Opinion: Cranfield on Romans

Whyndell Grizzard said:

Cranfield is worth every dime it is a must have resource.

I agree. [Y]

For the price I'd suggest getting it. I paid $87.50 just a few years ago and thought that was an exceptional deal (which it was at the time).

It will be of most value if you are trying to study the Greek text of Romans, but for the current price, even if you aren't, it is worth purchasing.

SteveHD said:

If you "aren't" is it usable? Sometimes introductions, backgrounds and other portions are still very readable to non-Greek scholars but sometimes the whole work is pretty much unreadable.

I'll let you judge. Here is a rather long excerpt, containing Romans 3:25-26:

The whole of 25 and 26 is a single relative clause depending on Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ in v. 24. It consists of a main element followed by three formulations equivalent to final clauses which together serve to clarify the key-word ἱλαστήριον.
ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεός. The verb προτιθέναι occurs only three times in the NT (in 1:13, here, and in Eph 1:9). The main meanings which it can have, when used in the middle (as it is in all its NT occurrences), are: (i) ‘propose to oneself’, ‘purpose’; (ii) ‘set forth publicly’, ‘display’.2 Both these possibilities with regard to προέθετο have found support from early times. Sanday and Headlam argued that (ii) should be preferred on the ground that the immediate context is ‘full of terms denoting publicity (πεφανέρωται, εἰς ἔνδειξιν, πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν)’, and compared Gal 3:1 (… οἶς κατʼ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος);3 and this view is widely favoured.4 It is sometimes even taken for granted without discussion. But there are strong reasons for preferring (i). In both its other NT occurrences—and one of them is in this epistle (1:13)—προτίθεσθαι definitely means ‘purpose’; and ‘purpose’ is also the meaning of the cognate noun πρόθεσις in eight of its twelve occurrences in the NT (in the others it is used with reference to the shewbread).1 In 8:28 and 9:11 πρόθεσις is used of God’s gracious purpose of election. Support for the meaning ‘purpose’ for προέθετο here is to be found in the comments of Origen,2 Ambrosiaster,3 and Chrysostom.4 It is true that the double accusative is difficult on this view; but a parallel construction with προορίζειν, a verb of similar meaning, is to be seen in 8:29, and it is significant that this difficulty did not weigh with Origen and Chrysostom. The meaning ‘purpose’ has been accepted in modern times by, inter al., J. B. Lightfoot, p. 271; Lagrange, p. 75; Cambier, L’Evangile de Dieu, p. 91; NEB (‘designed’); JB (‘appointed’).5 There is, in our view, little doubt that ‘purposed’ should be preferred to ‘set forth publicly’. In addition to what has already been said in its favour, it may further be suggested that it makes rather better theological sense in the context; for, true though it is that the idea of publicity is present in the context, v. 26b indicates Paul’s concern with something even more important than men’s being made aware of God’s righteousness, namely, God’s being righteous. A reference to God’s eternal purpose strikes us as even more apposite at this point than a reference to the fact that the Cross was something accomplished in the sight of men. Chrysostom’s comment (Δηλῶν δὲ πάλιν οὐ νεώτερον τοῦτο ὂν οὐδὲ φησί, Προέθετο. Καὶ εἰπών, Προέθετο ὁ Θεός, καὶ δείξας τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸ κατόρθωμα, τὸ αὐτὸ δείκνυσι καὶ τοῦ ψἱοῦ ὄν· ὁμὲν γὰρ Πατὴρ προέθετο, ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι τὸ πᾶν κατώρθωσεν.) is suggestive. We take it that by ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεός Paul means to emphasize that it is God who is the origin of the redemption which was accomplished in Christ Jesus (cf. 2 Cor 5:19 (… θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαντῷ …)) and also that this redemption has its origin not in some sudden new idea or impulse on God’s part but in His eternal purpose of grace.
It will be convenient to leave discussion of ἱλαστήριον till after the remaining elements of vv. 25 and 26 have been considered, since they contribute to its clarification.
The first of these remaining elements is διὰ πίστεως which has both a positive and a negative significance. Positively, it indicates that a response of faith on men’s part is definitely required: the benefit resulting from the fulfilment of God’s purpose that Jesus Christ should be ἱλαστήριον is to be accepted, appropriated, by faith. But it also implies, negatively, that no other way of appropriating this benefit but faith alone is open to men: every thought of their earning it by their works is excluded. [Nestle26 adds τῆς before πίστεως.]
ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἴματι is the second element. It is not to be connected with πίστεως (Paul is not indicating by it that the faith in question is faith in Christ’s blood), but with ἱλαστήριον:1 it was by means of the shedding of His blood that, according to the divine purpose, Christ was to be ἱλαστήριον. With this reference to the blood of Christ we may compare 5:9; Acts 20:28; Eph 1:7; 2:13; Col 1:20; Heb 9:11ff; 10:19, 29; 13:12, 20; 1 Pet 1:2, 19; 1 Jn 1:7; 5:6; Rev 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:11; and also, of course, Mt 26:28 = Mk 14:24 = Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25 and 10:16. In 5:9 ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ corresponds to διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ in the following verse, and in the Ephesians and Colossians passages cited above the use of αἷμα could perhaps be explained as simply a way of expressing the idea of death; but in 1 Cor 11:25, the three Synoptic verses, and the Hebrews, 1 Peter and 1 John passages, a sacrificial significance is clearly present, and it seems probable that in the other passages cited above also a sacrificial significance attaches to the use of the word αἷμα, whether felt more or less strongly. There is little doubt that this is so in the verse under consideration. Compare Lev 17:11, in the LXX version of which the verb ἐξιλάσκεσθαι which is cognate with ἱλαστήριον is twice used (ἡ γὰρ ψμχὴ πάσης σαρκὸς αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ἐγὼ δέδωκα αὐτὸ ὑμῖν ἐπὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου ἐξιλάσκεσθαι περὶ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν· τὸ γὰρ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἀντὶ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐξιλάσεται), and also 4 Macc 6:29; 17:22.
The third element is εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ. According to Nygren,1 δικαιοσύνη both here and in its occurrence in v. 26 has the same sense as it had in 3:21 and 22 (and also in 1:17) and denotes the righteous status which God gives, and ἔνδειξις means ‘showing’ not in the sense of proving but in the sense of offering, making available, in both its occurrences in these two verses. But, while there is an obvious neatness about ascribing to δικαιοσύνη in vv. 25 and 26 the same meaning as it had in vv. 21 and 22, the reference to God’s being righteous in the last part of v. 26 would seem to tell strongly in favour of understanding δικαιοσύνη in these two verses as referring to God’s own righteousness, and ἔνδειξις as meaning ‘proving’. The significance of the word πάρεσις2 as used here is also debated.3 In spite of opinions to the contrary, there seems to be little doubt that it is not just used as a synonym of ἄφεσις (cf. the Vulgate ‘remissionem’), διά having the sense ‘with a view to’, but is intended to express the idea of passing over, leaving unpunished,4 διά being used in its more usual sense of ‘on account of’. The reference to God’s ἀνοχή (cf. 2:4; Acts 17:30: see also the note on 2:4) affords support for this view. The idea of God’s patiently holding back His wrath is familiar in Judaism. But for God simply to pass over sins would be altogether incompatible with His righteousness. He would not be the good and merciful God, had He been content to pass over sins indefinitely; for this would have been to condone evil—a denial of His own nature and a cruel betrayal of sinners. God has in fact been able to hold His hand and pass over sins, without compromising His goodness and mercy, because His intention has all along been to deal with them once and for all, decisively and finally, through the Cross. Paul is saying in these two verses that God purposed (from eternity) that Christ should be ἱλαστήριον, in order that the reality of God’s righteousness, that is, of His goodness and mercy, which would be called in question by His passing over sins committed up to the time of that decisive act,1 might be established.
The fourth element is πρὸς τὴν ἕνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτου ἐν τῷς νῦν καιρῷ. It repeats the main idea of the preceding element with the addition of ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ. The time indicated by ὁ νῦν καιρός must be the period which embraces both the time of the gospel events and also the time of their proclamation in the on-going preaching of the gospel.2
The fifth and last element is εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτόν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ. The sense will be substantially the same, whether we explain this grammatically as dependent on πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν, κ.τ.λ. or as parallel with εἰς τὴν ἔνδειξιν, κ.τ.λ. and πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν, κ.τ.λ. In either case, these words indicate the ultimate object of God’s purposing Christ as ἱλαστήριον. Barrett’s explanation of v. 26b as meaning that ‘the demonstration of God’s righteousness … was intended to show that God (a) was righteous in himself, and (b) justified the man who relied on faith’1 is to be rejected, because it reads the thought of showing from εἰς τὴν ἔνδειξιν, κ.τ.λ. and πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν, κ.τ.λ. into εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτόν, κ.τ.λ., to which it is quite foreign. The words εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον mean not ‘in order that He might show that He is righteous’, but ‘in order that He might be righteous’. Paul is not saying that God purposed Christ as ἱλαστήριον, in order to show His righteousness … (v. 26a), in order to show both that He is righteous in Himself and also that He justifies … (v. 26b); but that God purposed Christ as ἱλαστήριον, in order to show His righteousness … (v. 26a), in order that He might be righteous … (v. 26b). Paul recognizes that what was at stake was not just God’s being seen to be righteous, but God’s being righteous. God would not be righteous, if He neglected to show Himself to be righteous: it is essential to His being the righteous, the loving and merciful God, that He should show that He is righteous.
The further point must also be made that the variant reading (G pc Ambst) which omits καί, though it should not be accepted, is probably a pointer to the correct understanding of καί; for it is surely more natural to take καί adverbially here (as meaning ‘even’) than as the copulative ‘and’. The Greek is very awkward, if it is meant to express the double purpose that God might be righteous and that He might justify (or that He might be righteous and the justifier); but is a quite natural way of expressing the meaning ‘that God might be righteous even in justifying’, i.e. that He might justify righteously, without compromising His own righteousness. So understood, the words afford an insight into the innermost meaning of the Cross as Paul understands it and into his use of ἱλαστήριον in v. 25. For God to have forgiven men’s sins lightly—a cheap forgiveness which would have implied that moral evil does not matter very much—would have been altogether unrighteous, a violation of His truth and profoundly unmerciful and unloving toward men, since it would have annihilated their dignity as persons morally accountable. The purpose of Christ’s being ἱλαστήριον was to achieve a divine forgiveness, which is worthy of God, consonant with His righteousness, in that it does not insult God’s creature man by any suggestion that that is after all of but small consequence, which he himself at his most human knows full well (witness, for example, the Greek tragedians) is desperately serious, but, so far from condoning man’s evil, is, since it involves nothing less than God’s bearing the intolerable burden of that evil Himself in the person of His own dear Son, the disclosure of the fullness of God’s hatred of man’s evil at the same time as it is its real and complete forgiveness.
The words τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ specify as the object of God’s justifying the man who believes in Jesus: compare παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι in 1:16 and δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως [Ἰησοῦ] Χριστοῦ, εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας in v. 22 of the present chapter. For the expression compare οἱ ἐκ πίστεως in Gal 3:7 and 9; οἱ ἐκ νόμου in 4:14; οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς in 4:12; Acts 11:2; Gal 2:12; and also τῷ σπέρματι, οὐ τῷ ἐκ τοῦ νόμον μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ in 4:16.1 For the genitive Ἰησοῦ see on v. 22.
We must now return to ἱλαστήριον. Since this word is used of the kappōret̄ or mercy-seat in twenty-one out of its twenty-seven occurrences in the LXX and in its only other occurrence in the NT (Heb 9:5), the possibility that Paul is using it in that sense here and thinking of Christ as the anti-type of the OT mercy-seat must clearly be taken seriously. From early times Paul has often been so understood,2 and this view of ἱλαστήριον is upheld by many recent writers.3 But the arguments which have been urged in support of it have been shown by L. Morris to be not really very strong.4 Thus the strongest of them (that from the LXX usage) is seriously diminished by the recognition that, wherever in the LXX ἱλαστήριον means ‘mercy-seat’, it is used with the definite article (cf. Heb 9:5), except in Exod 25:17, where the addition of ἐπίθεμα has the similar effect of removing ἱλαστήριον from the realm of the general, and there is always something in the context to make clear which of the things which could be denoted by ἱλαστήριον is intended. Here in Romans 3 ἱλαστήριον is anarthrous, and there is nothing in the context which can be said to indicate unambiguously that the mercy-seat is referred to. Morris further shows the weakness of Manson’s contention that in its occurrences in Ezekiel and in early Christian literature outside the NT ἱλαστήριον denotes a place (it is the propitiatory character and purpose of the object, not its being a place, which is indicated by the use of ἱλαστήριον), and of the various arguments put forward to prove that Paul was thinking of the Day of Atonement ceremonies. There are, on the other side, considerations which weigh heavily against this interpretation of ἱλαστήριον. While it is an understandable paradox to refer to Christ as being at the same time both priest and victim, to represent Him as being the place of sprinkling as well as the victim is surely excessively harsh and confusing. Moreover, there seems to be something essentially improbable in the thought of Paul’s likening Christ, for whom, personally, man’s redemption was so infinitely costly, and to whom he felt so tremendous a personal indebtedness (cf., e.g., Gal 2:20), to something which was only an inanimate piece of temple furniture. The mercy-seat would surely be more appropriately regarded as a type of the Cross.
Before considering the other suggested meanings of ἱλαστήριον, it is necessary to refer to the question whether ἱλάσκεσθαι and its cognates, when used in the Bible, carry the idea of propitiation or appeasement which it is generally agreed that they express in pagan usage. C. H. Dodd argued in a well-known article1 that practically no trace of this meaning attaches to these words as used in the LXX, the thought expressed being rather, where the subject of the action is human, that of the expiation of sin, or, where the subject is God, that of God’s being gracious, having mercy, forgiving. But, while it is certainly true that the idea of a wrath of God which is capricious and vindictive and requires to be placated by bribery on men’s part is alien to the OT, it is by no means true that all ideas of divine wrath are alien. Morris has shown that in many, if not all, of the passages in which ἱλάσκεσθαι or related words occur in the LXX the idea of God’s wrath is present.1 (Dodd failed to pay adequate attention to the contexts of these words’ occurrences.) In view of this fact, we cannot allow that the thought of propitiation is altogether foreign to the ἱλάσκεσθαι word-group in the LXX. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the idea of the averting of wrath is basic to this word-group in the OT no less than in extrabiblical Greek, the distinctiveness of the OT usage being “its recognition first that God’s wrath, unlike all human wrath, is perfectly righteous, and therefore free from every trace of irrationality, caprice and vindictiveness,2 and secondly that in the process of averting this righteous wrath from man it is God Himself who takes the initiative.
The other meanings which have been suggested for ἱλαστήριον (that is, other than the meaning ‘mercy-seat) must now be considered. We may set aside as unlikely to be correct, in view of what we have seen in the last paragraph and also of the fact that the wrath of God is prominent in the preceding section of Romans (see, especially, 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5), the various suggestions (whether taking ἱλαστήριον as a masculine adjective or as a masculine noun or as a neuter noun), which are expressly intended to exclude the idea of propitiation. The remaining possibilities are: (i) ‘propitiatory’ or ‘propitiating’ (a masculine adjective agreeing with ὅν); (ii) ‘a propitiator’; (iii) ‘a propitiation’ or ‘a means of propitiation’; (iv) ‘a propitiatory sacrifice’. Of these (ii) should probably be rejected, in spite of the considerable support it has had (e.g. the rendering ‘propitiatorem’ in some Vulgate MSS and in Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Pelagius; also modern exegetes such as J. Haussleiter, G. Kittel, R. Seeberg), on the ground that there does not seem to be any independent attestation of such a use of ἱλαστήριος in ancient times (had this been Paul’s meaning, he would probably have used the word ἱλαστής). Between the other three possibilities there would seem to be little substantial difference, since, even if the word is explained as having one of the more general senses (i) and (iii), the presence of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι would still indicate that a propitiatory sacrifice is in mind. On the whole, it seems best to accept (iv).1 We may compare the words σωτήριον, χαριστήριον καθάρσιον, τελεστήριον. We take it that what Paul’s statement that God purposed Christ as a propitiatory victim means is that God, because in His mercy He willed to forgive sinful men and, being truly merciful, willed to forgive them righteously, that is, without in any way condoning their sin, purposed to direct against His own very Self in the person of His Son the full weight of that righteous wrath which they deserved.
That Paul’s thought of Christ as ἱλαστήριον has something in common with the speech of the youngest of the seven martyr brothers in 2 Macc 7:30–38,2 the prayer of Eleazar in 4 Macc 6:27–29,3 the statement about the seven in 4 Macc 17:20–22,4 and also with the Jewish theology of the ‘Binding of Isaac’,5 is clear. It is probable that the idea that the death of a martyr could be an atonement for the sins of Israel was well known to Paul. It is probable too that he was familiar with the belief in the redemptive efficacy of the binding of Isaac. The possibility that his thinking about the death of Christ was influenced by these ideas cannot be ruled out. But the fact that for Paul Jesus was decisively distinguished alike from the Maccabean martyrs and from the patriarch Isaac as being both God’s ‘own Son’ (8:32) and sinless (cf. 2 Cor 5:21) should not be forgotten. The possibility that Isa 53:10 (˒im tāśîm ˒āšām nap̱šô) may have contributed to Paul’s thought of Christ as ἱλαστήριον also deserves to be seriously considered.1

C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 208–218.