In the NASB, Romans 4:25 (emphasis mine) reads:

He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

However, in the ESV (emphasis mine) it reads:

...who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

These are very different statements. Was Jesus raised 'for our justification' or 'because of' it?

3 Answers 3


The Greek text for Romans 4:25 (from the NA28, emphasis mine) reads:

ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν.

The preposition διὰ followed by an accusative generally has a gloss of "on account of" or "because of," but could also carry the connotation "for the sake of." It almost always carries the force of the NASB translation, but could also contain the sense of the ESV (although I suspect this concession is only made in many resources because of this passage, which lends more strength to the causal sense). The NET chose to translate it as follows (emphasis mine):

He was given over because of our transgressions and was raised for the sake of our justification.

My main problem is that the exact same preposition followed by an accusative is almost always translated as causal in the preceding clause ("He was given over because of our transgressions"), and yet when the exact same construction appears the second time in the exact same sentence, people translate it differently (the ESV is at least consistent). Despite this translation choice (similar to the ESV), the NET translators acknowledge that the Greek carries the causal sense brought out in the NASB translation:

Grk “because of.” However, in light of the unsatisfactory sense that a causal nuance would here suggest, it has been argued that the second διά (dia) is prospective rather than retrospective (D. Moo, Romans [NICNT], 288-89). The difficulty of this interpretation is the structural balance that both διά phrases provide (“given over because of our transgressions…raised because of our justification”). However the poetic structure of this verse strengthens the likelihood that the clauses each have a different force.

The NET translators further elaborate on the poetic sense:

Many scholars regard Rom 4:25 to be poetic or hymnic. These terms are used broadly to refer to the genre of writing, not to the content. There are two broad criteria for determining if a passage is poetic or hymnic: “(a) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passages are read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (i.e., an arrangement into couplets), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (b) linguistic: an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context” (P. T. O’Brien, Philippians [NIGTC], 188-89). Classifying a passage as hymnic or poetic is important because understanding this genre can provide keys to interpretation. However, not all scholars agree that the above criteria are present in this passage.

The NASB translation is most faithful to the literal sense of the Greek in this passage, but scholars who are troubled by the "unsatisfactory sense that a causal nuance would here suggest" have proposed alternative ways of translating this passage that actually change the natural emphasis given to the preposition διὰ (for theological reasons). I personally think it is best to translate this passage as it is written (as the NASB has) with a footnote that indicates that the line may be poetic or carry the sense of "for the sake of" in this context. This would be the most consistent, especially since the preceding clause in the same sentence is also best translated as causal.

  • 1
    I actually love the ESV here. The English “for” carries both possible nuances of διὰ + acc. - “because of” and “for the sake of.” I realize the latter is less common for διὰ, but didn’t he just use this in v. 23 and again in 24? NASB: “for his(/our) sake”!
    – Susan
    Feb 9, 2015 at 7:17
  • Honestly I think your suggestion is most consistent with the literal sense of the Greek and with what Paul had said elsewhere in Romans: "Romans 5:9-10 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life."
    – Austin
    Oct 6, 2022 at 5:10

In Greek the causal preposition 'dia' allows and at times even seems to require a final meaning. (Aristotle had described four causes: material, formal, effective, a n d final cause, which all four respond to the question 'dia ti?' - why?).

Western sciences have - in the wake and philosophical decline after evolution theory depreciated the concept of finality as purely cultural. The end does - in science - not count as a cause (and reason) any more, because nature - according to modernists - can not have purpose.

Meanings (like words) once they are lost are hard to regain. The fourth cause - the final and prospective - has gotten widely disregarded as overly scholastic and biased towards the presuppositions of any given theological (and teleological) concept.

The distinction between causality and finality (almost to an opposition) is a modern one. As the English particle 'for' allows for either meaning (and is short) it is perhaps the best choice to translate the Greek 'dia' in this context. (The change from the retrospective to the prospective dia even adds to the parallel.)

There is indeed a beauty in the wording:

paredothe dia ta paraptomata hemon -
kai egerthe dia ten dikaiosin hemon

given over for the stepping over of us -
raised up for the justification of us

In Mark 2:27 there is a similar use of 'dia':

to sabbaton dia ton anthropon egeneto kai ouk ho anthropos dia to sabbaton

the Sabbath came to be for the human and not the human for the Sabbath

Here again it seems quite natural to understand 'dia' as being used in its final sense (of purpose).

If possible, a translation that wants to be faithful to the rhythm and emphasis and weight of the expression, should not render one small particle (here: dia) by two (three) or even four words (like these: because - by cause - of, for the sake of).

  • Please clarify your actual response to the question. I don't see how Aristotle's four causes is relevant as they actually have nothing to do with the meaning of the preposition as much as nature itself. Also, as it stands this is more of a comment than an answer. Explain how it is relevant (i.e. identify some more sources closer to the writing of Romans as well. Aristotle predates the writing of Romans by approximately 380 years. His thoughts on a preposition may be somewhat anachronistic - but not necessarily).
    – Dan
    Jul 15, 2013 at 2:20
  • 2
    Let me reiterate that I'm open to this being a good answer, I'm just not following how you're connecting the dots. Essentially I'm asking you to "show your work" when it comes to your logic / train of thought here.
    – Dan
    Jul 15, 2013 at 2:27
  • I mentioned Aristotle because he understands an end as a cause. And by asking for this (final) cause - dia ti - he comments on this aspect of the meaning of dia. The thing about the sciences I mentioned to remind of our training in disregarding finality as a cause.
    – hannes
    Jul 16, 2013 at 20:07
  • 1
    can you provider a source so I (and other users) can read where Aristotle comments on the meaning of the preposition? Everything I've found focuses on Aristotle addressing the answer to the question "why?" (δἱα τἱ;), as this is the foundation of what we call "science." Just because the question uses the preposition δἱα does not mean Aristotle is commenting on that meaning of the word itself. He is critiquing Plato's philosophy of Forms. Unless I'm missing something....
    – Dan
    Jul 16, 2013 at 20:15
  • 2
    @hannes I'm having a hard time following all of this. How does this actually answer the question? Please bring the concepts/assertions that you're setting forth to bear on the question as it stands and please do it in the answer. As it stands it seems like you're substituting the means of exploration (dia ti ... "through/for what?") with the content of the exploration itself. It seems like a stretch to correlate in investigative question with the actual content.
    – swasheck
    Jul 17, 2013 at 21:38

This Scripture has been a great blessing to me.

Romans 4:25

who was delivered because of our offenses and was raised because of our justification.

This translation is exactly correct as it is and there are multiple Scriptures corroborating this statement of Paul.

Our sins and offenses cause Jesus to be delivered up and killed in our hearts and lives. If we sin, we destroy His will and life and give life to Satan.

However, if we now remorsefully confess this and thoroughly repent to stop sin and make restitution, and receive Him to deliver us from our sin, God forgives, cleanses, and delivers us from sin, fills us with His Holy Spirit, and makes us righteous and holy. Then Jesus is born and becomes alive in our hearts, we give Him life in our hearts, thoughts, words, and actions. Our being made just and righteous, i.e. our justification has raised Him! Now we care for Him, to grieve and pierce Him no more. We have raised Him from death in our hearts!

Jesus is handed over into our hands. With our sins, we kill Him in our hearts i.e. He is delivered to be killed because of our sins, but if we are made righteous and just, we raise Him to life in us, i.e. He is raised in our hearts because of our justification / because of our being made just and righteous.

Corroborating Scriptures:

Psalms 51:10

Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me

John 17:23

I in them, and You in Me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them as You have loved Me

John 17:26

And I made known to them Your name, and will make it known, so that the love with which You have loved Me may be in them, and I in them

Romans 8:29

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren

Romans 13:14

But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ,

2 Corinthians 3:18

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord

Galatians 2:20

I have been crucified with Christ, and I live; yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me

1 Timothy 1:16

But for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering, as a pattern to those being about to believe on Him to life everlasting

Galatians 4:19

My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

Ephesians 4:24

And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness

Philippians 2:5

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Colossians 1:27-28

27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: 28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

Colossians 3:10

And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

2 Peter 1:19

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.