“But now”, these emphatic words suggest a turning point. If the Law is limited then something big, something different needs to happen. Paul says that this “but now” something different is God’s righteousness which has been revealed to us in another place than the Law. A few options for what is meant by God’s righteousness have been suggested and they depend upon how the genitive is meant to work. It could be a subjective genitive meaning that this is something that God possesses, a quality or characteristic or it could be that this is a righteousness “from God” which means it’s a quality we receive. Thirdly, this could be a reference to something God does and so some commentators connect the righteousness of God to his covenant faithfulness. Personally, I’m not convinced that we need to make a big choice. Paul may have all three options in mind, though one or other may come to the forefront at different points in Romans. At this point, it is important to observe that the revelation of God’s righteousness, which we already know from chapter 1 is linked to faith is contrasted with a righteousness revealed in or by the Law. The Law is of course seeking to both tell us about what God’s character is like (subjective righteousness) but it is also about how God fulfils his covenant promises to Israel and it is about his how we are meant to be righteousness (objective righteousness from God), so could be all three. Although this righteousness is revealed apart from the Law, both the Law and the Prophets point to it (v21).
We are being given more specific information about what the righteousness of God is, faith is now contrasted with law but additionally we are told more about the nature of faith. It’s faith “of” or faith “in” Jesus. We have another genitive here. If the former, then we might be saying that it is the faithfulness or obedience of Jesus, his righteousness imputed to us. There are more overt references to this in Romans and so, if Paul intended to refer to imputed righteousness I think he would have done so in a more obvious way. So , ’m inclined to take this as Paul adding to the point. We need to have faith, to trust in Jesus. This is for all who believe, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (v22).
There’s no distinction because we all have sinned, we have all fallen short of God’s glory. In other words, we do not possess his righteousness. Although we were made in his image we do not bear it unmarred and uncorrupted now. We have lost something (v23). However, we are not left there, left helpless. We are unrighteous but God justifies us, we are declared, we become righteous. How? Well, it’s by grace, God’s free gift to us. Paul introduces now a further concept. How does this justification happen? It is through redemption. The idea here is of something being bought back, restored to the possession of its rightful owner. God has paid the price so that we can be reconciled to him through the death of Jesus (v24).
We are now introduced to another concept. Again there’s disagreement amongst interpreters and commentators. ἱλαστήριον is a reference to the sacrifice itself, the one offered to make atonement or possible, according to some, even to the altar or to the mercy seat/cover itself. The word however has been used in other texts to convey the idea of what some translations refer to as propitiation. This is the idea that Goid’s wrath is turned away by the sacrifice. Some are uncomfortable with this thinking that it presents an angry God, satiating his wrath by killing his son. However, this forgets that the Father and Son have one will and that it is God himself dealing with the problem. The atoning sacrifice is linked to God bearing with sin until this point and so whist some prefer to talk of expiation, God removing the sin and whilst that is an aspect of atonement, I think that propitiation best fits the sense here (v25). The atonement was necessary to show that God was just, that he has dealt with sin and therefore, it means that he is able to justify us (v26),
Faithroots 