My RSV says, “since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in christ jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”

Here it is very plain that justification (to be made right in God’s sight) comes through redemption (forgiveness from sin, or deliverance from sin) which is in christ jesus (anointed jesus), whom God put forward as an expiation (sin or atonement offering) by his blood (suffering), to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins (NIV says left the sins committed before hand unpunished)

Now whose sins are we talking about here? Jesus sins’ or our sins. I only say this because the high-priest’s function according to Hebrews is to provide a ONCE FOR ALL sacrifice for his OWN sins BEFORE he can provide purification of sins for his people. The sacrificial act of atonement MUST PRECEDE the INCEPTION of a holy ministry, else the high-priest is unable to provide forgiveness of sins for his people!!! Why does Paul speak of the crucifixion as a portrayal. Maybe Jesus had to be crucified so that people would understand the suffering which a person has to go through in order to be sanctified (made holy). This would make sense, as the apostles themselves all speak of the same patient endurance through suffering which is by faith.

This is a very important point, esp since we are all told to believe jesus was always holy. He knew no sin, omits to tell us if there was a point at which he knew sin. If the scripture had said he NEVER knew sin, we could say for certain that he never sinned. Also backing up the theory that Jesus might not alwyas have been holy is this:

If he had been holy from birth, then why in John 17:19 does he say that he sanctified himself? A holy man has no need of sanctification. Only the unholy require it because sanctification is the work of the holy spirit to purify a person from sin.

Secondly, if Jesus was always holy, why did his ministry only start in his 30′s. What was he doing before then? Surely if he was always holy, then he would have had a life-long ministry.

Thirdly, Heb 7:6 “for it was fitting that we should have such a high-priest (Jesus), holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. To be separated from sinners means that a man is set apart for holy use, or consecrated and this by sanctification. Sanctification is by the purification/forgiveness of sin.

Your second reply persuadeth me.

John, I did not mention ESV because I was following the advice of Ephesians 5:3-16, which can be summed up as “don’t even talk about any evil”. These are things which “must not even be named among you” (v.3, RSV). So surely I was right not to refer to a version which contains half of the word “evil” in its very name! Note that I was consistent, not discriminatory, in avoiding quoting any version with the initial letter of “evil” in its name.

The second dash was inherited from the NIV, where it wasn’t so much a structural problem because of the “faith in his blood” wording. It’s almost like they revised 3:25a to get rid of “through faith in his blood” and didn’t look at the rest of the passage, but I wouldn’t assume that…

What is most fun about this exchange is Peter’s approach to ESV. He seems to treat it as Lord Voldemort is in the Harry Potter series: too dangerous to name.

I wonder if there are any study Bibles, besides NET, that present the options with a degree of equanimity in the notes. Both NLTSB and ESVSB have no discussion of the question at Rom 3:22 and Gal 3:22.

It would be nice if someone got around to publishing a study Bible that adequately introduces readers to questions of interpretation that have been and continue to be debated.