Gospel Guidebook: Getting and Keeping It Right 
Romans 4:25 as Proof Justification Was Accomplished at the Cross
by Robert P. TerryUpdated July 6, 2026
I believe Romans 4:25 is one of the plainest statements that justification was accomplished at the cross. However, because theologians have not understood how to harmonize what happened at the cross with justification by faith, they have, in my opinion, often explained away the plain words of Romans 4:25. One of the reasons for their inability to understand what Christ accomplished is due to their viewing faith as an appropriating instrument. Simply put, for the vast majority of theologians (regardless of whether they be Reformed, Free Grace, or Arminian), an unapplied Christ is no Christ at all. In this article, I will defend what I believe is the plain reading of Romans 4:25.
In Romans 4:25, we read, "who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification" (NASB). The past tense verbs coupled with the causative subordinate conjunction "because" naturally lend the clauses to being interpreted retrospectively. However, some theologians have interpreted the second clause "raised because of our justification" prospectively. They say it means "raised in view of our justification." The problem is that the Apostle Paul intentionally created a parallel between the first clause "delivered over because of our transgressions" and the second clause "raised because of our justification." To interpret one clause as retrospective and the other as prospective creates disharmony in the parallelism. Furthermore, Paul uses the Greek preposition dia (subordinate conjunction "because") followed by an accusative noun to indicate causation. This means that the translation "because" is lexically and grammatically natural. Moreover, we have a similar passage in Romans 8:10 where we read, "And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness." (italics added). In Romans 8:10, dia undoubtedly means "because." This construction is similar to Romans 4:25 where we have "delivered because of our transgression and raised because of our justification." In both cases we see death placed alongside sin and life placed alongside righteousness.
Some people object to the retrospective interpretation of Romans 4:25 by appealing to 1 Corinthians 15:17. In that verse we read, "and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." The argument goes that justification from sins depends on the resurrection (and, in particular, being united to the resurrection life of Christ). However, this argument is reading too much into this verse because it could likewise be interpreted as Christ not being raised due to His failure to justify His people from their sins. In other words, His resurrection depended on Him accomplishing justification. In fact, when Paul said that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" in 1 Corinthians 15:3, he most likely had in mind Isaiah 53 where we learn that "He was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due" and that "by His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities." This means that when Paul said, "Christ died for our sins," he was speaking of the sins of God's people, the elect, and as a consequence of Christ having died for their sins, they were no longer in their sins, and His resurrection bore witness to this fact. I believe this is the point of 1 Corinthians 15:17 when read in the context of the preceding verses.
Another objection to, what I believe to be, the plain reading of Romans 4:25 is that both clauses are prospective. This argument says that Romans 4:25 should be interpreted like "who was delivered up in order to atone for our sins and was raised in order that we might be justified." However, I think this interpretation handles the underlying Greek text too loosely. If the Apostle Paul meant "in order to" instead of "because," then he very well could have used the subjunctive conjunction hina (in order that, so that), or the preposition eis or pros (for), or some other Greek word that would have indicated his intention. If he was thinking prospectively, it doesn't make sense that he would use the Greek preposition dia followed by accusative nouns since this preposition would only obscure his argument and give his readers the wrong impression. By using dia, he certainly knew that some of his readers would have interpreted the two clauses retrospectively.