John Calvin Commentary Romans 3:25

"whom God set forth [to be] a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God;" — Romans 3:25 (ASV)

Whom God has set forth, etc. The Greek verb προτίθεναι sometimes means to determine beforehand and sometimes to set forth. If the first meaning is taken, Paul refers to the gratuitous mercy of God in having appointed Christ as our Mediator, so that he might appease the Father by the sacrifice of his death. Nor is it a small commendation of God’s grace that he, of his own good will, sought out a way by which he might remove our curse. According to this view, the passage fully harmonizes with that in John 3:16,

God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son.

Yet if we embrace this meaning, it will still remain true that God has set him forth in due time, whom he had appointed as a Mediator. There seems to be an allusion in the word ἱλαστήριον, as I have said, to the ancient propitiatory, for he teaches us that the same thing was really exhibited in Christ which had been previously typified. However, as the other view cannot be disproved, if anyone prefers it, I will not undertake to decide the question. What Paul especially meant here is no doubt evident from his words; and it was this—that God, without having regard to Christ, is always angry with us, and that we are reconciled to him when we are accepted through his righteousness. God does not indeed hate in us his own workmanship, that is, as we are formed as human beings; but he hates our uncleanness, which has extinguished the light of his image. When the washing of Christ cleanses this away, he then loves and embraces us as his own pure workmanship.

A propitiatory through faith in his blood, etc. I prefer to retain Paul’s language literally, for it indeed seems to me that he intended, by one single sentence, to declare that God is propitious to us as soon as our trust rests on the blood of Christ, for by faith we come to possess this benefit. But by mentioning blood only, he did not mean to exclude other things connected with redemption but, on the contrary, to include the whole under one word; and he mentioned blood because by it we are cleansed. Thus, by taking a part for the whole, he points out the whole work of expiation. For, as he had said before, that God is reconciled in Christ, so he now adds, that this reconciliation is obtained by faith, mentioning, at the same time, what it is that faith should mainly regard in Christ—his blood.

For the remission of sins, etc. (propter). The causal preposition implies as much as if he had said, “for the sake of remission,” or, “to this end, that he might blot out sins.” And this definition or explanation again confirms what I have already often reminded you—that people are pronounced just, not because they are so in reality, but by imputation. For he only uses various modes of expression so that he might more clearly declare that in this righteousness there is no merit of ours; for if we obtain it by the remission of sins, we conclude that it is not from ourselves. Furthermore, since remission itself is an act of God’s bounty alone, every merit falls to the ground.

However, it may be asked why he confines pardon to preceding sins. Though this passage is explained in various ways, it still seems probable to me that Paul had in mind the legal expiations, which were indeed evidence of a future satisfaction but could in no way pacify God. There is a similar passage in Hebrews 9:15, where it is said that by Christ a redemption was brought from sins which remained under the former Testament. You are not, however, to understand that only sins of former times were expiated by the death of Christ—a delirious notion, which some fanatics have drawn from a distorted view of this passage. For Paul teaches us only this—that until the death of Christ there was no way of appeasing God, and that this was not done or accomplished by the legal types; hence the reality was suspended until the fullness of time came. We may further say that those things which involve us in guilt daily must be regarded in the same way, for there is only one true expiation for all.

Some, in order to avoid what seems inconsistent, have held that former sins are said to have been forgiven, lest it should seem that liberty is given to sin in the future. It is indeed true that no pardon is offered except for sins committed; not that the benefit of redemption fails or is lost when we afterwards fall, as Novatus and his sect dreamed, but that it is the character of the dispensation of the gospel to set before the one who will sin the judgment and wrath of God, and before the sinner his mercy. But what I have already stated is the real sense.

He adds that this remission was through forbearance; and I take this simply to mean gentleness, which has held back the judgment of God and did not allow it to burst forth to our ruin, until he at last received us into favor. But there seems to be here also an implied anticipation of what might be said, so that no one might object and say that this favor had only recently appeared. Paul teaches us that it was an evidence of forbearance.