Romans 3
Romans 3
d. The faithfulness of God, 3:1–4
1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
3What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? 4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
“So that you may be proved right in your words
and prevail in your judging.”a
In arguing that all people are sinful Paul has drawn attention to the place of the Jew. He is a member of the chosen people, but this does not avail if he sins. But this poses a problem. If a member of the chosen people can be rejected (“become as though … not … circumcised”, 2:25), then what is the advantage of belonging to the chosen people? Paul will face this question more fully in chapters 9–11; here he uses a series of lively rhetorical questions in an animated treatment of objections that might be urged against his position.1 It is not unlikely that these questions reflect objections Paul had actually faced in his dialogue with the Jews, though, of course, we have no way of being sure. Be that as it may, Paul looks first at the objection that, if all people are sinful, the Jew has no advantage. He rejects this outright; the Jew has a very real advantage. A second objection is that, since God has promised to bless his people, he must do this irrespective of what the Jews do. Otherwise he would cease to be faithful.2 Paul will have nothing to do with such a suggestion. God will always prove to be faithful.
1. Paul has listed some of the things on which the Jew3 prided himself (2:17–20), and has shown that such things are of no importance if the Jew breaks the law of God. Being circumcised matters only if one keeps the law (2:25). So the apostle comes to the logical question, What is the advantage in being a Jew or in circumcision? There is no great difference in meaning between advantage and value4 in this context. Paul is simply posing the question whether Jewishness or circumcision matters any longer in view of the arguments he has so far adduced. Circumcision has the article; this may signify “the circumcision already referred to” or, better, “the circumcision that admits to the people of God” (there were other circumcisions, such as that practised by the Egyptians).
2. Logically we expect the answer, “Nothing at all.” But Paul surprises us with Much5 in every way!6 It is an important answer: if the Jew had no advantage, then either the Old Testament cannot be relied on or else God does not keep his promises. Paul has just rejected the notion that the Jew, because of his race and quite apart from the way he lives, can expect favored treatment from God. But Paul never goes to the other extreme of maintaining that to be a Jew does not matter. So, after rejecting decisively some of the Jew’s most cherished illusions, he goes on to speak of the very real advantages God has given his ancient people. “The Jew has an advantage which can never be taken away, that is that it was to him that God first gave His word of promise. Thereby circumcision is seen in a new light. By the circumcision Israel became the people of promise” (Nygren).7 First of all8 leads us to expect a list, but Paul never gets past his first; he speaks of the great, supreme privilege of the Jew, that of being entrusted with God’s revelation to mankind. The verb is the usual one for “believe”, but it may be used in the sense “entrust”. Thus Paul uses it of various things with which he is put in trust—a responsibility (1 Cor. 9:17), the gospel (1 Thess. 2:4), the gospel of the uncircumcision (Gal. 2:7), the message (Tit. 1:3; cf. also Luke 16:11; John 2:24). What the Jews were entrusted with was the very words of God, or, as RSV has it, “the oracles of God”,9 an expression Paul uses here only. Among the Greeks a god was thought to utter short sayings (e.g., the responses at Delphi). A short pregnant saying was thus characteristic of divine utterances, and in time the word for “a short saying” came to mean “a divine saying”, “an oracle”. Paul is referring to the fact that God has spoken and that the record10 of what he has said was entrusted to Israel, and to Israel only. Some understand “the oracles” to refer to God’s promises (Brown, Robinson), others to the messianic prophecies (cf. Boylan), others to the law (Chrysostom), or the ten commandments (Barclay), or the covenant (Calvin). It is better not to restrict the expression but to see it as referring to the whole Old Testament revelation (Lagrange, Murray).11
3. Paul turns to the situation in which some12 Jews failed to respond to God’s goodness in giving them these oracles. What13 are we to say of this situation? Paul speaks of some as not having faith,14 or lacking a proper response to God’s mercy. Scholars are divided on whether we should see the meaning here as “were unfaithful” (RSV, Moffatt, Hodge, Bruce, etc.; cf. Lightfoot, “were untrue to their trust”), or as “did not believe” (NIV, NASB, Morison, Cranfield, etc.). The context strongly favors the former meaning. Paul goes on to use a cognate word for God’s faithfulness (KJV has “faith”, but most agree that the meaning is really “faithfulness”), and the suggestion is that this term must be understood in the same way. But in the context the emphasis is on the unbelief of the Jews and their refusal to accept the promises of the Old Testament as fulfilled in Christ. Elsewhere Paul shows concern over Israel’s unbelief (chs. 9–11), and this could be in mind here. It is pointed out that the verb occurs elsewhere in the New Testament seven times and means “disbelieve” on every occasion but one. However, we should bear in mind that these two meanings are not far apart, and it is possible that Paul was not trying to distinguish between them. Both are true. The noun rendered lack of faith15 has meanings corresponding to those of the verb. On the ground that Paul goes on immediately to contrast this attitude with the faithfulness of God, many hold that “unfaithfulness” is the meaning here.16 This is certainly possible, but it is equally possible that Paul has in mind Jewish unbelief, the failure to trust, despite the revelation God had given.
It is quite in the Pauline manner that the rhetorical question about the situation of the Jews should be followed by another, Will their lack of faith nullify17 God’s faithfulness?18 To ask the question, for Paul, is to answer it. The faithfulness of God is basic. Without that nothing makes sense. We must, of course, bear in mind that “faithfulness” means faithfulness in keeping his promises to judge the wicked, as well as those to bless those who love him. We should also remember that God in his faithfulness can use Israel’s unbelief to promote his purposes (cf. 11:11, 15).
4. Paul gives the suggestion an emphatic negation, Not at all! (Moffatt, “Never!”; RSV, “By no means”).19 It is Paul’s most emphatic repudiation of any idea to which it refers. He will have nothing to do with the suggestion that God might be unfaithful. Let God be20 true, he says, where he means “Let God be seen to be what he is, true.” It is interesting that this word true is applied to God (as in John 3:33; 8:26; to Christ, Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:14; John 7:18; to people, 2 Cor. 6:8). Truth is a quality of persons (and of actions, John 3:21) as well as of words. Here it stands for complete reliability. God is to be accounted thoroughly reliable, whatever the consequences when we come to people. Here every man is set over against God,21 and characterized as a liar (cf. Ps. 116:11). This is the opposite of true. All perfection, all reliability is in God, and every one of us by contrast must be regarded as falling short. When in his lack of faith (v. 3) anyone stands over against God, he is shown in all his falseness. But this cannot interfere with God’s faithfulness. If people’s actions could prevent God from carrying out his promises, God would not be faithful. But he is faithful, even if this means that everyone on earth is a liar.
Characteristically Paul sheets this home with a quotation from Scripture (Ps. 51:4; it is exactly as LXX).22 The Psalmist confesses his sin, acknowledges that it is sin only against God, and goes on to the conclusion that God is “proved right” and “justified”. This fits neatly into Paul’s argument. He has shown that both Gentiles and Jews are sinners, and it is pertinent that in the process of condemning sinners God is shown to be righteous. He is proved right (or “justified”) in23 what he says. The declaratory meaning of justification (see Additional Note D) is plain; it would be quite impossible to “make God righteous”. God’s words are the means whereby he is seen to be in the right.
Parallel to this is prevail in your judging. The forensic sense is clear, though the precise meaning is disputed. There is a complete triumph and prevail has a forensic sense, as the reference to judgment shows (NEB, “win the verdict”).24 The verb rendered judging25 might be middle, “get judgment for yourself” (Lightfoot), or passive, “when thou art judged” (RSV, Denney). Whichever way we take it, Paul is saying that when God is put to the test he is vindicated. Paul entertained no doubt about the Davidic authorship of Psalm 51; he is saying that, though David’s sin was certainly punished (2 Sam. 12:9–12), God did not withdraw his faithfulness from him (2 Sam. 7:1–17; 23:5). God never condones evil, but his punishment of sin is part of his faithfulness, not a negation of it. Käsemann understands all this in terms of apocalyptic: “At this point one sees plainly that Paul regards history as God’s trial with the world which will come to an end only in the last judgment and will result solely in the victory or defeat of one or the other party” (p. 81). But this is not exegesis; it is a reading of Käsemann’s eschatological scheme into words which do not mean it. And I wonder whether we should not at this point insert, “Your God is too small.” Paul’s God is not one engaged (as Käsemann says he is) in a “struggle for vindication” (ibid.); he is supreme; he is true even if this means that every man on earth is a liar. We must not lose sight of the greatness of God as Paul sees him in the interests of an edifying eschatological struggle.26
e. Objections, 3:5–8
5But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.
The objections continue. Paul now envisages an objector who reasons that if sin brings God’s righteousness into focus and magnifies his glory, then it is surely not right for God to punish the sinner (where would God’s righteousness be without the sin?). Then he considers another whose line is that people should sin more so that good (i.e., forgiveness to men and glory to God) may result. The apostle decisively rejects both.
5. Paul’s first objector reasons that our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly. His but if27 is another argumentative supposition as he goes on to the curious reasoning that our sin is valuable, for it shows us the righteousness28 of God in a way we would not have known had it not been for sin. The gospel that tells of salvation for sinners speaks also of God’s righteousness (1:17; see Additional Note A). Had there been no sin there would have been no place for the gospel and we would never have known or at least never have known so well what God’s righteousness means. Notice that Paul says our, not “your”; he has a habit of classing himself with those of whom he is speaking.29 This might mean “we Jews”, “we men”, or even “we Christians” (so Lenski). The word translated unrighteousness can mean “injustice” (as in 9:14; Luke 18:6), but here it clearly has the wider sense of iniquity of any sort, as in 1:18, where it is translated “wickedness” (see the note). The meaning may be that our sin is the means whereby we come to see what God’s righteousness is (as NIV), or the verb30 may mean “commend” (as KJV) and signify that our sin not only shows God’s righteousness for what it is, but commends it to people; if God has saved sinners like us, then he can save sinners like you. The question what shall we say?31 is an expression Paul keeps on using in Romans, where it fits in well with the general argumentative style.
If the main result of sin is to advance God’s purpose in some way, then it would seem that God is unjust when he punishes it.32 Sin is simply giving God the opportunity of showing how righteous he is, the objector reasons, and so he ought not to punish the sinner. It is not right for him to use sin as a means of promoting his purposes and then to punish the sinner (who on this view is simply God’s instrument). Paul does not go into the nature of the fallacy involved in claiming that God is unjust. Some commentators hold that it is not sin itself that shows God’s righteousness, but the way God deals with it. Others think the attitude of the sinner is what is important; he does not intend a demonstration of God’s righteousness, so he cannot claim any special consideration when this comes about. Paul goes on to speak of God as bringing his wrath (cf. 1:18; 2:8), where his verb is unusual in such a connection.33 Indeed, it is so unusual that Dodd sees it as evidence that Paul is viewing “the wrath” as an objective thing, and he finds no place where the verb is used to mean “to vent one’s passions on a person” (p. 22). But the Greeks did in fact use the verb of punishment,34 so Dodd’s argument cannot be sustained. The most we can say is that Paul has chosen an unusual verb to make his point. For wrath see the note on 1:18. The expression is literally “the wrath”, but NIV is surely right in seeing this as his wrath.
God’s justice is so important for Paul that even to raise the hypothetical possibility of divine injustice requires an explanatory apology. “I am speaking according to man”, he says (“in a human way, from a human standpoint”, BAGD, who add that it “emphasizes the inferiority of man in comparison w. God”; the exact expression occurs again in the New Testament only in Gal. 3:15, but cf. 1 Cor. 9:8; 2 Cor. 11:17; Rom. 6:19).35 That God might be unrighteous is so wide of anything that is possible that Paul asks pardon for even mentioning it.
6. It is unthinkable that God should be unjust (cf. Abraham’s question, Gen. 18:25, and that of Elihu, Job 34:17), and thus we again have the emphatic repudiation, this time translated Certainly not! (the same Greek as that rendered “Not at all!” in v. 4, where see note). Paul shows how impossible it is to think of God as unjust by pointing to the consequences if the unthinkable were to happen. If that were so36 the further question would arise, how could God judge37 the world? For Paul this clinches the argument. For both him and his opponents it was axiomatic that there would be a judgment day when some would be acquitted and some condemned. Paul reasons that this points to the necessity of “the wrath”. God could not engage in a real judgment of sinners without punishing some, so the wrath must be a reality. Some understand the question as “If God is not just, how can he judge the world?” (GNB), but this does not seem to be what the Greek means and it is not convincing. There is no theoretical reason why an unjust deity should not preside in an unjust judgment. Paul’s point is rather that, assuming as all do that God will judge the world, some must be punished. Unless this happens, what occurs will not be judgment. It is the exercise of wrath, not the character of God, that is the point of it all.
The judgment of which the apostle writes is no parochial affair, but a judgment of the world. Back of this is the position taken up by the Jew that, while God would punish Gentile sinners, he would save him despite his sin; otherwise God would not be faithful. But the Jew’s assumption could be made by all mankind, for God is always working out his purposes, and he does this through the bad deeds people do as well as the good, and through the bad deeds of the Gentiles as well as those of the Jews. Every sinner can plead that his sin has been made to serve a good purpose, and on this premise there could be no judgment. But since all agreed that there would be a final judgment, the argument of the Jew could not be sustained. With his wide-ranging vision it is not surprising that the world is one of Paul’s leading concepts (see the note on 1:8).
7. There is nothing in the Greek to justify NIV’s Someone might argue; the justification for the words is that most agree that Paul is not stating his own position but citing an objection that might be urged against it.38 It is essentially the same argument as that in v. 5, but stated this time in terms of falsehood and truthfulness (or “truth”).39 These two terms set in strong contrast the falseness and sin of people on the one hand, and the complete reliability and truth of God on the other. The argument is that my failure to be what I should be gives more scope for God’s saving activity and thus for his reliability. This may be no more than a caricature of Paul’s doctrine of salvation by God’s free grace, urged by his enemies. Or it may have arisen from some who saw themselves as his disciples and friends but who unwittingly distorted his teaching. If all I am doing is giving greater scope for God’s truth to be known, they may be reasoning, then it increases his glory. NIV has recast the Greek and added another verb; RSV is closer to the original with “But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory….” My falsity shows the truthfulness, the reliability, of God to be very great,40 and this brings glory41 to him. God’s truthfulness, his complete and utter reliability, is one of the constituent elements of his greatness; it shows something of his glory.
Why then am I42 still condemned as a sinner? In view of the good that results from my action, the plausible argument is made, Why should I be condemned? We sinners display incredible ingenuity as we try to justify ourselves. The verb means “judged”, but no doubt a negative judgment is meant. The word sinner43 sometimes means one who is “especially wicked”, but often also “one not free from sin”, which appears to be its meaning here.
The false teaching opposed here is not dissimilar to that in chapter 6, though there is a difference. There it is a question of what free grace means and how it works out in practice. Here Paul is concerned with God’s righteousness and a possible blasphemy against God on account of the way his grace operates. The two are related but not the same.
8. Wherever people have followed Paul in emphasizing that human merit has no part in bringing about our salvation and that we are saved by grace alone, some have drawn the conclusion that it does not matter whether we sin or not. It seems that the same conclusion was drawn by some of Paul’s contemporaries and that they accused him of actively fostering sin in order to give the greatest possible scope for grace; they affirmed that he was saying, “Let us do evil44 that good may result” (cf. Barrett, “Why not increase God’s goodness by contributing as generously as possible to the stock of human sin?”), or, “The end justifies the means.”45 Paul repudiates this firmly;46 it is a calumny; he is being slanderously47 reported. Paul goes on to say, Their condemnation is deserved (perhaps better “just”, as RSV; NIV does not bring out the link with justice that is important in Paul’s argument).48 There is an ambiguity here, for when Paul says “whose condemnation…”, it is not completely clear to whom “whose” refers. Grammatically it could refer back to the slanderers, as JB, “Some slanderers … but they are justly condemned.”49 Or it might refer to those who advocate doing evil that good may result, “The condemnation of those who would so argue is just” (Weymouth; cf. LB, Shedd, etc.). Or it might refer to the things they say, as Phillips, “such an argument is quite properly condemned” (so Moffatt). Again, Paul does not say whether the condemnation is men’s or God’s; perhaps both are involved.
Throughout this paragraph Paul has not mentioned the Jew. His language is general enough to embrace anyone (cf. the reference to “the world”, v. 6). But to many commentators the form of expression and the type of objection urged point strongly to the Jew as being primarily in mind. If this be accepted, the reason will be as Käsemann has it: “Only from the perspective of the Jew as the representative of the religious person can universal godlessness be proclaimed” (p. 85).50
4. Universal Sinfulness—Proof from Scripture, 3:9–20
9What shall we conclude then? Are we any bettera? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”b
13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”c
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”d
14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”e
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”f
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”g
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
Paul rounds off this important opening section of his letter with a series of quotations from Scripture that hammer home his point that all people are sinners. For him it is important that his readers be clear about this. Unless there is something to be saved from, there is no point in preaching salvation (or in embracing it). Paul’s argument has been that all people, Jew and Gentile alike, are sinners, and he now shows that this is no private opinion but one well grounded in Holy Writ.
9. What shall we conclude then? is actually a much more concise “What then?” (as RSV),51 though the sense is the same as that of the more verbose NIV. The following expression has puzzled expositors for centuries and its meaning remains uncertain. Our problem is that the verb used in the one-word second question52 can be taken in more ways than one, and the context does not make it clear in which sense we should understand it here. The word means literally “to have before”, which readily yields the meaning “to excel”, and this is the normal sense of the active of the verb. But the verb here is not active; the form is either middle or passive. In the middle it concerns defending oneself and means “to have or place (something) before one”, that is, for protection. Metaphorically this comes to signify “to put forward as a defence (or excuse)”. The question “Have we (something) as a defence?” would make sense in this context, but there is a considerable objection. When used in this way, the verb requires an object. One must state what the “something” is; one cannot simply assume it. But there is no object here.53 Despite this some do accept the verb as a middle. They point out that, however we take the verb, there is something anomalous about it, and they hold that the absolute use of the middle is not stretching probability too far. Godet, for example, takes it this way and gives the meaning, “Have we a shelter under which we can regard ourselves as delivered from wrath?”
But the verb might be passive, in which case the meaning will be as RV, “Are we in worse case than they?” (cf. NIV mg.). The passive was accepted by Lightfoot, SH, Manson, Goodspeed, LSJ, and others; recently Black has maintained that this is “Grammatically the least unsatisfactory solution”. One problem with it is that the passive of this verb is so rare as to be almost nonexistent (Turner cites Field for one example in Plutarch, but he finds no others [Grammatical Insights, p. 106]). It is further urged that Paul is unlikely to have asked such a question. He has asked whether the Jew has any advantage and answered that he has much (vv. 1–2); why in the light of that would he now ask whether the Jew is at a disadvantage? It is, of course, not certain that “we” means “we Jews” (it might mean “we Christians” or simply “I, Paul”),54 but most take it in this sense and indeed “Jews” is often inserted into the translation (e.g., RSV). But even accepting this, it cannot be said that the view that the verb is passive is completely convincing.
Thus neither the middle nor the passive is free from difficulties. Today most scholars think that the verb must be taken in the active sense despite its form and understand the sense as NIV, or as RSV, “Are we Jews any better off?” It is sometimes objected that there is no known example of the middle of this verb used in the active sense, and further that there seems no reason at all why Paul should not have used the active if that was his meaning. To this it is retorted that it is not uncommon for the New Testament authors to use the middle voice in the sense of the active and even that the “New Testament writers are not happy in their understanding of the middle voice”.55 This point of view is not, however, accepted by all,56 and, while it is widely held, it is not beyond doubt. A further objection is that this understanding seems to be at variance with Paul’s answer in verses 1–2. It is not easy to see why he should now answer “Not at all!” to the question “Have we Jews any advantage?” when he has just said that their advantage is “Much in every way!” It could be argued that the advantage there is of a different sort; here it is a question of sinners escaping the judgment of God and in that respect having no advantage. Not all find this convincing, but despite the difficulties most scholars today find this the best of an unfortunate group of choices (so, e.g., Barrett, Cranfield, Harrison, Maurer in TDNT, VI, pp. 692–93). It also appears in the majority of recent translations.
It is plain that whichever way we understand the verb we are involved in difficulties. There is no straightforward interpretation of this passage that solves all the problems. Perhaps as good an understanding as any is to take “we” as “we Christians”57 and the verb as middle. Not enough attention appears to have been given to the fact that the immediate context strongly favors “we Christians”. In verse 8 “we” who are “slanderously reported” are clearly Paul and his Christian associates, and the “we” in verse 9 who have “already made the charge” are just as clearly Christians. Why should the “we” that comes between them and is so close to them be understood of someone else? To understand it as “we Christians” is surely the most natural way of taking it. The meaning will then be “Are we (who are slanderously accused) making a defence (or … making excuses)?”58 (as though claiming to be blameless; this leads on to “Not at all!”). This suits the context better than the other suggestions and does as little violence to the grammar as any.59
Most agree that the answer is Not at all! There is a problem here, too, for the Greek looks as though it should mean “not altogether”. Indeed, after some hesitation, Cranfield accepts this and CGT suggests “not altogether that, either”.60 But NIV seems to give the sense required in this context. A reason for the negative is given in the “for” (which NIV omits). Paul has already made the charge61 that all are sinners, and this removes any advantage or defence. The language is legal, as in much of this part of Romans. For Jews and Gentiles see the note on 1:16 (the meaning of the plurals here is much the same as that of the singulars there). Together they make up all mankind, so that Paul is speaking of universal sinfulness. He speaks of charging them all with being under sin (see Additional Note E). He is regarding sin as a tyrant ruler, so that sinners are “under” it (JB, “under sin’s dominion”); they cannot break free.62
10–12. Characteristically Paul reinforces what he has to say with an appeal to Scripture. He follows here a common rabbinical practice of stringing passages together like pearls.63 He indicates their authority by introducing them with As it is written, and by linking passages of similar import he drives home his point that Scripture consistently stresses the fact that we are sinners all. He is saying something like “If you ask ‘Who are the enemies of God?’ look in the mirror!” Barth comments, “The whole course of history pronounces this indictment against itself”; he goes on to point to the fact that no serious thinker holds that people are good.
The first quotation (vv. 10–12) is from Psalm 14:1–3 (= 53:1–3), though it is not exactly as in our texts. This is especially true of the words in verse 10, and these may well be Paul’s summary of what the passage is all about rather than part of his quotation. The differences, however, are minor. The point of the quotation is that there is not one righteous person, not even one, a sentiment with which this section begins and ends.64 In between we read that there is no one who understands,65 for surely no one would really choose sin if he fully understood what he was doing. The lack of understanding is coupled with a failure to seek God.66 Sinners do not look for God; their interest is elsewhere. They have turned away, a verb67 that often conveys the idea of deliberate avoidance (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:11). Perhaps we cannot press this here, but the word is a strong one and certainly means more than that they accidentally missed their way. Together68 they became worthless69 or useless. This, of course, is to be understood in an ethical sense, a point further brought out with the following no one who does good (for this last term see the note on 2:4). The barrenness of this landscape is underlined with the melancholy not even one.70 There is nothing to lighten the picture. The six negatives make a striking and impressive sequence.
13. From counting the number of the righteous Paul turns to the poisonous character of the wicked. He cites from Psalm 5:9 words that describe the throats of the wicked as open graves (the Psalm uses the singular in each case; curiously NIV retains this in the Old Testament but changes to the plural in this quotation).71 Open translates a perfect participle which points to what stands open. If this means permanently open it is perhaps unlikely for a tomb, but very apt for a wicked mouth, a mouth permanently bringing out unclean things.72 But an open tomb may be thought of as a tomb ready to receive the dead; taken this way the words point to the murderous impulses of the wicked (cf. Luther, “they devour the dead”; they “teach deceitfully” and they “destroy the people who listen to their teaching”). Either understanding is possible. It is not easy to see why the Psalmist referred to the “throat”73 rather than to the mouth (which would more normally be used of speaking). Perhaps he wanted to indicate a deep-seated evil. With their tongues he moves to a more obvious organ of speech (and we should perhaps bear in mind that both life and death are linked with the tongue in Prov. 18:21). The change from the singular with “throat” to the plural with tongues is probably stylistic. Practice deceit renders yet another word in this string of quotations used here only in the New Testament.74 It carries with it the thought of treachery (which NEB brings out: “they use their tongues for treachery”).
Paul’s third quotation is from Psalm 140:3. The word for poison75 is used of the corrosion of metals in James 5:3, but poison is clearly the meaning here (as also in Jas. 3:8). The poison is that of vipers,76 which we should probably understand of poisonous snakes in general and not of one particular species. NIV says that the poison is on their lips, but Paul locates it “under” them, on which SH comment that the quotation rightly describes the position of the serpent’s poison bag. Used symbolically, the expression indicates that wicked people speak evil, even poisonous things. In their own way they are as venomous as snakes.
14. This little quotation comes from Psalm 10:7. The word “mouth” is used much more often in the New Testament than is “lip” (v. 13); both have to do with speaking.77 Cursing is another word found only here in the New Testament, and bitterness appears only four times (twice in Paul). It is used of things with a bitter taste, and sometimes symbolically, as here. The verb translated are full points to a generous supply. Paul is complaining that those of whom he speaks do more than utter a bitter curse now and then; this kind of speech is habitual with them.
15–17. Next comes a somewhat shortened form of a denunciation of evil men from Isaiah 59:7–8. The passage refers to the feet, which are shown to act in harmony with the throat, tongue, lips, and mouth of the previous quotation (and with the eyes of the following one). Paul picks out their speed78 to engage in homicide.79 It is not that, when driven to it, they would take desperate measures; rather, they were eager for this form of wrongdoing. Naturally enough, ruin and misery result. Both words are uncommon (once and twice respectively in the whole New Testament). The first points to destructive activities, and the second to the wretchedness that follows. The combination adds up to bad business. Their ways are their manner of life; they not only engage in wrong acts from time to time, but live in such a way that destruction and unhappiness are characteristic. But another way, the way of peace, is quite foreign to them. It is not only that they do not tread it—they do not even know it. Their interest is in bloodshed and destruction, not in peace. From which we see that sin not only separates people from God but from one another as well.
18. The final passage in the catena is from Psalm 36:1. We are told that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Prov. 1:7). Thus these people lack not only wisdom, but even wisdom’s starting point. They have no reverence for the Supreme Being. Fear in this Psalm is not to be understood in the sense of “reverence” but of terror.80 Evildoers would do well to have a healthy fear of him who will determine their eternal destiny, but they have none. It is a little curious that fear is connected with what is before their eyes; perhaps there is a contrast with “I have set the Lord always before me” (Ps. 16:8). “While a believer sets his course towards God Himself, this man does not take even ‘the terror of the Lord’ into account.”81 Along the line of his advance there is no fear of God.
19. His quotations ended, Paul considers a possible objection from a Jewish opponent. The things said are true enough, such a person might reason, but they refer to Gentiles, not Jews. Paul appeals to common knowledge (we know);82 he retorts that what the law says it says to those who are subject to it. His whatever83 is comprehensive; nothing in the law is excluded. For the law see Additional Note C. Here the term is used in its comprehensive sense to denote the whole Old Testament, for most of the quotations are from the Psalms and none is from the Pentateuch (cf. the use in 1 Cor. 14:21). All that the law says,84 then, it says to those who are under the law, or more exactly those who are “in” the law (Moffatt, “inside the Law”).85 Presumably this means that the people in question center themselves on the law, have their whole being in the law. What the law says is certainly addressed to them, not to someone else who is outside the sphere of the law. Some hold that Paul means everyone in the world (e.g., Murray, Hendriksen), but it is unlikely that Paul’s readers would have held that anyone other than the Jew was under the law. The law, being from God, has its relevance for all mankind, certainly. But Paul’s point here is that the Jew cannot rest on a fancied security, holding that he is safe while the Gentile will come under the judgment of God. The law under which he lives, the law that is addressed to him and on which he prides himself that it is given to him and not to other people, convicts him as well as the Gentiles. The whole world (and not merely the Gentile world) is convicted. The construction introduced by so that indicates purpose.86 It is God’s plan to convict people of sin and so to silence every mouth. More literally the expression means “that every mouth may be stopped”, which is forceful and intelligible though found but rarely (cf. Heb. 11:33, of stopping the mouths of lions, where the same verb is used though in a different sense). Indeed, there does not appear to be a comparable passage in the New Testament (1 Cor. 11:10, the only other passage with this verb, is perhaps the closest, but it probably means “this boasting will not [let itself] be stopped”, BAGD). In Job 40:4, where Job spoke of putting his hand over his mouth, the imagery is slightly different but just as clearly affirms that before God the speaker has nothing to say. Paul is saying that the law speaks to those in its orbit, not those outside. Accordingly, those to whom the law is given have nothing to say. It stops their pleas. This is important, for the Jews could hold that at least some of their number were sinless, as when we read: “thou, O Lord, God of the righteous, hast not appointed repentance for the righteous, for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who did not sin against thee” (Prayer of Manasseh 8). Paul is opposing all such notions.
With this is coupled and the whole world held accountable to God. The Jew accepted that the Gentile was subject to God’s judgment. Now that Paul has shown that the Jew who received the law is also guilty, the whole world is accountable.87 This last term means not quite “guilty” (KJV) and not quite “answerable” (Moffatt); it refers to the person who has not been judged, but who knows that he had done wrong and that in due course he must answer for it.88 The Jews, of course, recognized that they would give account of themselves to God. But they did not see themselves as guilty; for them it was a foregone conclusion that they would be saved. It is this to which Paul is objecting. The whole world (no exceptions!) will be silent as it comes under God’s scrutiny, knowing at last that it has nothing to say in the judgment.
20. The consequence89 is that no one will be accepted before God on account of his observance of the law, a truth Paul expresses in words reminiscent of Psalm 143:2. No law gives automatic acceptance by God.89a Declared righteous in this passage has obvious reference to the law, and once again we see that justification must be understood as forensic.90 It clearly means “acquittal”. By observing the law is more literally “from works of law”, and the very general form of the expression may be significant (cf. BDF 258[2]). It is true that observing the Jewish law will not bring salvation. Paul is certainly opposing the Jewish view that exalts deeds done in obedience to the directions of the Torah. But what he says is true of “law works” of any kind. No one91 will be saved by the way of law.92Rather93 would be better translated “for” (or “since”, RSV); it introduces the reason for the preceding. As Paul’s argument has shown, what law does is to bring recognition (see the note on “knowledge” in 1:28) of sin. A consideration of what the law requires and of what the student of the law actually performs leads us to see sin for what it is and ourselves for what we are, sinners (cf. 5:20; 7:7–11; Gal. 2:16; 3:21). Phillips has a striking paraphrase: “it is the straight-edge of the Law that shows us how crooked we are.”
B. Justification, 3:21–5:21
Having made it devastatingly clear that all mankind is caught up in sinfulness, Paul turns his attention to the way sinfulness is overcome. It is central to his understanding of the Christian way that no human merit can ever avail before God, but that the death of Christ on the cross changes all that. He sees the death of Christ as a great divine act that may be viewed from many angles. Indeed, one of our problems in working out what Paul thought the cross did is the fact that he speaks of it as doing so many different things and never bothers to work them into a unified system. There is no doubting that he saw Christ’s salvation as fully meeting our need, however that need be understood, and equally there is no doubting that he saw the divine provision for meeting that need as complex. One of his ways of viewing it is as a process of justification. This is not confined to Paul, but in Paul’s hands it takes on an importance that makes it central. It is a way of saying that man has no merit at all; his sin has disqualified him in the heavenly court. But because of what Christ has done, he can now face that court with assurance. The verdict that will be rendered on the believer is “Not guilty”. In the section we now begin Paul works out in some detail what this means.
1. How Justification Is Effected, 3:21–31
In a very important passage Paul deals with the process of justification. He reiterates his point that all are sinners and goes on to show how the death of Christ copes with that sin, so that all who come in faith are righteous before God. He takes up in a different way the thought of 1:17, where he had emphasized the meaning of the gospel for sinners. Now that he has demonstrated that all people are sinners, he goes back to the content of the gospel.
a. The death of Christ, 3:21–26
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,a through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies the man who has faith in Jesus.
In what is possibly the most important single paragraph ever written,94 Paul brings out something of the grandeur of Christ’s saving work. He speaks of the righteousness of God, the sin of man, and the salvation of Christ. He views this salvation in three ways: as justification (imagery from the law court), as redemption (imagery from the slave market), and as propitiation (imagery from the averting of wrath).
21. But now95 may be understood logically (Shedd, Godet); it is then seen as moving to the next step in the argument, not the next point in time. Or it may be temporal (Boylan, TH),96 moving to the next point in time. Or it may be both (Barrett): Paul is contrasting what people knew before the gospel came with what the gospel has revealed (cf. 16:25–26). The argument of the epistle up to this point has emphasized that the natural man, Jew or Greek, is a sinner who stands under the wrath of God. “But now” God has intervened. The human predicament has been radically transformed because of the saving act of God in Christ, which Paul proceeds to develop. He speaks of a righteousness from God (see Additional Note A), and the context makes it plain that here this means the right standing that comes from God97 (though, of course, that God is himself righteous is not out of sight; the gospel involves both). This right standing is given quite apart from law.98 In the first instance this means quite apart from the Jewish law, the law of Moses. It has been part of Paul’s method to demonstrate in the section leading up to this point of the argument that that law cannot bring salvation. It can show up the problem; it can and does make clear that all are sinners. But it can do no more. The word law (not “the law”) is general. What is true of the Jewish law is true also of all other law. The way to God is not the way of law (cf. the way “works of law” are treated in v. 20). No one can take refuge in law and the way he thinks he has kept it. This is not a human discovery; Paul is not congratulating himself on having uncovered an important spiritual law. It has been made known (for the verb cf. 1:19); that is to say, it is a matter of revelation. This means more than that it has now been discovered. It means that it is something in the secret counsels of God from of old (cf. Eph. 1:4–5). But whereas it has always been true, it has only now been “manifested”. Paul is making the point that the gospel is no afterthought. God had always planned99 to save people by the way of grace. It is the making of this known that is recent.
That it was always God’s way is clear from the fact that testimony is borne to it by the Law and the Prophets, an expression that means the whole Old Testament (cf. Matt. 5:17; 22:40; Luke 24:27). The law was the heart of the Jewish religious system and the prophets were its outstanding religious teachers. And both, says Paul, point to the truth that right standing comes from God. Nygren points out that Paul’s great example, Abraham, is from the law, and his great text, 1:17, is from the prophets. What Paul is saying is soundly based. It is not some minor truth tucked away in an obscure corner of Scripture, but a great truth blazoned forth in both law and prophets. And the present participle “being witnessed to” indicates that the testimony of the Old Testament continues.
22. Paul moves100 to an explicit statement of Christ’s involvement. This righteousness is one that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. There is, however, a question as to precisely how we should understand this. The Greek translated in Jesus Christ is a genitive (“of Jesus Christ”), a genitive which most students understand as objective (as NIV, RSV, etc.).101 But it could be subjective, referring to the faith Jesus exercised,102 and the word translated faith could be taken in the sense “faithfulness”. If this last suggestion were adopted, we could understand it either of “God’s faithfulness in Jesus Christ” or of “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ”.103 There are thus several possibilities. If the word is used of God it must, of course, mean “faithfulness” (there is no question of God “believing in” anyone; cf. 1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13). If it is used of Christ it could still mean “faithfulness” (cf. Heb. 2:17; 3:2, etc.), or it might mean “faith” and be a reference to an important aspect of his genuine humanity (cf. Johnson, cited above). A reference to Christ is supported by the fact that the words all who believe may be held to be redundant if we translate faith in Jesus Christ in the immediately preceding section. Rather than a redundancy, it is urged, we should see a reference to Christ’s faithfulness or to his faith.
Such an understanding of the words is not impossible, but perhaps in all our discussions we are making too sharp a distinction between the subjective and the objective genitives. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Paul saw that the expression might be taken in either of two ways and still used it (some speak of a “mystic” genitive; cf. Althaus). It is even possible that the distinction that seems so obvious to us with our quite different constructions did not loom so large to a Greek speaker. We should bear in mind that Paul is here not describing Christ, but outlining what Christ has done in bringing about salvation, so that we must understand, at least as part of the meaning, the objective genitive. Faith in Jesus Christ is certainly in mind. But there would be no place for the exercise of this faith were it not for “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” and for “God’s faithfulness shown in Jesus Christ”.104 The right standing God gives is connected with his faithfulness and that of Christ, and it certainly is linked with the faith of believers in Christ.
This is the first time in this epistle that faith is specifically linked to Christ. Paul is not referring to faith in general terms, or seeing it as a general trust in God’s overruling; he is linking faith to the one who came to earth to die for sinners, and, as he will make clear in the succeeding verses, thus brought about justification and redemption and propitiation. Paul puts his trust in the Savior whose activity on behalf of sinners is so clear, so costly, and so decisive. So important is faith, and so opposed to the way of law (which in one way or another is almost universal among mankind), that it is emphasized with the addition to all who believe.105 The verb believe is used absolutely; it is not necessary to say in whom or what they believe. Paul is fond of this construction, pointing to the centrality of faith as it does (cf. the description of Christians as “believers”). Through is important.106 It points to the fact that faith is not a merit, earning salvation. It is no more than the means through which the gift is given. Other expressions refer to our righteousness as being “on” (i.e., on the basis of) faith, or “from” faith. The variety of ways of connecting faith and righteousness should put us on our guard against placing too great an emphasis on any one of them. Together they bring out the important point that from the human side faith and faith alone is the requirement. Look at it how you will, only faith is required of us. Faith is the indispensable attitude.
Paul goes on to assure his readers that there is no difference.107 This could refer back to the way of faith. All, without distinction, must come by that way. But it seems more likely that we should take the words closely with those that follow: Paul is speaking of all alike as sinners.
23. All have sinned108 sums up the human tragedy. For gives the reason for the lack of difference. The common factor is sin. The aorist pictures this as past, but also as a completion. It certainly does not mean that sin belongs wholly in the past, for Paul goes on to a present tense when he says fall short109 of the glory of God.110 Elsewhere in Romans the glory is often future (2:7, 10; 5:2; 8:18, 21). But there is also a present glory, for God “made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6; cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; John 17:22). But this is something Christ produces in believers. Sinners fall short of it. Not only did all sin in the past, but they continually come short of God’s glory. The linking of God’s glory with man’s sin is intriguing. It would seem that God intended people to share in his glory (as we see in the story of Eden).111 But sin cut Adam off from all that, and sin cuts his descendants off still. This clear statement of universal sinfulness is basic to Paul’s understanding of the human predicament and also of the salvation Christ brought. Were it not for our sin there would have been no need for Christ’s redemptive activity; because of our sin there is no possibility of our achieving salvation by our own efforts. This is “the point of departure for the whole redemptive work of God. No one has anything to offer which could elicit the love of God” (Nygren).112
24. From tragedy to triumph. People who could not help themselves are justified (see Additional Note D),113 or declared to be in the right. This does not mean that they are “made righteous” in the sense “made virtuous”. It is a declaration that, on the basis of Christ’s saving work, believers are right with God.114 That this is due to no merit of their own is brought out in more ways than one. First, it is done freely, which means “in the manner of a gift”.115 It is not earned; we receive it as we receive gifts. Second, it is by his grace (see on 1:5). This points to free, unmerited favor, to the generous goodness of God towards those he has made. Earlier Paul referred to grace as received “through” Christ (1:5), so that the essential source of grace is the Father. Here his must refer back to “God” in the previous verse, so that we have the same truth. The position of his in the Greek puts some emphasis on the word: it is the grace of none other than God that brings us salvation. We often refer to “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ”, which is, of course, both proper and scriptural. But we should not overlook the connection of grace to the Father as well. The linking of the two comes out quite naturally here in that the Father’s grace operates “through” Christ’s redeeming work.
In this verse we have two of Paul’s great categories for the interpretation of the work of Christ. At the beginning of the verse he speaks of that work as justification, a metaphor from the law court.116 He is saying that when believing sinners are tried at the bar of God’s justice they will be acquitted because of Christ’s saving work which they have appropriated by faith. We should not be afraid of the legal metaphor. It is not the entire way of understanding Christ’s work, but it is a valid perspective and one that means a great deal to Paul, as we see from his frequent references to it. He is sure that one day we will all face God and that we will have no merits of our own to plead. But it is Christ’s wonderful gift to us that he has met the law’s full claims on our behalf and therefore we will be acquitted.117
Paul goes on to speak of redemption, which he here says is “in Christ Jesus”.118 This picturesque statement had its origin in the release of prisoners of war on payment of a price (the “ransom”). It was extended to include the freeing of slaves, again by the payment of a price.119 Among the Hebrews it could be used for release of a prisoner under sentence of death (Exod. 21:29–30), once more by the payment of a price. There are also metaphorical uses, but the idea of freedom after payment of a price is what gives them meaning.120 As used of Christ there is, of course, no thought that the price was paid to Satan, as some have held. Never is there any mention of the recipient of the price.121 Therefore we must regard redemption as a way of looking at the cross which brings out certain aspects of Christ’s work but which cannot be pressed in every detail.122 What it tells us is that a great price was paid (Moffatt, “ransom”) to purchase sinners out of their slavery to sin (7:14), out of their sentence of death (6:23). Now they are to live in freedom (notice the connection between being set free with “the freedom of the glory of God’s children” and redemption, 8:21–23).123
25. The verb translated presented (or “put forward”, RSV)124 may indeed have this meaning. But it is also used in the sense “to set before the mind, to purpose”, and this is its meaning in both of its other New Testament occurrences (1:13; Eph. 1:9). This would give good sense here, and it is adopted in some translations (as NEB, “God designed him”; Phillips, “God appointed Him”; Cranfield also prefers this meaning).125 But the context seems to be concerned with the accomplishment of God’s purpose rather than its origin; and it has a number of expressions that convey the idea of a public act (“made known”, v. 21; “demonstrate”, vv. 25, 26). We should probably accept the meaning of NIV and RSV.
There are problems with the next expression, which KJV rendered “a propitiation” and which nearly every modern translation waters down.126 Part of the trouble is that “propitiation” is neither a well-known nor a well-used word today, and translators like to employ something simpler. But the major reason is that propitiation means the removal of wrath and, as we saw earlier (see the notes on 1:18), some commentators find the concept of the divine wrath distasteful and unworthy; so they write it out of Scripture.127 If there is no wrath there is no propitiation.128 There are two major reasons for rejecting this approach. One is the meaning of the word Paul uses. The detailed examinations mentioned in n. 126† show that the word means “the removal of wrath”. The other is the context. Paul has mounted heavy artillery in the section 1:18–3:20 to show that all are sinners and subject to the wrath of God. But unless the present term means the removal of wrath he has left them there, still under God’s wrath. Nothing else he says means the averting of wrath. On both accounts we should see Paul as saying that from one point of view Christ’s death means the removal of the divine wrath from believing sinners.129
A number of translations see a reference to sacrifice. This may be justified by the use of the term “blood” here, and further by the fact that a verb cognate with the noun we are discussing is commonly used in LXX to say that such-and-such a sacrifice was offered “to make atonement”. It must, however, be borne in mind that the verb in such expressions means “to make atonement”, not “to offer sacrifice”, and further that the noun we have here is not the atonement word, but is only related to it. Usage is decisive, and the usage of this noun shows that it means “propitiation”.130 We must not lose sight of this. While I see no reason for denying that sacrifice may well have been in the back of Paul’s mind, it was in the background, not the forefront. If we are to grasp what he is saying, we must not lose sight of this. Those who advocate a meaning like “propitiatory sacrifice” may well be right; they are certainly doing more justice to Paul’s language than do translations like NIV or RSV. However we translate, it is most important that we bring out the thought that what God did in Christ averted the divine wrath from sinners.
Some hold that the word should be understood as “mercy seat” on the grounds that it has this meaning in LXX,131 and that this was the view of many early Greek commentators.132 But a close examination of the evidence shows that this is not solidly based. The same Greek word is used of the “mercy seat” indeed, but in LXX it is the context that makes this clear; there is no example of the word unqualified (as it is here) referring to the mercy seat.133 Moreover, the same word is used in LXX of other things, such as the ledge of the altar (Ezek. 43:14, etc.). It seems clear that the word is understood to signify “means of propitiation” or “propitiatory thing”. This is a description that could on occasion apply to the mercy seat, but it could also refer to other things (and sometimes does). We need more than the simple, unqualified use of the word to see here a reference to that article of tabernacle furniture. We should also bear in mind that the mercy seat was hidden from the public gaze (nobody ever saw it but the high priest, and he only once a year), whereas here the context stresses what is in the open. Shedd remarks that a comparison to the mercy seat “upon the face of it seems incongruous.” Few of those who hold to this view really face the fact that an unexplained likening of Christ to a blood-sprinkled lid would be very curious. “Means of propitiation” is surely the meaning.
Through faith repeats the construction of verse 22 (where see note).134 Once more Paul reminds us of our inability to do anything to merit our salvation. We receive the propitiation through faith. Grammatically it is possible to take in his blood as qualifying faith (as KJV; so Hodge), but it is an unlikely understanding of the words. For Paul faith is in Jesus Christ, and it is not easy to see him speaking of faith in blood.135 It is better to see it as referring to propitiation. The propitiation is effected (a) through faith, and (b) in136 Christ’s blood. His is emphatic from its position: it is the blood of none less than Christ that brings propitiation. In some quarters great emphasis is placed on the Old Testament texts that connect life and blood (e.g., Lev. 17:11) and the conclusion is drawn that we should see a reference to Christ’s life rather than his death. But a close examination of the relevant passages shows that this view is untenable.137 We should understand the expression to refer to the death of the Savior.
God did this, we are told, to demonstrate his justice (the Greek word is that translated “righteousness” in vv. 21 and 22).138 The saving act did many things, one being that it showed139 that God is just. The point is that God is a forbearing140 God. He does not hurry to punish every sinner, and the sins141 committed beforehand unpunished142 (cf. Acts 17:30) present a problem for the person who has a firm grasp on the truth that God is just. When God does not punish the sinner, that might well show him to be merciful or loving. But just? It would mean that God condones evil. Justice demands that the guilty be punished just as it demands that the innocent go free. So God might be accused of being unjust. Not any more, says Paul. The cross shows us God’s inflexible righteousness in the very means whereby sin is forgiven. Committed beforehand translates an unusual verb,143 and the perfect tense points not only to the sins in question as having taken place at an earlier time, but to those sins as somehow persisting. “Old sins cast long shadows”, as the proverb puts it. Though done in earlier days the sins linger, for they have made those who committed them sinners. Luther holds that the reference is to “the sins that we have done in the past”; others hold that we should see it rather as a description of the sins of people in the days before Christ. The language could refer to either, and it scarcely seems profitable to try to differentiate. What Paul says is true of both.
26. “In the forbearance of God” in the Greek of this verse refers back to the previous expression. “Forbearance”, of course, means God’s withholding of punishment when he might have inflicted it. Paul sees this as a problem solved by the cross of Christ. Once again he says that God brought about salvation in Christ to144 demonstrate his justice. Clearly the point means a good deal to him. At the present time stands over against “the sins committed beforehand”. The sins were done at an earlier time, but the demonstration of God’s righteousness is present. The saving act, Paul says, is in order to145 bring about the demonstration. God’s righteousness (or justice) is manifested in order that he may be146 (and, of course, be seen to be) just and the one who justifies. We should take and in the sense “and also” rather than “and yet”, “although” (as Shedd, Hodge, Cranfield). There is no antithesis between God’s justice and his mercy. Paul is saying that it is not simply the fact that God forgives that shows him to be just. Indeed, that fact by itself raises a question about God’s justice. As Barclay puts it, “The natural things to say, the inevitable thing to say, would be ‘God is just, and, therefore, condemns the sinner as a criminal.’ ” But if God had simply punished sinners, while that would have left no doubts about his justice, it would have raised questions about his mercy, and the God of the Bible is both just and merciful. What Paul is saying is that the cross shows us both.147 It is the fact that he forgives by way of the cross that is conclusive. Grace and justice come together in this resounding paradox (cf. Ps. 85:10; Isa. 45:21; Zech. 9:9).148 God saves in a manner that is right as well as powerful. The claims of justice as well as the claims of mercy are satisfied.
The person who is saved is the man who has faith in Jesus, more literally “who is of faith in Jesus”.149 This means not simply the person who believes, but the person whose characteristic is faith, whose whole position proceeds from faith. Paul has no patience with people who want to mix up faith and law or add faith to law. Those who are saved are those “of faith”.
b. Faith, 3:27–31
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Paul has insisted that salvation comes only through Christ’s death and that that death can be viewed from a variety of angles. He has said that we appropriate salvation only through faith, and he comes back to that thought now. He shows that there is no room for human boasting or the like and that a right understanding of faith is necessary if we are to uphold the law.
27. Paul resorts to one of his favorite devices, the rhetorical question,150 as he turns to the truth that Christ’s saving death has removed from mankind any possibility of boasting.151 If the cross has done all that is needed (Michel), if God has revealed in the Old Testament that human effort is futile (Cranfield), there is no place for man’s effort and accordingly for man’s extolling of his own effort. In any religion of law the worshipper may legitimately feel satisfaction in his personal achievement, but this is a satisfaction that can lead to pride. For those saved by grace, however, that is impossible. Grace leaves no place for satisfaction in one’s own achievement, for salvation is all of God. For the Jew it was a matter of pride that he had received the law (2:23; cf. 2:17), a pride that he could not but regard as legitimate because no other people had received this great gift. From this it was an easy step, and a very natural one, to pride in the extent to which one kept the law. Some such pride is the besetting sin of all religious people, no matter what their religion. But as the hymn writer puts it, “When I survey the wondrous cross … I pour contempt on all my pride.” To understand what grace and faith mean is to reject the way of pride and boasting. And so Paul says that boasting is excluded.152 There is a decisiveness about his aorist tense: the possibility is excluded once and for all (cf. Jer. 9:23–24).153 This leads to a second question, On what154 principle? (literally “law”;155 see Additional Note C). Paul seeks for the law, the regularity, that enables him to exclude boasting so decisively. His answer is another question, “Of works?“ This is very compressed, but clearly he means the way of salvation by conforming to the works of the law, the typical Jewish understanding of God’s dealings with his people.156 At the same time his use is general, and Nygren is probably too restrictive with his statement: “ ‘The principle of works’ is only another name for ‘the law’ ” (p. 162). The expression is wide enough to cover all doctrines of salvation by works, Jewish or any other. Works are important, but they do not merit salvation, and they thus form no basis for human pride. Paul rejects his suggested answer with an emphatic negative,157 followed by a strong adversative.158 Not that way lies the answer. Boasting is excluded because of what faith means.159 Paul introduces “law” again: “through the law of faith” (cf. 8:2; Gal. 6:2). He so delights in the concept of law that he uses it in many places where we would not. When he excludes boasting he looks for a “law” to cover the situation and finds it in faith. This may be understood in some such sense as “principle” (NIV, RSV).160 But it is also possible that “law” here directs us to the way of faith. Both the law and the prophets point us to that righteousness which is God’s gift (v. 21). Paul may well be saying that the law points us to faith and thus cuts us off from all boasting.
28. Paul introduces a supporting argument.161 We maintain162 introduces a contention of Paul’s own, but the use of the plural loosely associates Christians in general with him. He is not giving a purely individual opinion, but stating a truth that “we Christians” hold. A man is any member of the human race; the term is quite general. Justification is brought about in the same way for all, by faith.163 We can do nothing to merit it, and the insistence on faith164 emphasizes that we simply receive it as God’s good gift. Apart from165 observing the law, more literally “apart from works of law”,166 is virtually equivalent to “apart from law” (v. 21). There is perhaps a little more emphasis on the activity of the man, but the expression means that all such activity is of no avail. Justification takes place apart from law works of any kind.167
29. In an unexpected line of approach Paul tackles the subject from the standpoint of monotheism. Since there is only one God, it is unthinkable that the way of approach to him should be such that in principle only a small proportion of the people he has made can approach (as the Jews held with their view of the law). Monotheists must beware of the accusation “Your God is too small!” The Jews insisted that there was only one God; they rejected the gods of the heathen as no more than idols. Very well. Paul invites them to reflect on what that means. He introduces the verse with “Or” (which NIV omits) and on which SH comment, it “presents, but only to dismiss, an alternative hypothesis on the assumption of which the Jew might still have had something to boast of.” Of Jews is in an emphatic position: “Or, of Jews is he the God only?“ Can monotheists really hold that the one God is the God exclusively of any one people? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? is a question looking for an affirmative answer, and Paul obligingly supplies it himself, Yes, of Gentiles too. It follows from Jewish insistence on monotheism that the God the Jews worshipped could not possibly be no more than “the God of the Jews”. Since there was no other God, he must be the God of the Gentiles also, a corollary that does not seem to have occurred to the Jews.168 Monotheism means that God is not the exclusive property of any one nation (cf. Gen. 18:25; Ps. 96:1, 7–8; 97:5; 98:2–3; 100:1; Jer. 10:7, etc.). Neither Jews nor Gentiles has the article; it is the quality of belonging to one group or the other and not the definite groups (the Jews, the Gentiles) that Paul has in mind.169 Monotheism is important to Paul, and so are its consequences. It means that the God the Jews had always worshipped is the God of the Gentiles throughout the world. And that is an important conclusion.
30. Paul carries on with the sentence he began at the end of the previous verse. Since170 gives the logical ground for seeing Yahweh as the God of the Gentiles: “if indeed (as we all agree) God is one” (cf. Deut. 6:4). It is interesting that as he speaks of the one God Paul goes on to characterize him in terms of his activity of justification. He has shown that no man can secure his own justification, so that if anyone is justified, be he Jew or Gentile, it must be by God and there is but one God. This God then will justify the circumcised by faith (actually he says “circumcision”, but the meaning is as NIV; for the word see on 2:25). Paul is not saying that all the circumcised are justified in this way. And the same God will justify the uncircumcised (“the uncircumcision”) through that same faith. Faith the second time has the article (“through the faith”), which is the reason for NIV’s that same. Paul is saying emphatically that there is no real difference. What God requires of the Jew is faith. What God requires of the Gentile is faith. Faith is the only way.171
31. What does all this do to the law? To the Jew it was a deeply held conviction that the law came from God and accordingly it showed the chosen people God’s way of salvation. When Paul lays it down that all that is asked of people, Gentile as well as Jew, is faith,172 this seems to the Jew to imply that the law has no place. It is done away. Paul’s view is, however, far different. It is only as we see God’s way of salvation in Christ that we see the true purpose of the law.173 Paul has already laid it down that the law (as well as the prophets) witnesses to this salvation (v. 21). The law is the divine preparation for the way of salvation in Christ, but it is not itself the way of salvation. Jesus said that he came to fulfil the law (Matt. 5:17), and he did so in his life and in his death. Paul has been insisting, as the law does, that all people are sinners. He has pointed out that the righteousness from God, the divinely worked out way of salvation, is attested to in the law (and the prophets, v. 21). Christ’s atoning death means the working out of what the law really means. When we see this, we see the place of the law—“we establish the law.” But not until then. It is also worth noticing that the law sets a standard of living which it is not able to produce in those who try to keep it. But, as Paul will show later, those who come by faith receive the gift of God’s Holy Spirit, and in the power of the Spirit are able to produce it (cf. 8:3–4). In this second sense, too, the law is established.174
In this verse law lacks the article both times.175 What Paul says has reference to the Jewish law, but also to law in general. The first occurrence of law is in an emphatic position: “law do we nullify?” (for nullify see on 3:3), a position Paul negatives with the emphatic Not at all! (see on 3:4).