The atonement theology of Romans with special reference to Rom.

3:21-26

Thomas J. Farrar

Published online 2 February 2017

1. Introduction
The word atonement, literally Οat-one-ment,Π denotes the theological significance
of ChristΣs salvific work, especially his death (Green, 1993, p. 203). Theologians
have developed numerous theories, both objective (satisfying divine
requirements) and subjective (eliciting human response), of how ChristΣs death
resolved the plight of humanity, enabling right relationship with God (Beilby and
Eddy, 2006, pp. 12-18). The penal substitution model dominates contemporary
Evangelical atonement theology (Allison, 2007, p. 4); some Evangelicals even
consider it a test of orthodoxy (e.g., G. Williams, 2007, p. 86). This theory holds
that Jesus died as our substitute, paying the penalty for our sins and exhausting
GodΣs wrath for which we were otherwise destined (Packer, 1974, p. 25; J.
Williams, 2010, 583).

The present study aims to illuminate the atonement theology of Romans, primarily
with reference to one paragraph of Οunparalleled significanceΠ (Moo, 1996, p.
229): Rom. 3:21-26. Hultgren (2011) avers that Οevery atonement theory in the
history of theology has had to come to terms with what Paul says in these versesΠ
(p. 151). Proponents of penal substitution consider Rom. 3:21-26 a key proof text
(Schreiner, 2006, p. 87), but the contention herein is Romans reflects a
representative-participatory model of atonement and not penal substitution.
Participating in the predicament of sinful humanity, Jesus faithfully kept the law
and thus his death condemned sin itself (Campbell, 2013, p. 239; Minear, 1953).
Rising again free from sinΣs unjust curse upon him, he became the new Adam: the
federal representative for a new humanity who have his righteousness gratuitously
extended to them. Sinners enter this new humanity by participation in his death
and resurrection by faith (Dunn, 1998, p. 223; Hooker, 1971, p. 358). A major
difference between the two models is their understanding of how JesusΣ death
deals with divine wrath against sinners. Instead of seeing the cross as expending
GodΣs wrath, a representative-participatory model sees it as building a shelter
from GodΣs wrath: a new humanity that shares its founderΣs freedom from sin.

1
Before defending this model exegetically, some methodological comments are
needed. First, given space constraints we cannot analyse every feature of Rom.
3:21-26. Some relevant issues must be omitted, including PaulΣs relationship to
various forms of nomism (cf. Οworks of the lawΠ [Rom. 3:20]; Οapart from the lawΠ
[Rom. 3:21]), much debated since the onset of the New Perspective on Paul (cf.
Bozung, 2005; Bozung, 2006; Dunn, 1998; Sanders, 1977). Since treatment of
imputation and justification by faith requires detailed analysis of Romans 4, these
concepts will also receive little attention. We will confine our exegesis of Rom.
3:21-26 to six concepts: humanityΣs plight, -terminology, Χ ῦ,
redemption, and . Second, given PaulΣs assertion that GodΣs

righteousness is attested by Οthe law and the prophets,Π i.e. the Old Testament
(Rom. 3:21; cf. Longenecker, 2016, p. 407), the scriptural background of PaulΣs
language will undergird the exegesis.

2. Atonement theology in Rom. 3:21-26

Rom. 3:21-23 is an expanded version of the thesis statement of 1:16-17,
supported by the material in 3:24-26 (Longenecker, 2016). If part of 3:24-26
quotes a pre-Pauline formula, as is widely believed (Jewett, 2007, pp. 269-70;
Käsemann, 1980, p. 97; dissenting, Mounce, 1995, p. 116 n. 16; Young, 1974),
the material may already be familiar to the readers (Longenecker, 2016, p. 398).
Rom. 3:21-26 is pivotal to the letterΣs argument and Οpenetrates to the centre of
PaulΣs gospelΠ (Davies, 1990, p. 104). Nevertheless, it is Οone of the most obscure
and difficultΠ sections in Romans (Käsemann, 1980, p. 92); these verses Οbristle
with exegetical difficultiesΠ (Davies, 1990, p. 104) and there is no scholarly
consensus regarding their meaning (J. Williams, 2010, p. 584). Furthermore, the
theology of the Rom. 3:21-26 is Οhighly compressedΠ (Dunn, 1998, p. 216); here,
ΟPaul is less concerned with explaining the atonement than he is with using itΠ
(Davies, 1990, p. 111). Hence, Rom. 3:21-26 provides little detail about the
Οinternal mechanismΠ of the atonement (contra Carson, 2004, p. 138).
Consequently, we will interpret Rom. 3:21-26 somewhat defensively, arguing that
it does not support penal substitution and is consistent with a representative-
participatory model. A positive case for the latter requires venturing outside this
passage, which we will accordingly do thereafter.

2
 2.1. The plight
Carson (2004) rightly observes that one cannot understand a solution without
understanding the problem (p. 119). Paul describes the problem—humanityΣs
plight—in Rom. 1:18-3:20, which is an extended ΟindictmentΠ (Dunn, 1998, p.
101) showing that all people, both lawless Gentiles (1:18-32) and law-breaking
Jews (2:17-3:20) are unrighteous (Longenecker, 2016, p. 147). All are under
GodΣs wrathful judgment (Haacker, 2003, p. 35; Morris, 1988, p. 180); Οnot even
oneΠ is excepted (Rom. 3:10-12, quoting Ps. 14:1-3). Rom. 3:20 suggests that,
far from resolving the plight, the law brought it into focus (cf. Rom. 7:5-13; Gal.
3:19-24).

Paul pinpoints the plight in Rom. 3:23 (ΟFor all sinned and lack the glory of God,Π
authorΣs translation) and probably indicates its source by alluding to the Fall.
Π ἥ anticipates the statement in Rom. 5:12 Οconcerning the entry of

Sin and Death into the world through AdamΣs transgressionΠ (Campbell, 2013, p.
658; similarly Lloyd-Jones, 1970, p. 50). Moreover, Apoc. Mos. 21.6 and Gen.
Rab. 12.6 interpret the loss of GodΣs glory as an effect of AdamΣs sin (Dunn, 2012,
p. 129; Käsemann, 1980, p. 95). Ὑ ω (present tense) emphasises humanityΣs
ongoing failures (Morris, 1988, 176-77). Hence, the plight includes the guilt of
individual transgressions (Rom. 1:18-32, 3:9-20), but the underlying cause is the
condemnation and enslavement to sin that all humans inherit through AdamΣs
federal headship. That the plight is related to representation raises the possibility
that its remedy is too—especially given the Adam/Christ typology that Paul uses
elsewhere (Rom. 5:14-19; 1 Cor. 15:21-22).

2.2. Δ -terminology

GodΣs righteousness ( ύ ῦ/ ῦ) is the central theme of Rom. 3:21-

26, mentioned four times (cf. 1:17). The verb typically translated ΟjustifyΠ in Rom.
3:24-26 is from the same Greek root -; thus ΟrectifyΠ might be a better

translation (Grieb, 2012, p. 67). Debate concerning -terminology in our

passage focuses on two issues. One is whether ύ ῦ/ ῦ is attributive

(righteousness as a divine attribute; so Green, 2012, pp. 87-88) or communicative
(righteousness provided by God; so Grudem, 1994, p. 725). Since both senses

3
are attested elsewhere in Romans (3:5 and 10:3 respectively) and both are
present in relevant OT background texts (e.g., Ps. 98:2; 143:1, 11; cf. Davies,
1990, pp. 105-106; Campbell, 2013, p. 702), GodΣs righteousness in Rom. 3:21-
26 probably encompasses both aspects (Campbell, 2013, p. 687; Longenecker,
2016, pp. 173-74; Sanders, 1977, p. 491).

The second issue is whether the -terminology is forensic/declaratory, i.e.

right standing and acquittal (Bozung, 2006, p. 29; Carson, 2004, pp. 124-25;
Grudem, 1994, pp. 723-24; Moo, 1996, pp. 227-28), or relational/ethical, i.e.
faithfulness and uprightness (e.g., Dunn, 1998, pp. 341-44; Green, 2012, pp. 87-
88). Once again, it is probably both (Longenecker, 2016, pp. 174-75). While GodΣs
righteousness in the OT primarily connotes Οcovenant faithfulnessΠ (Green, 2012,
pp. 87-88; Grieb, 2012, p. 69), -terminology in some LXX texts has a clear

forensic connotation (e.g., Deut. 25:1; 2 Kgdms 15:4), as also in Rom. 5:16-19
and 8:33-34. The communicative, forensic aspect of the -terminology in

Rom. 3:21-26 implies that PaulΣs atonement theology has an objective dimension.

2.3. Π Χ ῦ
Much debate has transpired concerning the meaning of ω ῦΧ ῦ
(Rom. 3:22), ἐ ω ῦ (Rom. 3:26) and five equivalent Pauline phrases
(Gal. 2:16 [twice]; 2:20; 3:22; Phil. 3:9). The traditional view, which remains
popular, reads these as objective genitives, denoting believersΣ faith in Christ
(Carson, 2004, pp. 125-26; Dunn, 1998, pp. 381-85; Hultgren, 2011, pp. 624-
57; Moo, 1996, pp. 224-26; Morris, 1988, p. 175; Schreiner, 2012, pp. 35-36).
However, Longenecker (2016) notes that Οa rising tide of scholarly opinionΠ
understands these as subjective genitives, denoting Christ’s faith/faithfulness (pp.
409-16; proponents of this view besides Longenecker include Campbell, 1994;
Davies, 1990, p. 107; Holland, 2011, p. 97; Hooker, 1989; Johnson, 1982;
Stubbs, 2008; S. Williams, 1987).

Most scholars agree that the syntax is inconclusive (Campbell, 2013, pp. 642-43;
Hooker, 1989, p. 321; Hultgren, 2011, p. 635); context must decide the issue.
Proponents of the objective-genitive interpretation claim Paul never mentions
ChristΣs outside these disputed texts (Dunn, 1998, pp. 384-85; Hultgren,

4
2011). One text of disputed Pauline authorship certainly does (2 Tim. 2:13). Also,
Οthe same spirit of faithΠ (2 Cor. 4:13) appears to refer to ChristΣs faith (Hooker,
1989, p. 335). Regardless, ChristΣs death is depicted as an atoning act of
obedience in Rom. 5:19 and Phil. 2:8 (S. Williams, 1987, p. 436), and obedience
for Paul expresses (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). Paul may prefer ΟfaithfulnessΠ in

Rom. 3:21-26 because it captures both the divine and human dimensions of
ChristΣs act (ΟobedienceΠ is not a divine attribute).

Moo (1996) regards the frequent use of in Rom. 3:27-4:25 for Οthe faith

exercised by people…as the sole means of justificationΠ (p. 225) as decisive for
the objective-genitive interpretation, but the subjective-genitive reading also
grounds the saving of others in the of Christ (Οthrough Jesus ChristΣs

faithfulness for all who believe,Π 3:22). Romans 4, too, grounds justifying faith in
an archetype—Abraham—and the phrase ͅ ἐ ω Ἀ in Rom. 4:16

exactly parallels ἐ ω ῦ in 3:26 (Hooker, 1989, pp. 325-26; S.

Williams, 1987, p. 436).

The subjective-genitive reading is superior for three reasons. One is the

redundancy of Οthrough faith in Jesus Christ for all who believeΠ (Johnson, 1982,
p. 79; Longenecker, 2016, p. 411). Hultgren (2011) thinks Paul added Οall who
believeΠ to emphasise Οthe universality of redemptionΠ (Hultgren, 2011, p. 155),
but similarly redundant expressions occur in Gal. 2:16, 3:22 and Phil. 3:9 without
the word Οall.Π Second, the subjective-genitive reading better explains how Rom.
3:21-26 expands on the thesis statement of 1:16-17. Rom. 3:22, with two
references to separated by , develops the Οrather cryptic expressionΠ ἐ

ω in 1:17a (Longenecker, 2016, p. 413). Since ἐ ω in 1:17

probably denotes the source from which Οthe righteousness of God is revealedΠ
(note the parallel with 1:18a), neither this term nor the first in Rom. 3:22

refers to faith in Christ. A more plausible interpretation of ἐ ω , which

coheres with the subjective-genitive reading in 3:22, is ChristΣs faithfulness, which
Οproduces faithfulness in othersΠ (Sumney, 2012, p. 6). Third, the only occurrence
of between Rom. 1:17 and 3:21-26 refers to divine faithfulness (Rom. 3:3).

5
The subjective-genitive reading has profound implications, placing ChristΣs
faithfulness at the forefront of his atoning work. It reflects a participatory model
of atonement (Hooker, 1989, 341; Stubbs, 2008, p. 155): God rectifies Οthe one
who is of the faithfulness of JesusΠ (Rom. 3:26), i.e. who shares in ChristΣs death,
his climactic act of faithfulness (Holland, 2011, p. 97). Moreover, given our
comments above on Rom. 3:23, the emphasis on ChristΣs faithfulness anticipates
the antithesis between AdamΣs disobedience and ChristΣs obedience in Rom. 5:15-
19. It is therefore also consistent with a representative atonement model.

2.4. Redemption
The archetypal OT case of divine redemption is IsraelΣs liberation from slavery in
Egypt (Dunn, 1998, pp. 223-24). Therefore the term ύ ω in Rom. 3:24,

which receives no elaboration, is best interpreted as a new exodus (cf. Isa. 40-
55) in which the object of redemption—the new Pharaoh—is Οthe tyrants of sin
and deathΠ (Grieb, 2012, p. 74). Liberation from slavery to sin is mentioned
explicitly in Rom. 6:16-18, while rescue from death is the connotation of the only
other occurrence of ύ ω in Romans (8:23).

Lloyd-Jones (1970) insists that a ransom payment is Οan essential part of the
meaningΠ of ύ ω which Οmust never be omittedΠ (p. 61; similarly Carson,

2004, p. 128; Cranfield, 1975, p. 208; Crawford, 1970, p. 268; J. Williams, 2010,
p. 584). However, since IsraelΣs redemption from Egypt did not involve a ransom
payment, this is unwarranted (Grieb, 2012, p. 74). True, Paul refers to being
Οbought with a priceΠ in 1 Corinthians (6:20; 7:23), but he never refers to a
recipient of the ransom. If ύ ω were understood in penal substitutionary

terms, the recipient would be God (Moo, 1996, pp. 229-30). Legally, however,
payment for redemption from enslavement goes to the slave-master (cf. Lev.
25:50), which for Paul is sin (Rom. 6:16-17). Thus, we should not over-interpret
the metaphor here (Morris, 1988, p. 179); it simply denotes deliverance from sinΣs
power (Hultgren, 2011, p. 156).

2.5. …in his blood (Rom. 3:25)

6
The meaning of in Rom. 3:25 is disputed. Some suggest an abstract

sense, such as Οmeans of atonementΠ (Schnelle, 2005, p. 449), ΟpropitiationΠ of

divine wrath (Carson, 2004, pp. 129-30; Haacker, 2003, pp. 132-34; Lloyd-Jones,
1970, pp. 69-70; Morris, 1955) or ΟexpiationΠ of sin (Dunn, 1998, pp. 214-15).
Others prefer a concrete, typological reference to the mercy-seat, the cover of the
ark of the covenant (Bailey, 2000; Fryer, 1987; Hultgren, 2011, pp. 663-72; Moo,
1996, pp. 232-33). The typological reading has better evidence. refers

to the mercy-seat in most LXX occurrences (e.g., Ex. 25:17-22; Lev. 16:13-15)
and its only other NT occurrence (Heb. 9:5). Moreover, Οthe suffix - is very

concreteΠ (Bailey, 2000, p. 156), and the verb , when used in the sense

of Οdisplay publiclyΠ (as most scholars agree it is here, e.g., Käsemann, 1980, p.
97; Longenecker, 2016, p. 425; Moo, 1996, p. 231), Οrequires a specific, concrete
objectΠ (Fryer, 1987, p. 105; cf. Lev. 24:7-8 LXX; 2 Macc. 1:8). Morris (1955)
offers several objections to the typological interpretation, which are successfully
answered by Fryer (1987) and Hultgren (2011).

The mercy-seat typology depicts Christ as Οthe new place of atonement,Π

indicating Οthe provision of a new institutional vehicle for atonementΠ (Jewett,
2007, pp. 285-87). Whereas the mercy-seat on the Day of Atonement lay hidden
in a cloud of smoke inside the Holy of Holies (Holland, 2011, p. 85; cf. Lev. 16:13),
ΟWhat in the OT was hidden from public view…has now been Ρpublicly displayedΣΠ
(Moo, 1996, p. 232).

Since the related verb denotes appeasement of divine wrath in, e.g.,

Ex. 32:14, and is Οbasic to this word-groupΠ in extra-biblical Greek (Cranfield,

1975, p. 216), might Paul have intended to accent the propitiatory connotation of
within the type? Possibly; has such a connotation in 4 Macc.

17.22, where it refers to the Οpropitiatory deathΠ of the Maccabean martyrs Οfor
the sin of the nationΠ (J. Williams, 2010, pp. 585-86). However, while penal
substitutionary propitiation seems to be present in that book (4 Macc. 6.28-29),
its religion-historical relevance to Romans is questionable. Collins (2000) states
concerning 4 Maccabees that Οthe balance of opinion has generally shifted to a
date in the late first or early second century C.E.Π (p. 204). 4 Macc. 17.21-22 may
be a different application of the mercy-seat imagery (Bell, 2002, p. 22; Dunn,

7
1998, p. 215). Thus, even if in Rom. 3:25 has a propitiatory

connotation, better supporting evidence is needed before inferring a penal

substitutionary propitiation. The single word cannot do the heavy lifting

that penal substitution proponents such as Schreiner (2012, pp. 87-89) demand
of it.

ΟBloodΠ functions metonymically for ΟdeathΠ (cf. Rom. 5:8-9) but also alludes to
the Yom Kippur ritual of sprinkling blood on the mercy-seat (Moo, 1996, p. 232).
The Levitical atonement system therefore provides a helpful analogy for
constructing PaulΣs atonement theology (cf. , Οsin offering,Π in Rom.

8:3). Unfortunately, research into Οthe rationale of the Jewish sacrificial systemΠ
has yielded Οno very conclusive results,Π since the OT provides Οno explicit
rationale for sacrificeΠ (Tuckett, 1992, p. 519). Obviously a goatΣs death for the
sins of the people has a vicarious aspect: the goat dies and the people live.
However, while some assert that OT sacrifices were designed to propitiate God
through substitution (e.g., Lloyd-Jones, 1970, pp. 88-89), others dispute this
(Green, 2012, p. 84; Tuckett, 1992, p. 519). Laying of hands on the beastΣs head
(Lev. 16:21; cf. 4:24) may have involved Οa ritual transfer of identity to the
animalΠ (Schnelle, 2005, p. 450) whereby it symbolised Οthe offerer qua sinnerΠ
(Dunn, 1998, p. 220), so that the destruction (or sending away, in the case of the
scapegoat) of the sin-laden sacrifice destroyed or removed the sin (Dunn, 1998,
p. 221). If so, JesusΣ death as sacrifice arguably denotes the destruction of sin
itself and not the exaction of its penalty.

2.6. Π of former sins

ChristΣs sacrifice demonstrated GodΣs righteousness Οbecause in his divine

forbearance he had passed over former sinsΠ (ESV). The meaning of here

is Οpostponement of punishmentΠ (Moo, 1996, p. 239). An analogous teaching in

the Mishnah states that repentance suspends punishment until the Day of
Atonement arrives and atones (Tractate Yoma 8:8D; cf. Neusner, 2005). ChristΣs
sacrificial act provided ΟGodΣs legal justification for remitting due penaltyΠ in ages
before Christ (Dunn, 1998, p. 215). For God to overlook sin indefinitely Οwould be
altogether incompatible with His righteousnessΠ (Cranfield, 1975, pp. 211-12);
hence ChristΣs sacrifice is GodΣs Οfull and final solutionΠ to sin (Longenecker, 2016,

8
p. 435), vindicating GodΣs moral integrity (Rom. 3:26a) in light of his previous
clemency. This signals an objective dimension to PaulΣs atonement theology, but
(contra Gathercole, 2004) it need not imply penal substitution.

3. Atonement theology elsewhere in Romans

Paul indicates an objective understanding of atonement in Rom. 3:21-26 by
emphasising GodΣs attributive and communicative righteousness, by his
description of the plight, and by using concepts such as redemption, sacrifice and
postponement of punishment. However, nothing he says here demands a penal
substitutionary interpretation. Instead, PaulΣs apparent allusion to the Adamic
origin of the plight and emphasis on JesusΣ faithfulness hint at a different model,
which we now explore further with recourse to other texts in Romans.

ΟDelivered up for our transgressionsΠ (Rom. 4:25) recalls Isa. 53:6, 12 LXX. Δ

with an accusative modifier denotes Οthe reason why something happensΠ (Arndt,
Danker & Bauer, 2000, p. 225) and so need not imply substitution. The same
prepositional construction relates JesusΣ resurrection to ω , giving his

resurrection a rectifying role (Campbell, 2013, p. 395; Tuckett, 1992, p. 518; cf.
Rom. 5:10). A participatory model of atonement accounts for this well: those who
share in ChristΣs death share also in his life (Rom. 6:3-11). Gathercole (2004)
argues that ω in Rom. 4:25 conveys the idea that God hands over his

Son for punishment. J. Williams (2010) implies the same meaning of ω

in Rom. 8:32. However, in 8:32 the verb is antithetical to ἐφ , which alludes

to Gen. 22:16 LXX (Campbell, 2013, p. 653; Dunn, 1998, pp. 223-24), where
Abraham is hardly punishing Isaac. Moreover, the Son is the subject of ω
in Gal. 2:20. Thus in each case ω probably means giving up sacrificially.

Rom. 5:6-8 provides two examples of the dying formula (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3).

Surveying Greco-Roman secular literature, Gibson (2004) finds numerous

examples of people dying—usually in war—for abstract virtues, their native land,
friends or lovers, but never an enemy. Accordingly, he thinks Paul here makes a
counter-cultural polemic whereby Christ Οembraces defenselessnessΠ and Οdies for
his enemiesΠ (p. 39). Schreiner (2006) asserts that the preposition denotes

9
that JesusΣ death benefits sinners Οby taking the punishment and guilt they
deserve,Π dying in their stead (p. 92). However, the fundamental sense of the
dying formula seems to be that Christ died for our sake, not instead of us,

as seems clear from the threefold use of ἡ ῶ in Rom. 8:31-34.

Rom. 8:3-4 is a key text about the atonementΣs internal mechanism. Here Paul
broadens ChristΣs atoning work to include incarnation, through which Christ
entered into Οfull identity and not mere resemblanceΠ with sinful humanity (Bell,
2002, p. 6; cf. 2 Cor. 8:9; Gal. 4:4-5). This suggests an ΟinterchangeΠ model:
ΟChrist became what we are, in order that (in him) we might become what he isΠ
(Hooker, 1971, p. 354). That God Οcondemned sin in the fleshΠ suggests a
representative model of atonement, not penal substitution (contra Gathercole,
2004, p. 177, who conflates ΡcondemnationΣ with ΡpunishmentΣ here; the former
word refers to pronouncement, not execution, of a sentence). Note that God
condemns sin, not Jesus. Minear (1953) helpfully distinguishes two types of death
in PaulΣs thought: Οsinful death vs. death to sinΠ (p. 155). Christ, being faithfully
obedient unto death, did not die a sinful death; he Οdied to sin, once for allΠ (Rom.
6:10), breaking the legal power of sin. Consequently those who participate in his
death-to-sin (those Οin Christ Jesus,Π Rom. 8:1) escape condemnation to sinful
death and participate in his resurrection, gaining Οa new birth into eternal lifeΠ
(Minear, 1953, p. 151). Those under the federal headship of the new Adam fulfil
the righteous requirement of the law (Rom. 8:4)—namely that Οthe wages of sin
is deathΠ (Rom. 6:23)—by dying ChristΣs death-to-sin rather than their own sinful
death.

4. Corroboration from Gal. 3:13 and 2 Cor. 5:21

The two ΟPauline loci classici of atonementΠ outside Romans are Gal. 3:13 and 2
Cor. 5:21 (Crawford, 1970, p. 272). While space does not allow detailed exegesis,
they appear consistent with representative-participatory atonement theology. In
citing Deut. 21:23 in Gal. 3:13, ΟPaul omits the phrase Ρby God,Σ thus dissociating
the curse from God, linking it solely to the LawΠ (Martyn, 1997, p. 320). Just as
Christ Οcondemned sinΠ according to Rom. 8:3, the underlying assumption in Gal.
3:13 is that Οthough Christ became a curse, this curse has in some way been
annulledΠ (Hooker, 1971, p. 351). Gal. 3:13-14 contains the ΟinterchangeΠ idea

10
mentioned earlier: Christ became a curse that others might receive a blessing by
participation in his death and resurrection (Brondos, 2001). Here, Paul assures
specifically Gentile Christians that ChristΣs death has broken the lawΣs power Οto
curse them for abandoning some of its requirementsΠ (Young, 1998, p. 90).

In 2 Cor. 5:21, Οhe made him to be sinΠ is probably a ΟcompressedΠ way of saying
Οthat Christ totally identified with sinnersΠ (Turner, 1989, p. 87; similarly Bell,
2002, pp. 13-14). ΟJust as he was identified with our sin, so we—because we are
in him—are now identified with God's righteousness. We become what he isΠ
(Hooker, 2008, p. 370). Importantly, Paul here supplies a crucial premise that is
only implicit in Rom. 8:3-4: that Christ Οknew no sin,Π i.e. perfectly obeyed the
law. Thus it was his ΟfaithfulnessΠ (Rom. 3:22, 25, 26), his ΟobedienceΠ (Rom.
5:19; Phil. 2:8), that made his death a condemnation of sin, an annulment of the
lawΣs curse, in GodΣs sight. This again confirms the objectivity of PaulΣs atonement
theology, but in a representative-participatory sense rather than a penal
substitutionary sense.

5. Critique of penal substitution

There is room for vicarious atonement in PaulΣs thought. The notions of
ΟidentificationΠ and ΟsubstitutionΠ are, after all, not far apart. The caveat is that
ChristΣs did not die in our place that we may avoid death, but that we may
participate in his death, and consequently his life (Dunn, 1998, p. 223; Tuckett,
1992, p. 519). The substitution is not penal but representative.

The greatest theological problem with the penal substitution model is its
depiction—sometimes graphic—of God having Οpoured out on [Christ] the
punishment and wrath we deserveΠ (Schreiner, 2006, p. 90; similarly Cranfield,
1975, p. 217; Grudem, 1994, p. 575; Lloyd-Jones, 1970, p. 90; Packer, 1974, p.
41). Our objection is not, as GreenΣs is (1993, p. 206), against the idea of
retributive divine wrath itself. As highlighted earlier, this is a prominent feature of
the plight (Rom. 1:18; cf. Gathercole, 2004). Our objection is that Paul never
speaks of Christ exhausting GodΣs punishment, nor of God pouring out his wrath
upon Christ.

11
Paul teaches that Christ already Οdelivers us from the coming wrathΠ (1 Thess.
1:10). However, this means not that God has already expended his wrath against
sin but that, although the day of GodΣs wrath is coming (Rom. 2:5-8), those who
share in the benefits of ChristΣs victory over sin—forensic rectification—will be
rescued from it (Rom. 5:9).

6. Conclusion
Given the complex and contested nature of PaulΣs atonement theology, this essay
is intended not as a polemical Οlast wordΠ on the subject but as a modest
contribution to an ongoing debate. Indeed, this essay has certainly not exhausted
PaulΣs atonement theology: ΟPaul has no one way of explicating the meaning of
the crossΠ (Green, 1993, p. 204); he sees it Οas a great divine act that may be
viewed from many anglesΠ (Morris, 1988, p. 172). We have not touched on the
subjective dimension of the atonement conveyed by the reconciliation language
of Rom. 5:10-11 (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18-20), which Οbelongs to the domain of diplomacyΠ
(Schnelle, 2005, p. 452). Similarly, we have not discussed the Christus Victor
dimension, whereby hostile heavenly powers Οhave lost any effective power over
those who belong to ChristΠ (Dunn, 1998, p. 230; cf. Rom. 8:31-39; Col. 2:15).

Nevertheless, we have covered considerable ground. Ultimately, Rom. 3:21-26 is

all about GodΣs righteousness, which is both attributive and communicative, both
relational and forensic. God showed his covenant faithfulness by saving people
from humanityΣs plight of sinful death—the product of condemnation in Adam and
individual transgressions. However, this did not entail endlessly postponing
punishment, but rectification on an objective legal basis as demanded by GodΣs
moral integrity. We have tried to show that for Paul, this basis is the faithfulness
of Christ, who perfectly obeyed God, met the lawΣs requirements, and died a
sacrificial Οdeath to sin,Π condemning sin itself. As the new Adam, he became the
federal representative of a new, eschatological humanity. All who participate in
his Οdeath to sinΠ through faith may participate equally in his resurrected Οlife to
God,Π (Rom. 6:10), receiving from God a righteousness which is Οapart from the
lawΠ (Rom. 3:21). Jesus Christ is, in the gospel, publicly displayed as a new mercy-
seat, through whom all who believe are liberated from enslavement to sin. Such
a representative-participatory atonement theology is not fully explicated in Rom.
3:21-26, but the missing details can be filled in from other passages, especially

12
Rom. 4:25, 5:6-6:11 and 8:3-4. It also appears consistent with Pauline atonement
texts outside Romans, such as Gal. 3:13 and 2 Cor. 5:21.

References

Allison, G. (2007). A History of the Doctrine of the Atonement. Southern Baptist

Journal of Theology, 112, 4-19.
Arndt, W. F., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the
New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd edn). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Bailey, D. P. (2000). Jesus as the Mercy-seat: The Semantics and Theology of
PaulΣs Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25. Tyndale Bulletin, 51(1), 155-
158.
Beilby, J. & Eddy, P. R. (Eds.) (2006). The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Bell, R. H. (2002). Sacrifice and Christology in Paul. Journal of Theological
Studies, 53(1), 1-27.
Bozung, D. C. (2005). The New Perspective on Paul: A Survey and Critique, Part
I. Journal of Ministry and Theology, 9(2), 96-114.
Bozung, D. C. (2006). The New Perspective on Paul: A Survey and Critique, Part
II. Journal of Ministry and Theology, 10(1), 22-43.
Brondos, D. (2001). The Cross and the Curse: Galatians 3.13 and PaulΣs Doctrine
of Redemption. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 81, 3-32.
Campbell, D. A. (1994). Romans 1:17—A Crux Interpretum for the Ι Ι
Χ Ι Debate. Journal of Biblical Literature, 113(2), 265-285.
Campbell, D. A. (2013). The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of
Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Carson, D. A. (2004). Atonement in Romans 3:21-26. In C. E. Hill and F. A.
James III (Eds.), The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and
Practical Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Roger R. Nicole (pp. 119-139).
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Collins, J. J. (2000). Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the
Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

13
Cranfield, C. E. B. (1975). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle
to the Romans (Vol. 1). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Crawford, R. G. (1970). Is the penal theory of the Atonement scriptural?
Scottish Journal of Theology, 23(3), 257-272.
Davies, G. N. (1990). Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1-4.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Dunn, J. D. G. (1998). The Theology of Paul the Apostle. London: T&T Clark.
Dunn, J. D. G. (2012). Adam and Christ. In J. L. Sumney (Ed.), Reading Paul’s
Letter to the Romans (pp. 125-138). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Fryer, N. S. L. (1987). The Meaning and Translation of Hilastērion in Romans
3:25. Evangelical Quarterly, 59(2), 99-116.
Gathercole, S. J. (2004). Justified by Faith, Justified by his Blood: The Evidence
of Romans 3:21-4:25. In D. A. Carson, P. T. OΣBrien & M. A. Seifrid
(Eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. II: The Paradoxes of
Paul (pp. 147-84). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Gibson, J. B. (2004). PaulΣs ΟDying FormulaΠ: Prolegomena to an Understanding
of Its Import and Significance. In S. E. McGinn (Ed.), Celebrating Romans:
Template for Pauline Theology: Essays in Honor of Robert Jewett (pp. 20-
41). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Green, J. B. (1993). Death of Christ. In G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin & D. G.
Reid (Eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (pp. 201-209). Downers
Grove: IVP Academic.
Green, J. B. (2012). Atonement Images in Romans. In J. L. Sumney (Ed.),
Reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans (pp. 79-92). Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature.
Grieb, A. K. (2012). The Righteousness of God in Romans. In J. L. Sumney
(Ed.), Reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans (pp. 65-78). Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature.
Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Haacker, K. (2003). The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Holland, T. (2011). Romans, The Divine Marriage: A Biblical Theological
Commentary. Eugene: Pickwick.
Hooker, M. D. (1971). Interchange in Christ. Journal of Theological Studies,

14
 32(2), 349-361.
Hooker, M. D. (1989). Ι Ι Χ Ι . New Testament Studies, 35, 321-342.
Hooker, M. D. (2008). On Becoming the Righteousness of God: Another Look at
2 Cor 5:21. Novum Testamentum, 50, 358-375.
Hultgren, A. J. (2011). Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Jewett, R. (2007). Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Johnson, L. T. (1982). Rom 3:21-26 and the Faith of Jesus. Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, 44(1), 77-90.
Käsemann, E. (1980). Commentary on Romans (trans. G. Bromiley). Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1970). Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3.20-4.25;
Atonement and Justification. London: Banner of Truth Trust.
Longenecker, R. N. (2016). The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the
Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Martyn, J. L. (1997). Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. New York: Doubleday.
Minear, P. S. (1953). The Truth about Sin and Death: The Meaning of Atonement
in the Epistle to the Romans. Interpretation, 7(2), 142-155.
Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Morris, L. (1955). The Meaning of ἹΛΑ Η Ι Ν in Romans III.25. New
Testament Studies, 2(1), 33-43.
Morris, L. (1988). The Epistle to the Romans. Leicester: InterVarsity Press.
Mounce, R. H. (1995). Romans. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.
Neusner, J. (2005). Sin, Repentance, Atonement, and Resurrection: The
Perspective of Rabbinic Theology on the Views of James 1-2 and Paul in
Romans 3-4. In B. Chilton & C. Evans (Eds.), The Missions of James,
Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity (pp. 409-434). Leiden: Brill.
Packer, J. I. (1974). What did the cross achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution.
Tyndale Bulletin, 25, 3-45.
Sanders, E. P. (1977). Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns
of Religion. London: SCM Press.
Schnelle, U. (2005). Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology (trans. M. E. Boring).
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Schreiner, T. R. (2006). Penal Substitution View. In J. Beilby & P. R. Eddy (Eds.),

15
 The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (pp. 67-98). Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press.
Schreiner, T. R. (2012). Paul: A Reformed Reading. In M. F. Bird (Ed.), Four
Views on the Apostle Paul (pp. 19-47). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Stubbs, D. L. (2008). The shape of soteriology and the pistis Christou debate.
Scottish Journal of Theology, 61(2), 137-157.
Sumney, J. L. (2012). Reading the Letter to the Romans. In J. L. Sumney (Ed.),
Reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans (pp. 1-10). Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature.
Tuckett, C. M. (1992). Atonement in the NT. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), Anchor
Bible Dictionary (Vol. 1) (pp. 518-522). New York: Doubleday.
Turner, D. L. (1989). Paul and the Ministry of Reconciliation in 2 Cor 5:11-6:2.
Criswell Theological Review, 4(1), 77-95.
Williams, G. J. (2007). Penal Substitution: A Response to Recent Criticisms.
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 50(1), 71-86.
Williams, J. (2010). Violent Atonement in Romans: The Foundation of PaulΣs
Soteriology. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 53(3), 579-
599.
Williams, S. K. (1987). Again ΟPistis ChristouΠ. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 49(3),
431-447.
Young, N. H. (1974). Did St. Paul Compose Romans III:24f? Australian Biblical
Review, 22, 23-32.
Young, N. H. (1998). WhoΣs Cursed—and Why? (Galatians 3:10-14). Journal of
Biblical Literature, 117(1), 79-92.

16