull and goat can't take away human sin. Who pays for them? Well, the text says, One of the purposes, the central purposes of God's presentation of Christ as this sacrifice of atonement is to demonstrate his righteousness. That is the righteousness of God with respect to his people in the Old Testament who were acceptable before him, even though their sins were unpunished. Ultimately, it's Christ's sacrifice that pays for those sins committed beforehand.

88 · Carson explicates the final clause of verse 26, showing how the cross demonstrates God's righteousness at the present time by enabling God to be simultaneously just (not overlooking sin) and justifier (declaring the unjust to be just), resolving the apparent contradiction

He did this to demonstrate righteousness because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. To be simultaneously just. He's not pretending that the sins didn't happen. They're paid for. while declaring just those who in fact on their own accounting are not just.

89 · Carson contrasts Islamic and Christian understandings of forgiveness, arguing that Allah's forgiveness by decree without payment makes Allah corrupt from a Christian perspective, whereas the biblical God's righteousness requires sin to be addressed through payment, establishing Christianity's moral superiority in handling the sin problem

Do you know this is one of the greatest differences between Allah in Islam and Christianity? Allah forgives sins and the devout Muslim hopes that he's been good enough to earn Allah's favor. But no Muslim thinks of himself as perfect. So if Allah forgives some sinners and not other sinners, presumably because some sinners are worse than others or better than others, who nevertheless pays for those sins? The answer is Nobody. Nobody. Allah just decides by decree to forgive them. Which from a Christian point of view means that Allah is corrupt. He hasn't dealt with sin. Whereas the Bible presents the God of the Bible as so terribly righteous that sin must be addressed for any human being to be declared just and therefore acceptable in God's presence.

90 · Carson concludes his exposition of verses 25-26 by emphasizing that the cross simultaneously demonstrates God's justice and His justification of the ungodly, then connects this back to verse 24's emphasis on free justification by grace, ending with the Latin Reformation slogan 'sola gratia' to tie the exposition to the sermon's Reformation theme

And that has been secured in such a way that God is shown to be just. And the one who justifies the ungodly. And that's at the heart of the cross. This is not something we could have done for ourselves. That's why we're told in verse 24, all of these people from different tongues and tribes and peoples and nations are justified freely by His grace. Sola gratia.

91 · Carson shifts to poetry to capture the theological dilemma and its resolution—how can God's holiness tolerate rebellion and how can God's love be genuine given human sin? The answer is the cross where love and holiness meet without compromise, simultaneously demonstrating justice and justifying the ungodly, resolving the 'wretched dilemma' through shattering grace

Or to put it in poetic form, when you remember that God stands over against us both in righteous wrath and in love. Dilemma wretched. How shall holiness of brilliant light unshaded tolerate rebellions that it's slimy, not bathed in its own glory, compromised at best? Dilemma wretched. How can truth attest that God is love and not be shamed by hate and wills enslaved and bitter death, the freight of curse deserve the human rebels and mess? The cross. The cross. The sacred meeting place where, knowing neither compromise nor loss, God's love and holiness in shattering grace, the great dilemma slays. The cross. The cross. The loving God whose dear Son dies by this is just. and one who justifies.

92 · Carson's closing prayer petitions for cognitive clarity about the cross's achievement, deeper understanding of God's holiness and love, and rejection of self-righteousness (echoing the Luke 18 parable from earlier in the sermon), asking God to help the congregation come repeatedly before Him in recognition of salvation by grace alone

Let us pray. Entus we beg of you, Heavenly Father, real clarity in our minds as to what the cross achieved a better understanding of your matchless holiness and spectacular redeeming love, coming together in the crosswork of Christ by which your own people have been redeemed. We bless you that the cross demonstrates your justice, that you are just and the one who justifies ungodly image bearers like us. Help us to drink deeply from the wellsprings of grace. and utterly reject any self-promotion, any of the self-righteousness of the proud in the temple who claim they are not like other people are. But grant rather that we may come before you in full recognition again and again and again and again, that we are saved by grace. For Jesus' sake. Amen.