Raised "for" Our Justification
Question: I believe there is no sufficient reason to doubt Rom. 4:2525Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. (Romans 4:25) means that Christ was raised “for” our justification. Grammatically, it is well known, “because of” is a common, perhaps the most common, force of the preposition διά, with the accusative. But the form of the word δικαίωσις resists such a view here; and still more does the context, especially chapter 5:1, where justification is made to depend on faith, instead of being treated as a thing already settled independently of believing. I have heard it argued, however, that διὰ τὴν πώρωσιν, in Eph. 4:1818Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: (Ephesians 4:18) (which, beyond question, means “because of,” and not for “the hardness,” &c.) sets aside the reasoning grounded on the form of the word. What think you?
X. X.
Answer: No doubt, πώρωσις, being the active form of nouns, like δικεαὶωσις, may seem to raise a question; but if adequately considered, the difficulty disappears. For πώρωσις has the simple sense of a callous place, as one might say, “it is a hardening of the skin,” though the form “hardening” be active, because it was a gradual act, while it is now a state. So νἐκρωσις is applied to Sarah’s womb; and again, we are to carry about the νἐκρωσις of the Lord Jesus. But this is, I apprehend, in no way the case with justifying, or δικαίωσις. Διά always means “on account of:” the question is, does it here signify previous to, or after, the resurrection of Christ? People often cite the verse, as if it meant that Christ was raised on account of our having been already justified before He rose. This, I am convinced, would require some such phrase as διὰ τὸ δικαιωθἠναι ἡμὰς, which essentially differs from that which Paul employs. In the present case, there would be no process like that of πὠρωσις, or νέκρωσις (which words express a state as result), but a state existing by the simple act of another, a relationship in virtue of an act done. This, the active form, does not, I believe, express; an effect to be produced it can express. The great doctrinal mischief of the alleged rendering, “because of,” is, that it excludes faith from justifying; which is Calvinism, or ultra-Calvinism, but wholly unscriptural.