'For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.' Romans 3: 23

Recently, President Trump in celebration of the 100th year anniversary of the 19th amendment, pardoned Susan B. Anthony. She voted in 1872, when it was forbidden for women to vote, to gain national attention for the suffrage movement.

He caught some flack because in order to be pardoned you have to have broken the law. Deborah Hughes of The National Susan B. Anthony Museum said Susan B. Anthony voted to protest the morality of the law. Accepting the pardon could be interpreted as acknowledging that she broke both a legal and moral law. Proponents of Susan B. Anthony woman's right to vote, do not want her to be remembered as a moral law breaker. Now this may seem picky, but I get it. I don't bring this up to argue whether or not President Trump should have issued pardon or not or whether Susan B. Anthony broke the law, but proponents of Susan B. Anthony claim she did not need pardon.

I bring it up to show that to be justified one must have broken the law. In verse 23, if . . . all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, then it falls to reason that we need justification. Paul in verse 26, states that 'God declares at this time his righteousness . . . that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.'

That he might be just refers to the fact that God had shown due regard to his Law, and to the penalty of the Law. He did not abandon the principles of justice and law. He shows no less regard to his law by appointing his Son in the place of sinners that He might be just. The law is not made void, nor could we be forgiven without a justifier; someone who satisfied the penalty.

Him which believeth in Jesus is in contradistinction from the deeds of the Law, as in Romans 3:20. 'Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.'