Today, on Truth Time, Paul isn't teaching the kingdom gospel, he's simply explaining how the same sacrifice of Christ on the cross also was a propitiation for Israel's past sins, which is exactly, it is precisely what their sacrificial system pointed them to.
Fortunately for us, who are part of the world, which now in this current dispensation includes Israel, fortunately, God stopped imputing those sins at the cross, 2 Corinthians 5:19, a truth that is subsequent to the remission of sins that are past.
That's where our focus as ambassadors lies.
This faith in his blood, it's not our gospel, and it's not a reference to God having faith.
And it's not a supporting verse for the false claim that belief is required for forgiveness.
This is Truth Time Radio.
Part 12 of the Romans verse by verse study today, we address chapter 3 verses 22 to 31, finishing out the chapter.
Back in chapter 1 verse 17, we saw the words, For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith.
Now when we take the full context of Romans 1, 2, and 3 into account, we can read Romans 1:16 and 17, and there we'll see that the righteousness of God is revealed within the gospel of Christ from the faith of God, that's the law that was given to Moses, to the faith of Christ, which is our gospel, the gospel of the grace of God, given to Paul.
See, the faith being preached before Paul to the nation Israel is what Paul called the faith of God, not what he calls the faith of Christ.
Two different faiths.
Now that brings us up to speed, contextually.
So, let's begin here in verse 23, For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
This tells us what, why there's no difference between Jew and Gentile in verse 22, because all, both Jew and Gentile, sinned and come short of the glory of God.
We'll learn more about this when we get to Romans 11, which is where Paul will further detail the fall of Israel for us.
But here in chapter 3, he's already referring to the falling out of favored status with God.
They sinned, they come short of the glory of God, making them no better than the Gentile nations who had no hope and were without God in the world.
Over and over, since the beginning of the letter, Paul echoes how Israel and the world are now on a level playing field.
Since they fell as a nation, they're no longer better than Gentile nations.
The righteousness of God imputed to those of the faith of Christ is freely available unto all nations and is upon all that believe, not just Israel.
Okay, verses 24 and 25, 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Let's stop here.
Let's stop right here and respond to a few different interpretations we've heard for verse 25.
Many stumble right here, but they don't have to.
When we stick with the context, instead of isolating it to try and prove a singular point, it becomes pretty clear.
The common thread throughout the confusion mostly lies in the phrase, "faith in his blood."
"Faith in his blood."
View number one, the Sonship view.
Sonship theology says that this verse is all the lost person needs to believe for salvation.
Somehow they've decided that anyone who has some sort of vague faith in the blood is saved.
And this over-simplification removes every point that 1 Corinthians 15:1 to 4 outlines as the gospel.
Number one, Christ's death for sins.
Number two, his burial.
Number three, his resurrection.
Not needed they say.
All removed from the gospel of our salvation according to the Sonshippers.
This shouldn't surprise anyone, and you're probably not.
Those of you who have done any research, who have researched their theology, because hey, they've openly admitted that they don't believe 1 Corinthians 15:1 to 4 is the gospel that a lost soul must believe for salvation.
Instead, they make the claim that it's, quote, "A different gospel for a," quote, "different kind of salvation."
One that doesn't even pertain to the soul during this life on earth.
They see 1 Corinthians 15:1 to 4 only as a part of their merit, their reward system.
It's so they can obtain higher and more important heavenly positions, and not what someone needs to believe to be saved from hell.
Sonship theology, it comes and goes, and sometimes it's repackaged under different names to make it seem more palatable, to make it seem not so selfish and more appealing.
Back in 2013, after multiple conversations with some Sonshippers, and after figuring out that nailing them down to a clear, articulable gospel of salvation pretty much proved impossible, we were told that a person is not required to believe in Christ's resurrection in order to be saved from hell.
Instead, they put everyone everywhere who has ever expressed any type of ambiguous belief in Christ's blood, they put them into the saved category.
The reason they do this is obvious.
See, without saved people who do not see Paul's epistles as their curriculum to learn in order to obtain higher status in heaven, they wouldn't have anyone to elevate themselves above.
You can't accuse them of not being ambitious, that's for sure, but their ambition is falsely labeled as "walking worthy," and "becoming sanctified," as they say.
So, the idea is a vague belief in Christ's blood is what saves, but it's only those who rightly divide that will have an elevated status in heaven.
This sort of belief, this sort of theology, is attractive to some.
Look at me, look at me.
But even then, they take it a bit further.
They've created different levels of elevation among right dividers.
Yeah.
So, needless to say, being an ambassador with a ministry of reconciliation is pretty much completely useless to the Sonshippers.
Just a few months ago, we had one tell us that our ministry is holding back the body of Christ from its full potential.
Sonshipped theology has always been opposed to the ministry of reconciliation.
The two are incompatible.
And that fact is exactly what motivated the attack on true ambassadors of Christ from some of the Sonshippers about 13 years ago.
A few chapters further into this study, we'll get further into the self-centered, self-glorifying, self-righteous doctrines of this theology.
We'll talk about some of the lingo they use, which will help you better identify it.
This theology uses misinterpreted scriptures in Romans based on their own confirmation biases as justification for their false doctrine.
There's more to say about this, but for now just remember this.
Just remember, we're saved by believing what Paul preached concerning Christ's death for all sins, his burial, and his resurrection, and not some indeterminate faith in his blood.
No.
For all Sonship errors, this one's the most dangerous due to the false sense of security it allows for those who neither believe nor even know the gospel of our salvation.
A part of their teaching, by the way, that they can't give up without the whole doctrine falling apart.
Okay, view number two.
The "God has faith" view.
Or we might call it ultra-hyper-canosis view.
This idea is based on a misunderstanding of Romans 3:3, For what if some did not believe, shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Now, we covered this thoroughly in Part 8.
You'll find plenty of Biblical evidence that absolutely proves God doesn't qualify as one with the need to exercise faith.
And to suggest such only lessens his glory by not only removing his divine all-knowing, but also his divine all-power.
God's word is clear as to why the very object of man's faith, God himself, is not required to have faith.
A God who needs faith is no God at all.
But we see here again this phrase, "Faith in his blood," as misinterpreted by a completely different group.
The same way that only a Christ who has emptied himself or set aside his deity would be required to have faith, so would the Father have to empty himself of and lay aside his deity.
It's a pretty extreme view, and not one supported by scripture in context.
So, the idea that God the Father had faith in God the Son's blood is utterly ridiculous and without merit.
The faith of God in Romans 3:3 is clearly a term used to identify the faith that was preached prior to Paul.
The one which included the law of Moses, prophecies, oracles of God all given directly to Israel.
That phrase is not a declaration that God, the I AM, was required to exercise faith.
The faith that Christ is the author and finisher of, and the faith that was the method set forth by the eternal power and Godhead, by which sinful man can establish a relationship with God.
So no, another swing and a miss, uh, God didn't need to exercise faith in Christ's blood in order for the sins mentioned in verse 25 to be paid for.
Besides, Acts 20:28, some forget this one, but over there it says that God purchased the church with his own blood.
Not only does that verse prove that Jesus Christ is God because it was his blood which was shed, but it also proves that Romans 3:25 is not speaking of God's faith in his own blood, as the ultra-hyper-canosis gang would have us believe.
Alright, now view number 3, the limited-forgiver view.
Just like the other two, limited-forgivers also get hung up right here on the phrase, "faith in his blood."
But their motive for doing so is different.
It's to try and prove that the propitiation in the verse only exists when a person believes in the blood.
For that reason, Romans 3:25 has become one of their new gotcha verses which they carelessly throw around, trying to prove no one was forgiven solely on the basis of Christ's atonement, but rather forgiven through their own belief.
And there's several problems with this interpretation.
Chiefly among them is the fact that this verse is only talking about the sins that are past.
And it doesn't address the state of mankind beyond the propitiation made by Christ at the cross.
So, if we're to believe this teaching, then our faith in his blood would only take care of the past sins.
Which would leave it up to us to keep ourselves clean after that.
I think they neglected to look around the corner at the consequence of this idea before throwing it out there as being a sound teaching.
It's not.
Ironically, their argument regarding faith in his blood is what most of mainstream Christianity already teaches.
Denominations teach a limited forgiveness as well.
Saying that forgiveness only applies to sins that are past, which were committed before salvation.
That's why they promote verse 1 John 1:9 as a common practice.
Even many who claim to believe in eternal security teach that future sins after salvation will take you out of fellowship with God.
So, to remedy that, they teach that you must do something to get sins forgiven over and over.
They got you on a shoestring, thinking that you have to keep short sin accounts with God to stay in his favor and maintain salvation.
Enduring unto the end, there on that hamster wheel of religion.
The holiness denomination even believed that after sins are forgiven at salvation, if you sin again, you lose it, you lose salvation, and it can't be regained.
And it sounds extreme compared to the rest, but it's actually more scripturally accurate.
Instead of mixing Peter with Paul, like the others, they're trying to harmonize Peter there in Acts chapters 2 through 5, and Hebrews together, which is earthly kingdom doctrine.
And while it's completely wrong for our current dispensation, at least they're closer to doing a wrong thing right than most of the rest.
It's highly indicative that limited forgivers, who call themselves right dividers, use the same interpretation of faith in his blood as those in denominationalism.
But when you have a motive, when you have a motive to try and prove only those who believe are forgiven, well, you tend to overlook context and common sense.
And when your agenda is impure, the point you're trying to make often clouds the implications of your statements, such as the case with these different misinterpretations of Romans 3:25.
This verse is nowhere near as hard as some have tried to make it, and the true context reveals why all three views are wrong.
Let's look at what Paul clearly expressed here, not according to preconceived notions, prejudices, hidden agendas, and confirmation bias,
but according to context and supporting cross references.
Let's do that.
This verse has an absolute contextual subject that is often overlooked, sins that are past.
So, let's read it again with that in mind, Whom God had set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God.
When Paul wrote this, whose sins was he talking about, being past?
From the very beginning, the start of this letter, he's been talking about Israel.
And if you need to be caught up to speed, go back and check out each prior installment before this.
We prove, we let out and prove that that's who he's talking about.
He's talking about Israel and how and why they fell away.
Everything he has spoken so far, and for the next few chapters, is going to have everything to do with how Israel became Hosea 1:9, lo-ammi.
So, we need to set a specific time frame for these sins that are past, okay?
In time past, you see, the sacrifices performed by Israel is what got their sins remitted through the blood.
It was a foreshadowing, a foreshadowing of the final sacrifice for sins.
What Paul said here, Whom God set forth through the forbearance of God is described clearly in Hebrews 10:1, For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
And just three verses later, For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Israel's faith in his blood was regarding what they were promised would become of their national sin.
When the once and for all payment, the one-time payment took place.
Hebrews chapter 10, you'll see that in verses 19 and 20 and also in Isaiah 53:11.
You see, God set Christ forth to be the propitiation.
The propitiation for those past sins.
The ones that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away through God's own forbearance.
Romans 3:25 speaks directly to God's provision for the sins of Israel to be taken away.
And their faith in the blood sacrifice, the blood sacrifices, I should say, was Christ's word.
A shadow of good things to come.
The word propitiation is only used by Paul one time and it's right here in verse 25.
The only other two times it's found is 1 John 2:2 and 4:10, verses written to the little flock.
Propitiation is not our word.
It's not our word to describe forgiveness at the cross and the non-imputation of subsequent sins that should follow for the world during the dispensation of grace.
Propitiation is an appeasement, specifically the blood that was sprinkled on the mercy seat was what was considered to be the propitiation, temporary appeasement for sin.
The mercy seat was the cover, the lid of the ark of the covenant.
When the priests communed, when they communed with God, he would appear to them in the cloud of the incense above the mercy seat, Leviticus 6:13.
Below the mercy seat, inside the ark, that's where you could find the law of commandments which acknowledged the sins of man.
This is all covenant lingo that covenant keepers would understand.
They knew exactly what Paul was talking about, but Gentiles were outside the covenants and knew that this didn't apply to them.
The mercy seat on the ark, there are on the ark of the covenant, was a foreshadowing of Christ as the mediator between God and man.
There had to be an appeasement for sin, a propitiation, in order for God to have fellowship with sinful man.
Also notice that the word remission, which is closely related to sins being covered, as in Romans 4:7 when Paul quotes David, compare transgressions of the law being covered for Israel, with a body of Christ, Colossians 2:14, law that was taken completely out of the way, out of the way and nailed to the cross.
Out of the way is not the same as covered.
Romans 3:25 is the only time Paul uses the word remission, but Peter mentioned it in Acts 2.
Remission of sins for the nation Israel, upon their faith being demonstrated by water baptism in the name of the Messiah.
Peter also talks about being quote unquote, "purged from his old sins."
Most have never heard this.
You'll find it in 2 Peter 1:9.
Not having seen this verse for themselves is why most missed that it was only for past sins of Israel, it was only for their past sins that were remitted.
Which means they won't be completely taken out of the way until they're Acts 3:19 blotted out at their future times of refreshing.
Beginning with Romans 1, on into chapter 11, Paul takes his audience from their former faith, faith of God, Israel under the Mosaic law, to the current faith, faith of Christ, everyone's justification without the law.
We're hearing from listeners who are stunned to learn this, news that is helping them understand and get a better handle on the book of Romans.
Paul does this, transitions his audience from faith to faith by using the scriptures of the prophets, Romans 16:26.
Romans 3:25 here doesn't speak at all of the sins which happened after the cross.
Which is why it's grave error, grave error to use this verse as our gospel. Propitiation for sins that are past and subsequent maintenance of that salvation in the form of service is earthly kingdom doctrine.
Not ours.
Knowing that blasphemy and departing from the faith would both be damnation is the gospel of the kingdom and not the gospel of the grace of God.
Paul isn't teaching the kingdom gospel, he's simply explaining how the same sacrifice of Christ on the cross also was a propitiation for Israel's past sins.
Which is exactly, it is precisely what their sacrificial system pointed them to.
Fortunately for us, who are part of the world, which now in this current dispensation includes Israel, fortunately, God stopped imputing those sins at the cross, 2 Corinthians 5:19, a truth that is subsequent to the remission of sins that are past.
That's where our focus as ambassadors lies.
This faith in his blood, it's not our gospel, and it's not a reference to God having faith.
And it's not a supporting verse for the false claim that belief is required for forgiveness.
Instead, it reveals the faith which Israel was directed to exercise towards God's foreshadowing of their redemption plan in that sacrificial system under the law.
Romans 3:25 is not even reference to our dispensation.
The first hint should be that both the words propitiation and blood point to a specific place and time at the cross, along with the absolute fact that it only deals with the propitiation for past sins before the cross.
Now, before going on, let's set in place the time periods for chapter 3 so far.
Romans 3 verse 1, verse 1 to 20 here, is time past progressing to present.
Verse 21 to 24, present to but now.
See that?
Then verse 25 goes back to time past.
And verses 26 to 31 switch back to present.
Paul's speaking of past and present consistently in order to make comparisons.
What an outstanding teacher.
He's also referencing the foundation which Romans 16:26 describes.
Alright.
This is a great study, guys.
The book of Romans is meaty, full of spiritual iron and plenty of protein.
Let's get back to the but now in Romans 3:26, OK, To declare, I say, at this time (That's time present but now), his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
This verse, okay, what it does is solidify the timeline we're looking at for verse 25.
Time past equals Israel sacrifices, which were a shadow of the blood of Christ, the sacrifice for sins that are past before the cross.
Verse 26, "at this time," declares his righteousness, justification of God's promises, which validates his righteous act of justifying those who believe in Christ for the world to see.
Remember, justification is a declaration of righteousness.
Verse 27, Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Why is boasting excluded?
Because we cannot say that we obtain salvation by works, for if we could, we might boast in ourselves before men.
We probably would.
Ephesians 2:9, Not of works, lest any should boast.
Romans 11:6, If by grace, then it's no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.
We'll learn more about it when we get to chapter 4, where Paul says, If Abraham was justified by works, he'd have whereof to glory, but not before God.
People glory in their works before men.
That's why Galatians 6 calls it a fair show in the flesh.
Works are done in the flesh, and flesh cannot inherit salvation, but the flesh sure can brag about its own performance.
There's a strange teaching going around that says, we can't have faith because if we could, we'd boast in it.
That comes straight out of Calvinism.
It's from the doctrine of total depravity.
Anyone who says, If we could have faith, we'd boast in it, coupled with their teaching that Christ had faith for us, is teaching universalism, whether they know it or not.
This false teaching is supported by the universalist who follow AE Knoch.
It comes from his perverted Bible, the Concordant Literal Version, I think it's called.
He taught it for years, along with some Kenosis and modelistic views, Oneness Jesus and his own father heresy.
AE Knoch was a heretic.
And some who fancy themselves right dividers are teaching the same universalist, kenosis, oneness doctrine he taught.
And some are even stealing material from his followers and trying to pass it off as their own.
Okay, verse 28, Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Here Paul, he poured a little more cement around and to establish the fact of us being justified by faith in Christ's finished crosswork and not by any outward performed deeds of the flesh.
Okay, verse 29, Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Verse 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Verse 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
This chapter is rounded out here by Paul, concluding everything he has said thus far.
Reiterating, restating the fact that both Jews and Gentiles are on the same level in the sight of God, all because of the result of Israel's fall.
Now, next time we'll take a closer look at verse 30 here, we'll hammer down and explain the difference between "by faith" and "through faith."
Then we'll move on to chapter 4, which is a continuation of the context of Romans 3.
Alright, hey, here at Truth Time Radio, we often hear from those who, after hearing a clear presentation of the gospel, they repent, change their mind, change their mind from what they formerly believed to Paul's gospel of the grace of God.
They come to saving faith by resting in Christ alone.
So, if you're here today and you don't know where you'll spend eternity, maybe you've been trusting in your keeping short sin accounts with God or turning from your sins.
But to be saved, to be saved right now, right now in this moment, my friend, believe the gospel of your salvation.
1 Corinthians chapter 15, Moreover brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, by which also ye are saved.
What is the gospel, Paul?
How that Christ died for your sins according to the scriptures was buried and rose on the third day according to the scriptures.
When Paul wrote these words, when Paul wrote the words, "Christ died for our sins," that's all sins.
Not one was left out, Colossians 2:13.
If religion, if they've prevented you from being able to rest in your salvation by getting you to think that there's something you need to do to get your sins forgiven, which is only prevented you from experiencing the true peace of God, well, you've now heard the good news.
On the cross is where God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.
And it was there, it was there, my friend, that he stopped charging your trespasses.
There's none in your account.
Now, you need his justification in your account.
You don't want an empty account, just because it has no sins in it.
You need to put life, eternal life into your account, justification, righteousness.
So, now, right this minute is the day of salvation, not tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year.
Today.
So, believe on him right now and rest concerning where you're going to spend eternity.
Grace and peace.
Add comment
Comments