Chapter 3:9–31

CHAPTER 3:9–31

Outline (continued)

Justification by Faith

4. Accordingly,

“There is no one righteous, not even one.”

“All have turned aside.”

3:9–20

5. “But now, apart from law, a righteousness from God has been revealed … a righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ.”

3:21–31

4. Accordingly,

“There is no one righteous, not even one.”

“All have turned aside.”

3:9–20

9 What then? Are we any better? Not at all, for we just previously made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under (the power of) sin. 10 As it is written:

	“There is no one righteous, not even one;	Eccl. 7:20
11	there is no one who understands;
	there is no one who is searching for God.
12	All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
	there is no one who does what is right;
	there is not even one.”	Ps. 14:3; 53:1–3.
		LXX:13:1, 3; 52:2–4.
13	“An open grave is their throat;
	with their tongues they practice deception.”	Ps. 5:9; LXX:5:10.
	“The poison of vipers is under their lips.”	Ps. 140:3; LXX:139:4.
14	“Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”	Ps. 10:7: LXX:9:28.
15	“Swift (are) their feet to shed blood;
16	ruin and misery mark their ways,
17	and the way of peace they have not known.”	Isa. 59:7, 8.
18	“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”	Ps. 36:1; LXX:35:2.

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those (who are) within the pale of the law, that every mouth may be silenced, and the entire world may be exposed to the judgment of God.⁷⁷ 20 Therefore by law works no flesh⁷⁸ will be justified in his sight, for through law (comes) consciousness of sin.

9a. What then? Are we any better?

These words present problems. Interpretations vary widely.⁷⁹

The meaning, “Do we excel?” or “Are we any better?” suits the present context, in view of the fact that the status of both Gentiles (1:18–32) and Jews (2:1–3:8), a very deplorable status indeed, has been described.

The next question is, “What does we mean?”

As many translators and interpreters see it, the meaning is, “We Jews.” But this position is vulnerable:

a. The apostle has already indicated, and this in some detail, that Jews are not better than Gentiles. See 2:1, 17–24. Why, then, should he now be raising this question again?

b. Paul has been referring to the Jew(s) in the third person (1:16; 2:9; 3:1), and will do so again (9:4; 10:1; 11:20; etc.); and see above, p. 21. He has also addressed the typical Jew, using the second person (2:17 f.). In the entire preceding discussion (1:1–3:8) he has never identified himself with the Jews. Never has he said, “we Jews.” What sound reason is there for supposing that he does so here in 3:9?

Moreover, he probably does not mean, “In comparison with others, do the Jews have any outward advantages or privileges?” for on this subject he has already made himself very clear (3:1, 2). The present context indicates that the reference now is to superior standing with God.

Accordingly, the true meaning must be, “Do we—I, Paul, and you, believers in Rome—excel?” Or, more broadly, “Do we, believers in Christ (in general), excel? Are we better than all other people? Do we have a superior standing with God?”

This interpretation is supported also by the following considerations:

a. It is clear that the pronoun “we” implied in the immediately preceding sentence (verse 8: “… as we are being slanderously reported, and as some claim that we say”) refers to the believer, Paul, and those associated with him; therefore refers to “believers.”

b. It is also clear that in the immediately following line (verse 9b: “… for we just previously made the charge”) this “we” refers to Paul, the believer.

The conclusion would seem to be clear. What the apostle is asking is this, “By nature—or of ourselves—are we, Christians, better than all other people?” We have a right in our explanation to add the words “by nature,” for the apostle has not yet expounded, in any detail, what we become “by grace.” For that doctrine see 3:21 f. The fact that by nature everyone is a “child of wrath” is clear from Eph. 2:1–3.⁸⁰

Continued: 9b. Not at all, for we just previously made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under (the power of) sin.

Paul’s “Not at all” is decisive.⁸¹ He has indeed shown that the Jews are sinners, and as such are lying under the sentence of condemnation (2:1–3:8). He has proved this also with respect to the Greeks or Gentiles (1:18–32). Accordingly, the entire human race is condemnable before God. That means, therefore, that basically the same applies to the apostle himself and to all those who serve the Lord with him, for⁸² they too belong to this sin-laden, guilt-burdened human race. By nature all are under (the power of) sin.

For additional substantiation of this charge the apostle, in a manner that is both artistic and convincing, introduces a chain of Old Testament passages. If he has borrowed this mode of argumentation from the rabbis, that surely cannot be held against him. Fact is that the material he quotes is relevant, well-chosen, inspired.

On the formal side, it is clear that the quotation-chain (verses 10b–18) has three strophes or stanzas. The first strophe (verses 10b–12) consists of two sets of three lines; the second (verses 13, 14) has two sets of two lines, and so does the third (verses 15–18).

The quotations are not all ad verbum (literal) but are all ad sensum (according to meaning).

By far the most of the quoted material is from the Psalms, though the Prophets (Isaiah) and the Writings (Ecclesiastes) are also represented. Does not this indicate that Paul regarded not only the historical but also the poetical and the prophetical books of the Old Testament as being inspired?

Turning now to the material contents of this chain of proof, we note that the opening strophe is as follows:

10–12. As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;

there is no one who understands;

there is no one who is searching for God.

All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;

there is no one who does what is right;

there is not even one.”

It is clear that the argument which intends to demonstrate the universality of sin builds up to a climax.

The very first strophe shows that Paul is not describing this or that particular race or class of people but men in general. The picture he draws is dismal: no one is righteous; in fact, no one understands his deplorable condition. And no one is even trying to understand, is even searching for God, the Source of all wisdom and knowledge.

But are there no exceptions? Paul answers, “There is no one … no one … no one … no one … not even one.”

He makes all this even more emphatic by interspersing the five negatives with one positive statement, “All have turned aside” (from God and his law), etc. Is not this all an echo of the one in verse 9 (“Jews and Greeks alike are all under the power of sin”)?

To make his argument convincing the apostle now descends to particulars. He speaks about the evil throat (voice), tongue, lips, mouth:

13, 14. “An open grave is their throat;

With their tongue they practice deception.”

“The poison of vipers is under their lips.

Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”

It must be borne in mind that Paul is attempting to prove that by nature all people, without exception, are under the power of sin. In order to do so, what specific type of sinfulness will he select as an illustration? Will he remind his listeners or readers of the gross immorality that marked the heathen world? Cf. 1:24, 26, 27. He will not, for in that case many a Jew and perhaps even this or that Gentile might object, “But I, for one, am not guilty!”

Guided by the Holy Spirit, the apostle wisely selects the sin of the tongue to illustrate the universality of human sinfulness, for with respect to this evil who can truthfully say, “I am not guilty?”⁸³ On this subject of sinful human speech see also Ps. 39:1; Prov. 10:19; 17:27; Matt. 5:22, 37; 10:19, 20 (and parallels); Titus 3:2; James 1:19, 26; 3:1–12; I Peter 3:10.

Since a tree is known by its fruit, and a man by his deeds, Paul stresses the viciousness of the evil throat by showing how it operates. Quoting from Ps. 5:9 he describes the throat as “an open grave.” He is probably thinking of a huge, cruel monster, ready to devour its victims; yes, even to devour them unawares. On a human plane this destruction may even take place by means of flattery, “the smooth tongue” of Ps. 5:9, the one that practices deception.

The final line of verse 13, “The poison of vipers is under their lips” is an exact quotation of the LXX version of Ps. 140:3 (LXX 139:4).⁸⁴ The emphasis continues to be on the perfidious manner in which people, acting from motives that lie outside of the sphere of God’s sovereign grace, try to destroy their intended victims. Their words may be very flattering, but watch out: the speakers cannot be trusted. They resemble vipers which “under their lips,” at the base of their fangs, are equipped with sacs filled with deadly poison. Examples: Saul (I Sam. 18:17); David; yes even David (II Sam. 11).

Still continuing in the same vein, that is, emphasizing the deceitful nature of human speech, the “chain” continues in verse 14, with a quotation from Ps. 10:7 (LXX 9:28), “Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.” In the Psalm from which these words are quoted the context again very definitely stresses the treacherous manner in which a person will at times try to “use” and abuse his fellowmen. Note such expressions as “he lurks in secret, lies in wait, crouches.” Truly, deceptive is man’s heart! See Jer. 17:9.

Thus interpreted, the reference to “cursing and bitterness” may well mean that in the process of attempting to deceive their neighbors people will at times perjure themselves; that is, they will pronounce bitter curses upon themselves, to be poured out if what they say turns out not to have been true. For example, a merchant will say to a potential customer, “May I drop dead on this very spot if I have not shelled out more for this article than I ask you to pay for it.” In expressing this wish he is, of course, insincere.⁸⁵

Since the second strophe dealt with men’s speech, it is logical that the final one, in its first three lines, would describe men’s life and conduct, their actions.

15–18. “Swift (are) their feet to shed blood;

ruin and misery mark their ways,

and the way of peace they have not known.

There is no fear of God before their eyes.”⁸⁶

A long and still continuing series of wars and murders proves that the first three lines of this final stanza are true today as well as in Isaiah’s time. See Isa. 59:7, 8. The ruin and misery brought about by these explosions of human wrath are evident everywhere.

The basic reason for this deplorable situation is expressed in the final line, “There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Ps. 36:1). The consistent operation of the fear of God in human hearts would have brought about a yearning for the reconciliation of man with God and with his fellowmen.

The conclusion of this section is found in verses 19, 20, beginning as follows:

19. Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those (who are) within the pale of the law …

Since in the preceding series of quotations the apostle has never quoted from the Decalog or even, in general, from the Pentateuch, but only from the Psalms, Prophets, and Writings, it is clear that the term “the law” must refer to the Old Testament as a whole. Such passages as John 10:34; 15:25; and I Cor. 14:25 illustrate a similar use of the expression “the law.”

If, in the present case, there is any real difference in meaning between “says” and “speaks,” it would be that “says” refers to what is said, and “speaks” draws attention to the act of speaking.

With respect to the phrase “those (who are) within the pale of the law” there is a wide difference of interpretation. Here are a few samples:

a. the Jews. Thus J. P. Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, (translated and edited by P. Schaff), Grand Rapids (reprint), 1869, p. 121; also Ridderbos, op. cit., p. 79.

b. all who have the Old Testament, including the believers in Rome. That view is expressed by Lenski, op. cit., pp. 239, 240, who correctly stresses the fact that Paul is not just writing to Jews, but to the Roman Christians.

c. everybody, the whole world. Thus Greijdanus, op. cit., p. 177; and Murray, op. cit., p. 106.

d. everybody, but with special application to the Jews. For this interpretation see, for example, C. R. Erdman, Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Phila., n.d., p. 50; and G. B. Wilson, Romans, A Digest of Reformed Comment, Edinburgh, 1977, p. 56.

I believe c.—everybody, the whole world—most adequately expresses what Paul had in mind. It is true that the phrase “those (who are) within the pale of the law” might cause us to think exclusively of the Jews. However, does not the law, God’s Word, have a message for all? And does it not have authority over all, and a claim on all, whether they be believers or unbelievers? And does it not concern all, without exception, whether they be Jews or Gentiles by race?

Besides, words must be interpreted in light of their context, which is as follows: that every mouth may be silenced, and the entire world may be exposed to the judgment of [or: may stand guilty before] God.

It is clear that the apostle is no longer thinking exclusively about Gentiles or Jews. No, he is summarizing his argument, combining the conclusions to which he has arrived in connection with Gentiles (1:32), Jews (2:21–24), everybody, including even believers (3:9) as they are by nature. He repeats the verdict expressed earlier. See especially 3:9–12.

The figure used is dramatic, fear-inspiring, unforgettable. Everybody is standing in front of God, the Judge. The records are read, and as it were one by one the accused are given an opportunity to answer the charges made against them. However, their guilt having been exposed, they have no answer. Their mouths are silenced, stopped.

Conclusion: 20. Therefore by law-works no flesh [or: mortal being] will be justified in his sight, for through law (comes) consciousness of sin.

In somewhat different phraseology the thought of Ps. 143:2 (“Do not bring thy servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before thee”) is here reproduced.⁸⁷ Cf. Job 9:2.

Paul’s argument is irrefutable. By the works of the law no one can ever be justified in God’s sight. Why not? Consider, for a moment, what the law demands. Nothing less than this, that a person love God “with all” his heart, soul, mind, and strength, and that he love his neighbor as he loves himself (Matt. 22:37–40; Mark 12:29–31; Luke 10:27). The apostle has shown that it is exactly this love that was lacking on the part of both Gentile (note: “neither gave thanks,” Rom. 1:21) and Jew (note: “hard and unconverted heart,” 2:5). He has made clear that every person stands condemned before God (3:19).

He stands condemned because of his sins of commission, but also because of his sins of omission (1:21, 28; 2:21; 3:11; cf. Matt. 25:41–43); not only because of his sins open and public, but also because of the evil he commits in secret (Rom. 2:16). He is damnable in God’s sight not only because of what he says and does (Rom. 3:13–17), but even because of what he is (3:9, 10); that is, because of his sinful state.

Only one conclusion is possible therefore. Man is doomed, doomed, doomed. His condition is one of thorough hopelessness and despair. And the law, with its demand of nothing less than moral and spiritual perfection (cf. Lev. 19:2), a state to which man, in his own power, can never attain, creates in him a dreadful, mortifying sense of sin; hence, a presentiment of doom, total and everlasting.

5. “But now, apart from law, a righteousness from God has been revealed … a righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ.”

3:21–31

21 But now, apart from law, a righteousness from God, attested by the law and the prophets, has been revealed, 22 namely, a righteousness from God which, through faith in Jesus Christ, (comes) to all who exercise faith—for there is no distinction, 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God— 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption (accomplished) in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God designed to be, by the shedding of his blood, a wrath-removing⁸⁸ sacrifice, (effective) through faith. (God did this) to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had treated past sins with indulgence.⁸⁹ 26 (So he did it) to demonstrate his justice in the present time, that he might be just and the One who justifies the person who has faith in Jesus.

27 What room, then, is left for boasting?⁹⁰ It is excluded. On what basis? Of works? No, but on the basis of faith. 28 For we maintain that it is by faith that a person is justified, apart from law works. 29 Or is God (the God) of Jews only? Is he not (the God) of Gentiles also? Certainly, of Gentiles also; 30 seeing that there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we then invalidate the law through our (insistence on)⁹¹ faith? By no means. On the contrary, we uphold the law.

21. But now, apart from law, a righteousness from God, attested by the law and the prophets, has been revealed …

Dark and dismal is man’s condition. This darkness and despair is unfathomable and universal. It envelops all.

Then suddenly a light, the very light which previously had flickered for a brief moment (1:16, 17), comes streaming in. Hope revives.

This light, this ray of optimism, comes not from below but from above. It is “a righteousness from God.” It is he who comes to the rescue. It is he who condescends to save those who had made themselves thoroughly unworthy of being saved. And, being God, he does this—of course!—without sacrificing his righteousness or lifting the demands of his law. This is the light of his glorious gospel. Study such passages as Isa. 9:1 (cf. Matt. 4:16); 49:6b; 58:8; 60:1, 3, 19, 20; Mic. 7:8; Luke 1:78, 79; 2:32; John 1:9; 8:12; Acts 13:47; Eph. 5:8, 9; Rev. 22:5.

Why God did this is a mystery we shall never be able fully to understand. Such love is infinite and incomprehensible. See what the apostle says about it in Rom. 5:6–8, and how in II Cor. 9:15 he pours out his heart in gratitude and adoration by exclaiming, “Thanks be to God for his indescribably precious gift!” What took place when (to speak in human terms) in the quiet recess of eternity God Triune decided to deliver man from the greatest evil and to place him in possession of the greatest good, to do this at such a price (II Cor. 5:21), is a matter so marvelous and sublime that in his epistle to the Ephesians the apostle prays that the readers (or hearers), being rooted and established in love, may be strong, in unison with all the saints, to grasp the breadth, length, height, and depth of the love of Christ which (in all its dimensions) can never be grasped (3:14–19)! This too is a matter “angels desire to look into” (I Peter 1:12). It is the most glorious paradox one can imagine.

Here in Rom. 3:21 Paul states, “But now”—that is, at this present time (verse 26; cf. 5:9), this very strategic moment in the history of redemption, in Gal 4:4 called the fulness of the time—“a righteousness from God has been revealed.” This righteousness goes into effect “apart from the law,” which can only mean that it was not, and cannot be, earned by men’s obedience to God’s law. It was and is a righteousness “apart from the works of the law.” Cf. Rom. 3:28; 4:6–8; Gal. 2:16, 21; 3:10–13; Eph. 2:9; Phil. 3:9; II Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5.⁹²

Is Paul presenting a new doctrine, something never heard of? On the contrary, he is speaking about “a righteousness attested by the law and the prophets.”⁹³ The apostle has already quoted Hab. 2:4; see Rom. 1:17. Undoubtedly he also has in mind other passages; such as Gen. 15:6; Ps. 32:1, 2; see Rom. 4:3, 7, 8. And see N.T.C. on Luke, p. 125.

Continued: 22, 23. namely, a righteousness from God which, through faith in Jesus Christ, (comes) to all who exercise faith—for there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God—…

In substance Paul here repeats what he has stated in 1:16, 17. He is not forgetting his theme. In the former passage he had declared, “The gospel … is (the) power of God for salvation to everyone who exercises faith … For in it a righteousness from God is revealed from faith to faith …” He now adds that the object of this faith is Jesus Christ. Cf. Matt. 1:21; John 3:16; 14:6; Acts 4:12.

With great emphasis the apostle repeats the thought of 1:16b, namely, that this righteousness is granted to all those—and only to those—who put this faith into practice; that is, to all true believers in Jesus Christ. It makes no difference whether a person is rich or poor, young or old, male or female, educated or uneducated, Jew or Gentile. All need this righteousness and can obtain it only through faith in the Savior, in and through whom the Triune God reveals himself.

There is no distinction. Since all, everybody in the entire world, have sinned and therefore fall short of or lack the glory of God, no one should base his hope for acceptance with God on his own goodness. God’s law demands perfection, and no one is any longer perfect in God’s sight. The apostle has explained this in some detail; first with respect to the Gentiles (1:18–32); next with respect to the Jews (2:1–3:8). He has summarized it in 3:9–20.

All people have sinned and fall short—or are falling short—of God’s glory. When man transgressed God’s command he lost the earlier blessings; specifically, the divine approval resting upon him, hence also freedom of access to God. See Gen. 3:8.⁹⁴

24, 25a. … being justified freely by his grace through the redemption (accomplished) in Christ Jesus; whom God designed to be, by the shedding of his blood, a wrath-removing sacrifice, (effective) through faith.

Note the various elements of this important passage:

a. being justified

Here, for the first time in Romans, the verb to justify is used in a positive context in order to set forth the doctrine of justification by faith.⁹⁵

It is easy to go astray here in interpreting Paul’s thought. By combining the beginning of verse 24 with the closing words of verse 23 the result is, “… all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace,” etc. Is Paul actually saying, then, that all sinners are being justified; therefore, are being saved? Has Paul suddenly become a universalist?

The writer of this commentary remembers hearing a minister say from the pulpit, “In the end everybody will be saved. I have hope even for the devil.” Omitting the part about the devil, was that minister in line with Paul?

But this cannot be, for in 1:16, 17 and 3:22 the apostle insists that the “righteousness from God” is a blessing bestowed on those who exercise faith, on no one else.

What is the solution? Probably this: when in verse 22a Paul declares that God’s righteousness extends to all who exercise faith, there is, as it were, an interruption. It is as if someone (a Jew perhaps?) is asking, “Only to those, Paul? Not also to us who, though we do not share your faith in Jesus Christ, have tried very hard to please God by means of our effort to live in harmony with his law? Are we no better than other people? Is there no distinction between us and others?”

The answer to this parenthetical question—as has already been shown—is, “There is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (22b, 23).

Returning now to the main line of thought, “a righteousness from God which, through faith in Jesus Christ (comes) to all who exercise faith” (verse 22a), the apostle continues, “being justified freely by his grace through the redemption (accomplished) in Christ Jesus” (verse 24). Not everybody but only those who exercise faith, the genuine believers, receive the great blessing of justification.⁹⁶

When used, as here in Rom. 3:24, in the dominant forensic sense, to justify means to declare righteous; and justification may be defined as that gracious act of God whereby, on the basis solely of Christ’s accomplished mediatorial work, he declares the sinner just, and the latter accepts this benefit with a believing heart. In defense of this definition see not only the present context (Rom. 3:24–30) but also 4:3, 5; 5:1, 9; 8:30; Gal. 2:15, 16; 3:8, 11, 24; 5:4; Titus 3:7. Justification stands over against condemnation. See Rom. 8:1, 33, 34.

Justification is a matter of imputation (reckoning, charging): the sinner’s guilt is imputed to Christ; the latter’s righteousness is imputed to the sinner (Gen. 15:6; Ps. 32:1, 2; Isa. 53:4–6; Jer. 23:6; Rom. 5:18, 19). While justification is a matter of imputation, sanctification is a matter of transformation. In justification the Father takes the lead (Rom. 8:33); in sanctification the Holy Spirit does (II Thess. 2:13). The first is a “once for all” verdict, the second a lifelong process. Nevertheless, although the two should never be identified, neither should they be separated. They are distinct but not separate.

b. freely

The word used in the original means “as a gift”; in other words, without payment made by the one who receives it; without any human merit. See I Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:4. If the sinner is to be declared righteous at all, it will have to be freely, for, as has been shown in the preceding, as measured by the standard of God’s requirement (Lev. 19:2; Matt. 22:37 and parallels), human merit is impossible. Man cannot earn the great and basic blessing of justification. He can only accept it as a gift (Isa. 55:1).

c. by his grace

Grace is God’s love directed toward the guilty, just as his mercy is that same love directed toward those in misery.⁹⁷ It is easy to understand that “freely” and “by his grace” go together.

d. through the redemption (accomplished) in Christ Jesus

The word redemption (Greek ἀπολύτρωσις) occurs ten times in the New Testament (Luke 21:28; Rom. 3:24; 8:23; I Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:7, 14; 4:30; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:15; 11:35). In those passages in which the term is used, as here in Rom. 3:24, in its full spiritual sense, it indicates deliverance, by means of the payment of a ransom, from the guilt, punishment, and power of sin.⁹⁸

This redemption was accomplished in, probably meaning “in connection with,” Christ Jesus, the Anointed Savior. Most translators have adopted this or a very similar translation, namely, “in Christ Jesus.” Some, however, prefer “by Christ Jesus.” The Greek allows either. In favor of “in” or “in connection with” is the fact that in verses 23, 24 “God” is clearly mentioned as the Author of the believers’ redemption. Not to Jesus alone but to God Triune should be accorded the praise and glory for man’s deliverance from sin and its consequences. It was accomplished or brought about in and through Christ Jesus; that is, by means of his voluntary suffering and death on the cross.

e. whom God designed to be …⁹⁹

This design points back to the divine eternal counsel. In that counsel or decree Christ Jesus was designed to be the One through whom the plan of salvation would be realized. Christ Jesus and his people can never be separated. Note such parallel passages as Eph. 1:4, 7, 10, 11.

f. by the shedding of his blood, a wrath-removing or propitiatory sacrifice¹⁰⁰

Blood represents life (Lev. 17:11; Matt. 20:28, cf. 26:28; John 10:11, 15). The words “by the shedding of his blood” refer to Messiah’s voluntary sacrifice of his life in the place of those whom he came to save. Cf. Isa. 53:10–12.

Though it is being constantly denied, there is indeed such a thing as the wrath of God that rests on the sinner and must be removed if he is to be saved. See Rom. 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 5:9; 9:22; Eph. 2:3; 5:6; Col. 3:6, I Thess. 1:10; 2:16; 5:9; Rev. 6:16, 17; 11:18; 14:10; 16:19; 19:15.

When atonement is rendered, God’s wrath is removed. Rom. 3:25a mentions a wrath-removing or propitiatory sacrifice, namely, Christ Jesus himself. It was he who gave—voluntarily offered—his blood; hence his life; hence himself (I Tim. 2:6) for his sheep, bearing the wrath of God in their stead, thereby causing them to be reconciled to God.

There are many passages which teach this truth, either as a whole or in part: Isa. 53:4–8, 12; Matt. 20:28; 26:28; Mark 10:45; 14:24; Luke 22:20; Acts 20:28; I Cor. 10:16; 11:25; II Cor. 5:20, 21; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Col. 1:20; I Peter 1:18, 19; 2:24; I John 1:7; 5:6; Heb. 9:11, 12, 15, 23–28; Rev. 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8.

The Greek word for which I have chosen the English equivalent “wrath-removing (or propitiatory) sacrifice,” in the LXX (Greek translation of the Old Testament) indicates the blood-sprinkled lid of the ark of the covenant. This is the “mercy seat” (A.V.) or “atonement cover” (N.I.V.). See Exod. 25:17, 18; Lev. 16:2, 3; etc. In all, the word occurs more than twenty times in the Pentateuch, most often in Exodus. In the description of tabernacle furniture (Heb. 9:1–5) it is logical to believe that verse 5 similarly refers to this cover. However, although the same Greek word is found also in Rom. 3:25, it is understandable that most translators—there are exceptions—hesitate to call Christ Jesus either a “mercy seat” or an “atonement cover.” “Wrath-removing sacrifice,” “sacrifice of atonement” (N.I.V.),¹⁰¹ or simply “propitiation” (A.V., A.R.V.) is better. See also I John 2:2; 4:10.

g. (effective) through faith

Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice does not go into effect automatically. If a person wishes to obtain this great blessing—the turning away of God’s wrath, forgiveness, acceptance with God—he must exercise genuine faith in Christ, in and through whom God Triune reveals himself.

The indispensability of faith has been pointed out before (1:8, 16, 17; 3:22) and will be emphasized again (3:26, 28, 30; 4:3, etc.). Without faith no one can please God (Heb. 11:6). To be saved a person needs faith, God-given faith (Eph. 2:8).

By works, human effort, or earnings no one has ever been saved or will ever reach everlasting, heavenly glory (3:9–20).

Not what my hands have done

Can save my guilty soul;

Not what my toiling flesh has borne

Can make my spirit whole.

Not what I feel or do

Can give me peace with God;

Not all my prayers and sighs and tears

Can bear my awful load.

Thy grace alone, O God,

To me can pardon speak;

Thy power alone, O Son of God,

Can this sore bondage break.

No other work save thine,

No other blood will do;

No strength save that which is divine

Can bear me safely through.

Horatius Bonar

By way of summary it can be pointed out, therefore, that justification, as taught by Paul, is in no sense whatever the work of man. On the contrary, it is:

a. God’s gift (Rom. 5:15–18)

b. the product of his grace (3:24; 4:16; 5:15)

c. free (5:16)

d. not of works (3:20)

e. the opposite of condemnation (8:1, 33, 34)

f. that which deprives man of every reason for boasting (3:27)

g. appropriated by faith, even that faith being God-given (Eph. 2:8).

That this doctrine of justification by faith is in accord with the teaching of the Old Testament will be shown in Romans 4.

That it also is in harmony with the teaching of Christ will be indicated in a moment (see the next paragraph). Add Luke 18:14.

All this is contrary to Rome’s doctrine, for while Rome certainly teaches that Christ, by means of his atonement, supplied the meritorious basis for our justification, the predisposing cause must be supplied by ourselves; that is, by our hope, faith, love, contrition, etc. In his doctoral dissertation Attrition and Contrition at the Council of Trent, Kampen, 1955, p. 227, G. J. Spykman made the following excellent observation:

“Trent in effect made saving grace dependent upon what the penitent does or fails to do, be it in ever so refined form.… Not only grace but also good works contributed to justification, it held.” He further points out that this “flatly contradicts Christ’s invitation, ‘Come to me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest’ ” (Matt. 11:28–30).

25b, 26. (God did this) to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had treated past sins with indulgence. (So he did it) to demonstrate his justice in the present time, that he might be just and the One who justifies the person who has faith in Jesus.

How did it happen that, according to God’s plan from eternity, nothing could keep Jesus from shedding his blood as a propitiatory sacrifice? The answer is: This happened in order to prove or demonstrate that God had not been unfair or unjust when, in his forbearance (cf. 2:4, and see on 8:32), he had treated with indulgence—had “passed over,” “overlooked”—for the time being the sins of his people committed in earlier days; that is, during the old dispensation. When God’s Son suffered and died, he did so to atone for the sins of all who had accepted or were going to accept him by a living faith; that is, for all believers in both dispensations. The merits of the cross reach backward as well as forward. By not allowing the earlier sins to be left forever unpunished but loading them on Christ (Isa. 53:6), God demonstrated that he was, is, and forevermore will be just. And since he is just, who can deny that he, he alone, has a right to be, and actually is, the justifier of all who repose their trust in Jesus?¹⁰²

Note the following:

a. Again, as frequently in Romans, we are told that the wonderful blessing of justification is for that person, for him (her) alone, who has faith in Jesus.

b. “In Jesus.” That must mean the Jesus of history, the One who was born in Bethlehem, was crucified, rose again, and ascended to heaven. The claim that it is possible to believe in a Christ who is not the Jesus of history to which Scripture bears testimony is false!

27. What room, then, is left for boasting? It is excluded. On what basis?¹⁰³ Of works? No, but on the basis of faith.

Paul has made clear that no one, whether Gentile or Jew, can achieve acceptance with God, hence salvation, by means of his own works or boasting (see on 2:17) or on the basis of the privileges he has received (3:3, 4, 9). Nevertheless, it is characteristic of certain people to boast or brag. See Mic. 3:11; Matt. 3:9; Rom. 2:17, 23; 4:2; I Cor. 1:29; Phil. 3:3. Paul may have been thinking especially of the Jews in this connection. All such boasting is senseless and sinful, for “no one is righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10). “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23). So, there simply is no room for boasting. Very decisively Paul states. “It is excluded,” meaning, “Once for all it has been banished.”¹⁰⁴

On what basis has it been thrown out? On the basis of works perhaps? Of course not. Constant reflection on meritorious (?) accomplishments makes a person proud, not humble. This sinful habit encourages rather than discourages boasting.

It is the doctrine of justification, hence salvation, by faith, which implies that there is no room whatever for bragging. For faith is a gift of God, as is also salvation considered in its entirety. Not even the tiniest part of it is a product of man’s ingenuity. See Eph. 2:8, 9. This truth, when applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit, convinces a person that whatever good he possesses has been received (I Cor. 4:7), and that he who boasts should boast in the Lord (I Cor. 1:31).

The right to brag has been excluded. On the basis of faith it has been ruled out. So, in support of verse 27, and to summarize, Paul again states what in essence he has said before (1:17; 3:22–24, 26) and is going to reiterate (5:1; 9:30–33; 10:5–13):

28. For we maintain that it is by faith that a person is justified, apart from law works.

Here, by implication, the two conceivable methods of being saved are set over against each other in a sharp antithesis. According to the first, a person is saved by obeying God’s law (which to the Jew meant: as interpreted and expanded by tradition). According to the second, he is saved by faith. All “glorying” is excluded. It is by faith that it has been excluded. According to the first, justification, therefore also salvation, is the product of human merit; according to the second, of divine grace.

Paul here, as well as everywhere else, definitely endorses the second proposition. He rejects the first. No wonder, for he who stresses works expects salvation to come from within; that is, from below. He who emphasizes faith looks away from himself to God, and expects salvation to come from him; that is, from above.

When, in his translation of the New Testament Luther reached this passage he rendered it as follows, “So halten wir nun dafür, dass der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben,” that is, “So we hold that a person is justified without works of the law, through faith alone.” For this addition of the word alone he was severely criticized. His answer was:

“If your papist makes much useless fuss about the word sola, alone, tell him at once: Doctor Martin Luther will have it so … Are they [the Papists] doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I … Therefore the word alone shall remain in my New Testament, and though all papal donkeys get furious, they shall not take it out.”¹⁰⁵

Luther should not have inserted this word. And the critics should not have raised such a storm of protest about it, for, after all, when Paul states that it is by faith that a person is justified, apart from law works, does he not actually mean “by faith alone”?

This position, of course, does not exclude works of gratitude, the fruit of faith, as the apostle makes very clear, both in Romans (6:1–14; 7:4–6; 8:12–14; ch. 12, etc.), and in other epistles (Gal. 5:22–26; Eph. 2:8–10; I Tim. 2:1–6; Titus 2:11–14).

Hymn writers have caught the true meaning of Rom. 3:28 and similar passages:

My hope is built on nothing less

Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness;

I dare not trust the sweetest frame,

But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.

On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;

All other ground is sinking sand.

Edward Mote

In close connection with the thought of verse 28 Paul continues:

29, 30. Or is God (the God) of Jews only? Is he not (the God) of Gentiles also? Certainly, of Gentiles also; seeing that there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

If it were true that works in conformity with the law were required as a condition upon the fulfilment of which salvation was based, then Gentiles, living apart from the law, would have no chance to be saved. God would be the God of the Jews only. The Gentiles would have to look elsewhere for salvation; perhaps to some other God? The apostle definitely rejects this suggestion. He affirms that there are not two Gods, one for the Jews, and one for the Gentiles. In harmony with what he has said previously (see especially such passages as 2:25f.; 3:22) and is going to say a little later (10:12, 13), and in thorough agreement also with the teachings of Jesus (Matt. 8:10–12; John 3:16; 10:14–16; 17:20, 21), the apostle here strongly affirms that there is only one God (cf. Deut. 6:4; Isa. 45:5) and only one way of salvation for both Jew and Gentile, for circumcised and uncircumcised (Gen. 22:18; Isa. 45:22; Rom. 4:9–12). See also footnote 119.

It is hard to see how, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul could have expressed the “no distinction” truth in clearer language. It takes but little imagination to sense how the entire Roman congregation, gathered for worship, whether in one meeting place or in several, must have rejoiced when this epistle, with its emphasis on unity (cf. Eph. 2:11–17) was read. The notion according to which even today God recognizes two groups in which he takes special delight—the Jews and the church—finds no support either here or anywhere else in Scripture. What does find support is Paul’s passage found in Eph. 4:4–6:

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope which your calling brought you; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”¹⁰⁶

The apostle closes this section with the words of verse

31. Do we then invalidate the law through our (insistence on) faith? By no means. On the contrary, we uphold the law.

There are those who say that 3:31 should have been 4:1; in other words, that it belongs to and introduces the material of the fourth chapter. They take the term “the law” as used here in 3:31, to be the equivalent of “Scripture” in 4:3. Moreover, it has already been admitted that the term law does at times have that significance.

However, there are two main objections against directly connecting with chapter 4:

a. No clear connection can be shown between the substance of 3:31 and the opening paragraph of chapter 4.

b. The very wording of 3:31—Note “Do we, then,” etc.—clearly indicates that this passage reflects on that which precedes.

What the apostle is saying amounts to this: “Since by law-works no mortal will ever be justified (3:20), and since it was apart from the law that a righteousness from God has been revealed (verse 21), and since, therefore, a person is justified by faith, apart from the works of the law (verse 28), are we depriving the law of its value?”

“Do we then invalidate the law through our (insistence on) faith?”

Paul’s answer is very abrupt and decisive, “By no means. On the contrary, we uphold the law.”

The forceful character of the answer must probably be explained in light of the fact that there were those who were saying, “Let us do away with the law. All we need is faith. Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound.” See on 3:8 and 6:1.

If anyone should ask the further question, “In which way, Paul, do you uphold the law by your emphasis on justification by faith?,” he would undoubtedly refer that individual to the contents of Rom. 3:20; 7:7, 8, 13; Gal. 2:19; 3:21, 24.

The doctrines of (a) justification, hence salvation, by faith and (b) that of the usefulness of God’s law, coincide beautifully; for “through law comes consciousness of sin.” And this very consciousness, when it is sanctified by the Holy Spirit, causes one to cry out for help and deliverance. That deliverance is fully supplied whenever a sinner surrenders his life to God; that is, when by genuine God-given faith he welcomes into his heart and life the Lord Jesus Christ, with the word of committal:

Nothing in my hand I bring,

Simply to thy cross I cling.

It is in this way that the Scriptures—hence also Paul and his companions—uphold the law while teaching and insisting on the doctrine about faith.

To every sincere believer the doctrine of justification by faith is a very precious treasure. To realize for one’s own soul what this glorious truth means can be a very thrilling and unforgettable experience. We have already seen what the discovery of this marvelous theme meant for Paul (see pp. 28, 29) and for Luther (pp. 61, 62). When John Bunyan read Rom. 3:24 it was as if he heard God saying to his deeply troubled, guilt-stricken soul, “Sinner, thou thinkest that because of thy sins and infirmities I cannot save thy soul, but behold my Son is by me, and upon him I look, and not upon thee, and I will deal with thee according as I am pleased with him.”

Is it possible that we have become so used to the expression “forgiveness of sins” that it has lost most of its meaning for us? Do we reflect on the fact that these sins are infinitely more heinous in God’s sight than they are to us? That he nevertheless blots them out once and for all, lovingly assuring us, “I will forgive your iniquity, and your sin will I remember no more”? Yes, he forgives even though, in order to do this, he, because of the demand of his perfect righteousness, had to punish them in his Son, the One whom he loved as God alone can love!

But justification implies more, much more, than forgiveness. The heavenly Father, having canceled our debt, then as it were lovingly throws his arms around us (cf. Luke 15:20), and tells each of his pardoned ones, “You are my son, my daughter, my very own. And being my child, you are also my heir” (Rom. 8:17).

Think of it, “Heirs of God” are we and “joint-heirs with Christ,” united with him by a bond of love that can never be severed!

So amazing and so abounding is God’s love for us that never shall we be able to measure it. Throughout all eternity the mysteries of that love, infinite in number, will continue to be revealed to us. And we shall glorify him:

By the sea of crystal, saints in glory stand,

Myriads in number, drawn from every land.

Robed in white apparel, washed in Jesus’ blood,

They now reign forever with the Lamb of God.

Unto God Almighty, sitting on the throne,

And the Lamb victorious, be the praise alone.

God has wrought salvation, he did wondrous things;

Who shall not extol Thee, Holy King of Kings?

William Kuipers

(based on Rev. 15:1–4)

Practical Lessons Derived from Rom. 3:9–31

Verses 9, 10

“What then? Are we any better? Not at all.… There is no one righteous, not even one.” When the new minister arrived, he was told, “Your work here will be easy, for we are all good people.” So he preached on the text, “Reliable is the saying, and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world, sinners to save, foremost of whom am I” (I Tim. 1:15).

Verses 21, 22

“But now … a righteousness from God, attested by the law and the prophets, has been revealed, namely, a righteousness from God which, through faith in Jesus Christ, comes to all who exercise faith.…” Here something old is added to something new:

a. something old, for the righteousness here indicated, had been proclaimed long ago in the law and the prophets. Abraham, David, Habakkuk, etc., had borne testimony to it.

b. something new, for not until now—that is, very recently—Jesus Christ had entered this realm of sin and woe, had offered himself as a sacrifice for the sins of his people, had been raised from the dead, and ascended to heaven, having purchased salvation for all who place their trust in him.

The old and the new belong together: it was Jesus who, by means of his active and passive obedience, obtained for all who surrender themselves to him, “righteousness from God,” hence salvation full and free.

So the old and the new are actually one. The idea that the Old Testament is for the Jews, the New Testament for the church, is in need of re-examination. To a considerable extent it should be discarded. He who thinks lightly of the Old Testament does not understand Paul, nor the Bible.

Verses 24, 25

“… being justified freely by his grace through the redemption (accomplished) in Christ Jesus … the shedding of his blood.” Those who think that they can be saved apart from “redemption through the blood of Christ” are committing a tragic error.

Verse 25

“… a wrath-removing sacrifice.” Then alone is it possible to do justice to the comforting truth of God’s love (Jer. 31:3; John 3:16) when this love is seen in its relation to God’s wrath.

Verse 27

“What room, then, is left for boasting? It is excluded.”

Heaven will be filled with boasting … in the Lord! The redeemed “are casting their crowns before the throne, while they say, ‘Thou art worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power.…’ ” (Rev. 4:10, 11).

In a sense this song already begins on earth, with the words:

Thou art, O God, our boast, the glory of our power;

Thy sovereign grace is e’er our fortress and our tower.

We lift our heads aloft, for God our shield is o’er us;

Through him, through him alone, whose presence goes before us,

We’ll wear the victor’s crown, no more by foes assaulted,

We’ll triumph through our King, by Israel’s God exalted.

Versification (of Ps. 89:17, 18)

by William Kuipers

Summary of Chapter 3:9–31

By means of a chain of Old Testament passages Paul adduces the evidence for the proposition that by nature everybody is under the power of sin, and that accordingly “there is no one righteous, no, not one.” This being true, it follows that the attempt to gain salvation by performing works of obedience to God’s law will fail. “Therefore by law-works no flesh [mortal being] will be justified in his sight, for through law comes consciousness of sin” (3:9–20).

However, when for the sinner things begin to look very dark, the light of the gospel suddenly breaks through the gloom and dispels it: “But now, apart from law, a righteousness attested by the law and the prophets has been revealed, namely, a righteousness from God.” This righteousness, in order to be effective in the life of a person, must be appropriated by faith in Jesus Christ. This rule holds for everybody: Gentile and Jew alike, “for there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (verses 21–23).

The price paid by the Savior for the justification of those who place their trust in him, and through him in God Triune, was immeasurably heavy. It amounted to no less than the shedding of Christ’s blood, that is, the offering up of himself. This meant that the full burden of wrath was transferred from his people to himself, so that he, Lord Jesus Christ, bore it in their stead. All this took place in harmony with God’s design from eternity. What Jesus offered was therefore a voluntary wrath-removing sacrifice, made effective in the lives of God’s children by means of their God-given faith. Not until a person welcomes Christ into his heart and life by genuine, humble trust and self-surrender, does God pronounce him to be just; that is, free from every speck of guilt and therefore also bound to receive all the other blessings that are included in the term salvation.

Although it is true that this heavy penalty was not paid by Christ immediately upon the entrance of sin, and that accordingly throughout the entire old dispensation God treated with indulgence the sins of his people, punishment could not be delayed indefinitely. Divine justice had to be satisfied. During Christ’s entire life on earth and especially at Calvary the heavy price was paid: “God did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all” (Rom. 8:31). God did this “to demonstrate his justice in the present time, that he might be just and the One who justifies the person who has faith in Jesus” (3:24–31).

⁷⁷ Or: may stand guilty before God.

⁷⁸ Or: mortal being.

⁷⁹

First, there is the question of the Greek text. Should we read προεχόμεθα or προεχώμεθα? Since the former has by far the strongest textual support, and there are no reasons to reject it, I accept it as being authentic. In view of οὐ πάντως, it is clear that both Τί οὖν and προεχόμεθα should be followed by the Greek question mark (;).

The next question is, “What does the verb προεχόμεθα (not to be confused with προερχόμεθα) mean?” Very little help is available from other sources. In the New Testament this verb occurs nowhere else. See, however, Josephus, Against Apion II. 186. But Rom. 3:9 uses the middle voice. Is the meaning then “Do we hold something in front of ourselves for protection?” “Do we have a defense?”

Or should we ascribe a passive meaning to this middle; hence, “Are we being excelled?” It would be very difficult to fit either of these meanings into the present context.

Is it possible, then, that this middle form must be given an active meaning? The answer sometimes given is, “No example has been found that this verb, in its middle form, has an active meaning.” But when the applicable examples are so few and far between, such a verdict has little, if any, value. More significant is the fact that use of a middle form in an active sense is by no means infrequent in Koine Greek or in Paul’s epistles. See Gram. N.T. (Bl.-Debr.), par. 316, p. 165. The sense may therefore very well be “Do we excel?” “Are we any better?” So interpreted, the prefix πρό is that of precedence. The total meaning, justifiable also from the point of view of etymology, may well be, “Do we possess any priority?” In the present context this would amount to, “In the eyes of God do we hold a superior standing of righteousness?” Or more simply, “Are we any better?”

⁸⁰ In this interpretation I agree with Greijdanus, op. cit., p. 171, against Ridderbos, op. cit., p. 76. As mentioned previously, in essence I agree also with Lekkerkerker. See p. 20.

⁸¹ Though it is true that οὐ πάντως can mean either (a) not altogether, not in every respect; or (b) not at all, the radical nature of the explanatory and confirmatory quotations in verses 10–18 favors the latter sense. Here I agree with Ridderbos (op. cit., p. 76), as against Cranfield (op. cit., p. 190), Greijdanus (op. cit., p. 171) and J. A. C. Van Leeuwen and D. Jacobs, Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift, Kampen, 1932, p. 43.

⁸² I can see no good reason for interpreting γάρ as here used in any other sense than as meaning for.

⁸³ In this connection I wish to call the reader’s attention to L. B. Flynn’s book, Did I Say That?, Nashville, 1959. It is very interesting and instructive.

⁸⁴ In both places—LXX and here in Rom. 3:13—the original reads: ἰὸς ἀσπίδως ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν.

⁸⁵ Another interpretation, favored by several commentators, divides the cursing and the bitterness between the perpetrator and the victim: the former utters curses, the latter experiences bitterness. But at this point is not this separation of two nouns connected by and rather unnatural?

⁸⁶

ὀξεῖς, nom. pl. m. of ὀξύς, sharp (cf. acute); Rev. 1:16; 2:12; 14:14, 17, 18; 19:15; and in connection with time: quick, swift.

In the New Testament σύντριμμα occurs only here. The cognate verb συντρίβω means to rub together; hence, to bruise, crush, destroy. See N.T.C. on Luke 9:39 (p. 524). We use the expression “to rub each other the wrong way.” It is understandable that the noun σύντριμμα means destruction, ruin.

With respect to the derivation of the word ταλαιπωρία unanimity is lacking, though to tolerate (bear, endure) that which is porotic (in the sense of forming a hardness or callus) may point in the right direction. The word occurs also in James 5:1. It means hardship, suffering, distress, misery. The related adjective ταλαίπωρος is found in Rom. 7:24; Rev. 3:17.

⁸⁷

Note the Hebraisms: (a) A word for word rendering of the Hebrew text would be, “… for not is righteous before thy face all living being.” The LXX version (of Ps. 142:2b) is: ὅτι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν. Note “not … all” in the sense of “no.” (b) For “all living being” Paul has substituted “all flesh,” which is frequently used in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to indicate mankind considered in its frailty and insignificance, as contrasted with God viewed in his greatness and majesty.

The various meanings of the word σάρξ in Paul’s epistles are summarized on p. 217.

For δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ see also Gal. 2:16, where the same expression is used without the addition ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ (“before him” or “in his sight”).

⁸⁸ Or: propitiatory.

⁸⁹ Or: had overlooked past sins.

⁹⁰ Literally: Where, then, is boasting?

⁹¹ Or: teaching about.

⁹² This does not mean that the law has no place in the plan of redemption. See on 3:31.

⁹³ For this designation of what we today call the Old Testament see also Matt. 5:17; 7:12; 22:40; Luke 16:16; Acts 24:14; 28:23.

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

⁹⁴

With respect to the meaning of καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ commentators differ widely. Here are four views:

a. All men fail to render to God the glory they owe him. The divine standard for human life, the ideal of perfection, remains far above and beyond the reach of anyone. See W. H. G. Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids, 1946, p. 112.

Though the thought here expressed is true, as has been indicated previously (3:10–18), and in his very practical and devotional commentary Thomas adds a valuable illustration, this is probably not what Rom. 3:23b means, for in that case would not Paul have inserted an additional verbal form? Would he not have written, “All fall short of doing everything to God’s glory”? See I Cor. 10:31.

b. The term “glory of God” refers to the future heavenly glory. So sure is Ridderbos (op. cit., p. 84) that this is the correct interpretation that he states, “Nothing else can be meant by it.”

It is true that there are several Pauline passages in which “glory” or “glory of God” refers to the believers’ future reward. See, for example, Rom. 2:7; 5:2; 8:18, 30; I Cor. 15:43; II Cor. 4:17; Col. 1:27; 3:4; II Tim. 2:10. Nevertheless, it is important to take note of the fact that here in Rom. 3:23b Paul uses the present tense. He says that because of the entrance of sin all men are falling short of God’s glory. If he had been thinking of the glory awaiting God’s children in heaven, would he not have used the future tense?

c. Just as by redemption a person is transformed into the image of God (II Cor. 3:18), so previously by means of the fall he became destitute of that perfection which is the reflection of God’s glory. He lost what he once possessed. The term “the glory of God” as used in Rom. 3:23b therefore means “conformity to God’s image.” See Murray, op. cit., p. 113; and John Knox, The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. IX, p. 430. Closely related is the view of E. F. Harrison, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, 1976, p. 41, according to which the term in question refers to the privilege man originally enjoyed of having direct communion with God. What man originally enjoyed in Paradise was lost through sin. Or, as Van Leeuwen-Jacobs (op. cit., p. 53) point out, because of the fall man can no longer approach God directly but must stand from afar (Exod. 20:18, 21; Num. 4:15; 17:13, etc.). See also U. Wilckens, Th.D.N.T., Vol. VIII, p. 596. According to that article Paul may be referring to the glory with which Adam was originally invested.

Insofar as this theory interprets the phrase “glory of God” as a reference to a privilege (or privileges) man enjoyed in the state of rectitude but has lost through the entrance of sin, I agree with it. The words “All have sinned and—probably meaning and as a result—are falling short of the glory of God” certainly seem to point in that direction.

Is it possible, however, that the apostle may have been thinking first of all of something else which man once had but now lacks? This introduces us to the next theory:

d. The term “glory of God” means “glory imparted by God.” It refers to “glory” in the sense of approval, approbation, praise. (For the various senses in which the term δόξα is used by Paul see above, p. 74.) Supporting this theory are C. Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids, 1886, p. 140; J. Denney, op. cit., p. 610; C. R. Erdman, op. cit., p. 52; and in a sense R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 249. Also R. Knox, who translates, “… all alike are unworthy of God’s praise.”

The objection raised against this theory, namely, that in that case Paul would have used a preposition, would have written παρὰ θεοῦ (cf. John 5:44; II Peter 1:17) is not very convincing; for:

(1) Without using a preposition John can refer to “praise coming from God” (12:43). If John, why not Paul?

(2) When Paul refers to “righteousness coming from God,” he at times does this without using a preposition (Rom. 1:17; 3:21, 22). If he can do this with the word “righteousness,” why not with “glory”?

(3) What may well be the strongest argument in favor of interpreting Paul to mean that as a result of man’s sin he is falling short of, or lacking, the divine approbation or praise is this, that in these earlier chapters of the epistle, and to some extent even later, the apostle is operating with a series of concepts such as sin, condemnation, righteousness, justification. Into this series—think especially of justification—the concept approbation fits very naturally.

I therefore believe that verse 23 means “All have sinned and as a result are now in a state in which they are falling short of (or are lacking) what they possessed before the fall, namely, the inestimable blessing of having the approval of God resting upon them.”

This implies the truth mentioned under theory c, for how can I say, “God approves of me” without at the same time also saying, “Therefore I have freedom of access to him”? Hence, while, as I see it, theory d. is to be preferred, theory c. comes very close and is probably implied.

⁹⁵

Earlier use of the verb δικαιόω in Romans:

2:13, in connection with a contrast between doers and merely hearers.

3:4, in the sense of divine vindication (“that thou mayest be proved right”).

3:20, negatively, to indicate the impossibility of salvation by works.

⁹⁶ The fact that δικαιούμενοι is in the nominative but πάντας is in the accusative is no valid objection to the proposed construction, for this is not at all unusual when the modifier is so far away from the word or phrase it modifies, especially when such a nominative introduces a new clause.

⁹⁷ For more on grace see N.T.C. on Luke, pp. 181, 182.

⁹⁸ It must be granted that in such a passage as, for example, Rom. 8:23 the deliverance indicated by this noun does not in and by itself include the idea of the payment of a ransom.

⁹⁹

The root meaning of the verb προτίθημι, of which the form here used, προέθετο, is the third per. s. 2nd. aor. indicat. middle, is to set before; which, in the middle voice becomes to set before oneself. It is easy to understand that one may set something before oneself in a twofold sense: (1) for public display; (2) for mental consideration; to plan (something) for oneself; Dutch: zich (iets) voornemen. Most translators prefer (1). However, in favor of (2) to plan, purpose, design, the following facts should be borne in mind:

In both of the other instances in which this verb is used in the New Testament, Rom. 1:13 (“many times I planned to come to you”) and Eph. 1:9 (“which he purposed for himself”) the sense is clearly telic. If there, why not here? Also note that wherever in the New Testament the cognate noun πρόθεσις is used, except when it occurs in connection with showbread (the consecrated unleavened loaves placed on a table in the Holy Place), the meaning is purpose: “with steadfast purpose” (Acts 11:23); “supposing that they had obtained their purpose” (Acts 27:13); “called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28); “in order that God’s purpose according to election might stand” (Rom. 9:11); “having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11); “according to the eternal purpose which he formed in Christ” (Eph. 3:11); “who saved us … according to his own purpose and grace” (II Tim. 1:9); and “You, however, followed my purpose” (II Tim. 3:10).

In favor of a telic rendering here in Rom. 3:25a are also Origen, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Lagrange, Fritzsche, Robertson, Phillips (“appointed,” cf. Jerusalem Bible), N.E.B. (“designed”) and Cranfield.

In support of the rendering presented, set forth, put forward, or something similar, it has been argued that this meaning fits better into a context which speaks of the demonstration of God’s justice (3:25, 26), and that it parallels the words of Paul in Gal. 3:1 (“Jesus was openly displayed”). But it is not clear how it can be convincingly argued that a verb indicating the demonstration of God’s justice parallels a verb referring to the shedding of Christ’s blood. Besides, the grammatical construction in the two cases differs radically. And Gal. 3:1 certainly belongs to a different type of context than the first clause in Rom. 3:25.

In order to justify a meaning for the Greek verb which it has nowhere else in the New Testament, and which differs substantially from the sense of the cognate noun in all comparable New Testament instances of its use, stronger arguments will have to be presented. On this question see also the fine remarks of Cranfield, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 208–210.

¹⁰⁰ The phrase “by the shedding of his blood” should probably not be construed with “faith,” resulting in the rendering “faith in his blood.” It is true that ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι directly follows πίστεως; and it is also true that grammatically (ἐν plus the dative to indicate faith’s object) is not as unusual as some maintain. (See, for example, Gal. 3:26; Eph. 1:15; Col. 1:4; I Tim. 3:13; II Tim. 1:13). But it is also a fact that a modifier does not always stand close to the word it modifies. Moreover, with Paul the object of faith is a person, not a thing.

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

N.I.V. New International Version

¹⁰¹ To help the reader the N.I.V. adds this valuable footnote: “(God presented him) as the one who would turn away his wrath, taking away sin.”

A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version

¹⁰² For a different translation and interpretation of the closing words of verse 26: δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ, see Cranfield, op. cit., pp. 201, 213.

¹⁰³

Or: principle.

The word νόμος does not always have the same meaning. In Rom. 2:12f. it refers to the Pentateuch, with emphasis on the Decalog, as is clear from 2:21, 22. In 3:19 the reference is to the Old Testament as a whole. In 8:2 (cf. 7:23) the apostle is thinking of an actuating principle. Here in 3:27 the meaning seems to be basis, norm, standard, principle.

¹⁰⁴ Note ἐξεκλείσθη, third per. s. aor. indicat. pass. of ἐκκλείω, to shut out, exclude.

¹⁰⁵ See Luther’s Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, Erl.-Frkf. ed. Vol. LXV, p. 107 f.

¹⁰⁶ Though it is true that in verse 30 ἐκ indicates source; and διά probably intermediate agency, the distinction should be considered a rhetorical device, with no further significance.

↑ Back to top