Romans 3

CHAPTER III

The Realization of Sin, 3:1–20

Romans 3:1

1 All men are unrighteous; the evidence in men themselves is overwhelmingly plain. Therefore God had to give them over to their vileness and their wickedness (1:18–32).

This condition is not cured by moralism. It is not removed by law, not even by the Jewish moralist’s use of law. Utter hopelessness lies in that direction (chapter 2).

There is one great advantage in having God’s Word, and the Jew as well as we Christians have that advantage. That Word works the actual realization of sin (3:1–20) and thereby prepares for the gospel, for faith in the revelation of the saving righteousness of God in Christ (3:21, etc.).

One grand section follows another in a perfect order of thought up to the very gospel righteousness which alone removes man’s unrighteousness. We must study 3:1–20 as a whole, must see that its climax is reached in v. 19, 20, must note that its thought is focused in the final clause: “through law sin’s realization.” Then all of the details of the whole section (v. 1–20) fall into their proper places. They form a powerful structure for the support of the main fact, the actual realization of sin, from which the door of gospel faith opens into righteousness that is righteousness indeed.

What, then, is the thing over and above of a Jew? or what the benefit of the circumcision? Much every way. In the first place, because they were entrusted! with the sayings of God.

The “thou” addressed to the moralist in chapter 2 is dropped. Paul is through with the moralist. He has destroyed moralism, the gospel’s great opponent, in both its Gentile and especially its Jewish form. Paul is now addressing the Romans, his own Christian readers, all of them. He is not fencing with a Jew (as representing all Jews) or with some Jewish Christian who still harbor wrong Jewish notions. There is not an imaginary opponent whom Paul pierces with skillful thrusts.

In this passage nobody is trying to upset what Paul has said about Jews as contrasted with Gentiles by hurling at him the objection that then being a Jew and being duly circumcised would amount to nothing, the Jew might as well be a Gentile, and the whole old covenant might as well be erased. The assertion that Paul “is compelled” to meet this objection otherwise all that he has said is reduced to absurdity, is the view to which we have referred.

How can this view be maintained when Paul himself said to the moralist in 2:25 that “circumcision (most assuredly) does profit, does benefit”? He now proceeds to expound what he himself said. He has even defined a real Jew for us as being one who has this benefit (2:28, 29), which benefit, of course, the Jewish moralist neither had nor even knew about. Paul’s οὖν refers back to 2:25, to his own word: “Circumcision does profit,” and he now asks: “What, therefore, is the thing over and above belonging to the Jew,” the thing that puts him ahead of all Gentiles? The copula is often omitted in the Greek. Paul does not only admit, he himself asserts, both in 2:25 and in this passage, that the Jew, every Jew (representative singular, R. 408; B.-D. 139 calls it collective) has more than other men.

This is true also with regard to the alternate question which is added by conjunctive “or” (cf., 1:21 and 2:4) which merely restates the question and thereby emphasizes, impresses it: “or what is the benefit of the circumcision?” the article to indicate the special, i.e., the covenant circumcision of the Jew, for other Orientals also practiced circumcision. The question itself asserts that such benefit exists and repeats the declarative assertion made in 2:25. And now the prompt answer: “Much every way!” Call him by his common name “the Jew” or use the abstract “the circumcision” as a designation for all Judaism, every way these are looked at, “much” in the way of advantage is and always has been theirs; the neuter πολύ is fitting as a reference to both the neuter and the feminine of the double question.

Romans 3:2

2 Why so “much”? “In the first place (as in 1:8, to mention only the main thing which amply suffices, without adding the rest), they were entrusted with the sayings of God.” The passive means that God entrusted them, and the plural “they” found in the verb ending matches “the circumcision,” which is collective. The neuter plural “the sayings” is not the subject because in that case the verb would be in the singular, and we should have to supply: “to them” were entrusted the sayings. Αόγια simply means “sayings” (exactly as in Acts 7:38). Every other use of the word, pagan, Biblical, or ecclesiastical, amounts to no more even as it is used in the expressions “oracles of Delphi,” “Logia” as the title of the work which Papias claims Matthew wrote, or “Logia of Jesus,” extracanonical sayings of Jesus discovered in the Oxyrhynchus papyri fragments.

The fact that these logia of God, entrusted to the Jews, include the entire Old Testament is obvious. The Jews had all of it. Does Paul include also the teaching of Jesus and of the apostles as some think? How could he when the Jews never accepted these New Testament revelations as they accepted and regarded the canon of their Old Testament Scripture? After πολύ in v. 1 ὅτι in v. 2 cannot mean “that,” as even we do not say: “Much every way—first, that,” etc.; but “much—because,” stating the reason that it is much and not less than that.

The reason that the Jews had so much was not merely the fact that they had the logia, had them for themselves alone, but rather that they had them in trust for all other men. What a distinction and honor! What a high position among all nations! The Jews were God’s great depository to administer his Word to all the world. Advantage, benefit to themselves? What Jew could claim more than Paul here so emphatically asserts in the case of all Jews?

If already at this point we should ask for Paul’s purpose in pointing to the divine Word as the trust in the hands of the Jews, the answer is, in order to point to the one true source from which, for Jews as well as for all others for whom they held the Word in trust, there comes the genuine realization of sin (v. 19, 20) which leads to faith in the gospel, to the one and only acquittal from sin. And this very gospel and its power to acquit and to produce faith the Jews had for themselves and for others in the form of those logia. When the Roman Christians read these words of Paul they could not but think also of themselves as having been entrusted in the same way. And they also had all of the additional New Testament revelation. That Paul wants them to think in this very direction we shall see in a moment.

Romans 3:3

3 But is it such a great advantage to be entrusted with God’s logia, his Word? Misgivings arise in the Christian mind. Does not the possession of the Word carry with it the great danger of being unfaithful to that Word and to the trust laid on us by having it given to us? This danger is not theoretical. The great mass of the Jews perished because of it. In view of that tragedy, due to having what Paul calls such an advantage, would it not have been better for the Jews never to have had this advantage?

And thus also for us if we had never received the Word? And more. When we are unfaithful, because of that very unfaithfulness (unrighteousness, lying, v. 5, 6) which can occur only on condition that we have the Word we get wrath as sinners although our unrighteousness and lying only help to display the more God’s righteousness and truth. All of this we should escape if we had the advantage of not having what Paul calls the advantage of the Word.

These are not dialectical gymnastics on the part of Paul, these are real misgivings which are frequently found to this day. People shrink from the Word, from the responsibility it would put on them. They might be unfaithful and so many have been! And for this they would even be especially punished to the greater glory of God! So they question the advantage and have only as little to do with the Word as they think they can assume responsibility for.

Paul answers these misgivings by pointing out the evil implications involved in them. He uses three questions that are introduced by μή (v. 3, 5, 8), each with the powerful negative force: “You certainly would not for one moment want to say that,” etc. This method of correction deserves more than passing attention. Hundreds of wrong ideas would disappear from our minds if, instead of opposing them, someone would let us see what is really inside of them. Unfold the implications, and men will drop their contentions.

This paragraph is misunderstood when the development found in v. 3–8 is disjoined from the point developed: the great advantage of having the logia (Word) which is predicated in v. 2; when Jewish objectors are introduced (Paul is helping Christians); when it is supposed that Paul is being assailed for making all Jews no better than Gentiles (an idea that is not touched on in this paragraph). If one will note he will discover that this view introduces what it calls “Paul’s unexpressed thought.” What Paul says is thus made obscure because of the “unexpressed thoughts” ascribed to him by these interpreters.

For what if some proved unfaithful? Certainly, their unfaithfulness will not abolish the faithfulness of God? (you will not wish to say that.) Perish the thought! No, let God be true but every man a liar even as it has been written:

In order that thou mayest be declared righteous in thy words

And mayest conquer when thou art being judged.

Here we have the difficulty. Yes, the Jews had “this over and above,” this advantage, God having entrusted them with his logia (Word). But what happened? The great mass of them proved unfaithful (aorist to indicate the historical fact). Paul states this fact with a condition of reality. Stephen shows how it began already at the time of Moses when the latter brought the Jews “the living logia” (Acts 7:37–43) and he sums up all of it down to the day of his martyrdom in the words: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do ye” (v. 51). That is what came from having the logia! Was it such an advantage?

Does Paul answer with a blow in order to strike down an objector? The very opposite. This is a Christian’s misgiving which came about through looking at the tragic history of the Jews. Paul takes the force out of it by pointing out what this misgiving implies: something that no Christian would even for a moment entertain in his mind. How can anyone seriously connect the unfaithfulness of the Jews with their being entrusted with his Word by God? That would be saying that God’s logia amounted to nothing, yea, that human unfaithfulness destroyed the faithfulness of God. Does anyone for one moment intend to say that the Jewish unfaithfulness made all this faithfulness of God of no account, his faithfulness in giving the Word and his faithfulness as embodied in that Word?

A ringing “no” is embodied in the very form of the question which is followed by the exclamation: “Perish the thought!” and by the demand that God must ever be true, and every man (not only these false Jews) must ever be a liar. And to this every Christian reader of Paul’s letter will say and has always said, “Yea and amen!” And so the misgiving is wiped out, and that utterly.

Before going on let us note the succession of words that are derived from the same root: ἐπιστεύθησαν—ἠπίστησαν—ἀπιστία—πίστιν, the first of which fixes the sense of the rest: “they were entrusted—they proved unworthy of the trust (unfaithful)—unfaithfulness—faithfulness.” There is no need to ask whether there is unbelief in the two terms that refer to the Jews. How could it be absent when it was the heart of their “unfaithfulness”?

Τίγάρ; While this expression is sometimes an independent rhetorical question, it cannot be so here as though we should translate: “For what (i.e., what is the case)?” The fact that the Jews were entrusted with God’s logia needs neither proof nor explanation with a γάρ; nor is either furnished by asking: “If some proved unfaithful,” etc. The point that needs explanation (of course, not proof) is this very statement that some proved unfaithful; and the explanation is that this unfaithfulness in no way affects God’s unchanging faithfulness; καταργεῖν, which is often used by Paul, means “to put something out of force, to invalidate it so that it amounts to nothing.”

Another point to be noted is the fact that Paul writes only τινές, “some,” and does not state definitely either the number or the proportion of these. But by reversing subject and predicate, by placing “some” at the end, Paul makes it emphatic: “some—not all, not all!” Instead of remarking that he might have written “many,” the remark that ought to be made is that this emphatic “some” points to the other “some,” to those who did prove faithful. Paul himself refers to them at length in 11:1–5. Among this implied other “some” are Paul’s Christian readers. And for all these other “some” (in the old and in the new covenant) it means the world and all that God is ever faithful (no matter what some Jews were), and that all this faithfulness on the part of God is recorded in his logia or Word.

Romans 3:4

4 “Perish the thought!” is the force of μὴγένοιτο with its stereotyped voluntative optative of wish (R. 939, bottom), “May it not be!” It is usually rendered, “God forbid!” The very idea of God being unfaithful, of being made so by unfaithful men, is one that must not exist.

The force of δέ is “no”: “No, let God be true but every man a liar!” γινέσθω, present imperative, “be ever true,” yet not in the sense of “become true” but “be so that any test at any time will demonstrate it.” “True” is to be taken in the fullest sense with reference to God himself and to God in all of his logia (Word). In regard to God’s being thus true, what difference does it make if “every man” is proved “a liar” (the noun which is stronger than the adjective “lying” or “false”)? Paul appropriates the words “every man a liar” from Ps. 116:11, although he does not quote. He drives the point to the limit, far beyond those false Jews with whom the misgivings started. He says: “Throw in the whole world of men, all of whom are liars, and all of them would not in the least affect God’s truth and his being true.” “True” advances the idea of “faithfulness” mentioned in v. 2, for one is faithful because he is true.

When Paul states this he voices and knows that he voices the conviction of every genuine Jew (2:28, 29) of all past ages and of every real Christian, now that there are Christians. It is thus that he quotes Ps. 51:6 which voices the same conviction: καθώς, “even as it has been written.” Paul is not proving, he does not write γάρ or ὅτι. He is not concerned about the connection in which David wrote these two lines, namely David’s sin and his confession, for as the thought of these lines applied to David’s case it applies everywhere, and so it here applies to God’s being true and men’s being liars. The great purpose must stand: “in order that thou mayest be declared righteous in thy words and mayest conquer when thou art being judged.”

The imagery is that of a court in which God is put on trial. We repeatedly note this strange thought: the great Judge of all lets the universe of angels and of men judge him together with all his words and his acts in order to see whether in any instance he can possibly be adjudged as not being faithful, not true, and thus not righteous; in fact, God demands to be tried in this manner. Those whom he judges, both those acquitted and those condemned by him, are to judge him, their Judge, and the very verdicts which he pronounces upon them. And this is done in order “that thou mayest be declared righteous in thy words,” aorist, with absolute finality; “and mayest conquer,” come out victorious, again aorist, with finality. And this will be the result ἐντῷκρίνεσθαίσε, iterative present infinitive with temporal ἐν: “at any time when thou art tried.” This is the purpose, and it will be carried out.

As to the details, ὅπως with ἄν is rare in the New Testament (R. 986). Whether “mayest conquer” is the aorist subjunctive or the future indicative makes no difference since after ἵνα either can be used, especially in the case of a second verb. But we should not translate “mightest”; for there is no potentiality or possibility. Paul follows the LXX who translate the Hebrew “mayest be clear (pure)” “mayest conquer,” which is merely interpretative, for whoever is found clear when he is subjected to trial conquers in the trial. The parallel between ἐντοῖςλόγοις and ἐντῷκρίνεσθαίσε is so purely verbal, just two ἐν, that we do not make God the one who is trying because he does the speaking in the words. The infinitive is not middle but passive: God is tried, God is declared righteous, God conquers.

But there is a connection between these λόγοι and the λόγια mentioned in v. 2. God gave his logia to the Jews, in regard to which they proved faithless. Let God be judged at any time in regard to any of them, at any time in regard to their contents or in regard to what he did and does regarding them even among those false Jews and he is bound to be declared righteous and to conquer, and that with finality.

Finally, let us not overlook the arrangement of the words: in v. 2, 3 there are four terms containing πίστις; then we have synonymous terms: “faithfulness—true—declared righteous”; then contrasts: “unrighteousness—righteousness” (v. 5); “the truth—the lie” (v. 7), now, reverting back to the beginning, the logia mentioned in v. 2 that are filled with the truth. What do we see? Paul’s mastery brings out all the angles, each where it belongs, and with a circling sweep locks the end into the beginning. Noun, adjective, verb are used with perfect freedom in these synonyms. The whole subject is exhausted, and no loose ends, no single gap are left. And yet some interpreters think that Paul rambles, that he lets one thought suggest another, and gets farther and farther off the track into side issues.

Romans 3:5

5 Alas, the misgiving in regard to the advantage of being entrusted with the Word has an extension. The very faithfulness of God when we do prove unfaithful takes into account the fact, not that thereby we enhance his righteousness and his truth, but that we have had that advantage of the Word, and so he visits wrath on the offender. What a risk in having this advantage! What about escaping all such risk by foregoing what Paul calls such a great advantage? With two additional questions that are introduced by μή (v. 5, 8) Paul again induces the Christians themselves to repudiate this extension of their misgiving.

Yet if our unrighteousness places God’s righteousness into proper light, what shall we say (to that)? Certainly not that God, he who imposes the wrath, is unrighteous? (you will not wish to say that). In human fashion do I speak. Perish the thought! since how will God (then) judge the world?

Δέ indicates that another angle of the misgiving is presented in this question. As the condition of reality introduced with εἰ in v. 3 presented the unquestioned fact in regard to the faithlessness of so many Jews, faithlessness that would and could not have existed except for the fact of their having had the Word, so this new condition of reality presents the additional undoubted fact that “our righteousness,” which again would and could not exist but for the fact that we also have had the Word, “places into proper light God’s righteousness.” And darkness indeed makes light stand out as what it really is, namely light; and the blacker the darkness, the more the light is made to appear as light. Of course, the Gentile, pagan unrighteousness also makes God’s righteousness stand out as what it is, but it does not do so as much as the far blacker unrighteouness of men who are unfaithful to the Word. So also, strange as it may seem, it is not our righteousness but our unrighteousness that has this effect. One light does not make another light stand out, but deep blackness does. Day hides the stars, night shows them in their brilliance.

In order to sharpen the opposing terms the Greek abuts them: ἡἀδικίαἡμῶν—Θεοῦδικαιοσύνη, “unrighteousness ours—God’s righteousness.” The verb means “to place into proper light” so that one may see what a thing really is, which is usually not seen as such; it is generally used in a good sense. Who is meant by “our,” the “we” in it being represented by “my” and “I” in v. 7 but continued as “we” in v. 8, 9—seven “we” in succession plus “my” and “I”? We state it right here and now: all these pronouns refer to the identical persons: “we,” Paul and the Christians.

No less than three different meanings have been given to this “we”: 1) Paul and all men; 2) Paul and the Jews; 3) Paul who uses the majestic plural. Others waver between two of these meanings. This confusion results from inserting objectors into Paul’s discussions. From v. 1 onward Paul addresses the Roman Christians. They are the ones whose misgiving in regard to themselves due to the thought of the faithless Jews who, too, had the Word, Paul clears away. They are the ones whom Paul enlightens still further in regard to their misgiving. “Our unrighteousness” is the unrighteousness of us Christians if we, too, like the Jews, having the Word, prove unfaithful to that Word. Paul now calls it “unrighteousness” and contrasts it with God’s “righteousness,” since he has just said that God “may be declared righteous.” Thus he harmonizes the terms, for when it is judged, unfaithfulness to the Word must be condemned as being the worst kind of unrighteousness.

The puzzling question is now no longer the fact that our very having the Word makes us run the risk of incurring the greatest unrighteousness by being unfaithful to it just as so many Jews, running this risk, went down with it, but the new angle that this unrighteousness, which is possible only where one has the Word, actually renders God’s righteousness the greatest service by making it stand out so grandly. Although it is itself so bad, it yet has so good, so noble an effect! Our righteous faithfulness to the Word could not effect nearly as much. “What shall we say to that?” we Christians. What solution have we for this confusing fact that, having the Word as an advantage, our falseness to it does more for God’s righteousness than our faithfulness to it can do? Is having it really an advantage?

“Well,” Paul says, “that sounds as though God ought to reward us for being unrighteous by proving false to his Word, reward us even beyond the ones who are faithful.” He merely opens up the implication of this part of the puzzle: “Certainly not that God, he who imposes the wrath (on such unrighteousness in abuse of his Word), is unrighteous (in doing so)?” But that would be the implication: God gets more out of our unrighteousness than out of anybody’s righteousness and yet rewards these latter while blasting us with “the wrath,” the article to indicate the specific wrath threatened against such unrighteousness. Certainly, Paul’s μή implies, you would not dream of saying anything like that! He even excuses himself for uttering this reply: “In human fashion do I speak.” No parenthesis is needed. It is so cheaply human because it is speaking of God in the way in which one would speak of a human judge who got everything out of a culprit and then sentenced him to the worst penalty. Some refer this statement across Paul’s exclamation and connect it with the question as to how God will then judge the world, but they are unable to explain how asking this can be “in human fashion” when the whole Bible speaks in this manner; and why the separation which necessitates such a strange construction?

Romans 3:6

6 “Perish the thought!” Paul exclaims as he did in v. 4, the thought that would even think of God unrighteously inflicting his wrath. To Christians this is blasphemous. “Since how will God then judge the world?” It is an absolute axiom that God will judge the world, judge it because he is righteousness itself. Any puzzling notion, therefore, that implies his being unrighteous when he is inflicting wrath on us is by that very implication blasted as itself being impious. On “wrath” see 1:18. As it does in the classics, ἐπεί permits the protasis to be supplied (R. 965, 1025).

Romans 3:7

7 One additional point of the difficulty must be ironed out. Still, if the truth of God in connection with my lie got increase for his glory, why yet am also I on my part judged as a sinner? And certainly it is not (I know you do not mean to say) as we are blasphemed, and as some report we declare, “Let us do the base things in order that there may come the good”?—whose judgment is just.

First we note the reading, which cannot be γάρ, which would attach this question to the preceding question as a proof or an explanation. This reading is due to a misapprehending of what Paul writes. This question is introduced by εἰ in v. 3 and 5, and, like the latter, it has the connective δέ. As do those other two, this final “if” voices a point of the difficulty. Therefore it is followed, exactly as were those other two “if” questions, by a question introduced by μή, thus meeting the point of the difficulty raised with the “if,” meeting it by showing the implication in the “if,” one that Paul’s readers, like himself, would never dream of holding. This structure: three εἰ to raise points of difficulty and three μή as answers, is plain.

The difficulty of this fact that our sin works out so as to glorify God is not exhausted in v. 5, 6. God is certainly righteous, and we Christians at once avoid anything that implies the contrary. Still (δέ), after my lie has gotten him increase for his truth to his glory, would not this very righteousness prevent him from judging at least me as a sinner? In v. 5 the emphasis is on God and on his being righteous in general, hence also we have the plural “our” unrighteousness; but here in v. 7 the emphasis is plainly on κἀγώ: irrespective of how he treats others, the very righteousness he has ought to make him treat “at least me” by whom he got such increase for his glory as something better than a ἁμαρτωλός, an ordinary rank sinner. The point of this question is the fact that my having the Word would otherwise be of no advantage to me if, after being unfaithful to it although this redounds to the glory of God’s truth, I get no better standing when I am judged. All three difficulties that are presented by the three “if” deal with this matter of advantage which is asserted by Paul in v. 1, 2 and three times asked whether it is after all an advantage, this having God’s logia (Word).

Paul exemplifies the difficulty by making himself the questioner; R. 678 calls this the representative singular; for any Christian might ask thus in regard to his own self. The fact that now “God’s truth” and “my lie” are used whereas in v. 5 “God’s righteousness” and “our righteousness” were used, only harks back to v. 4; there is no difference in substance. So also there is none in the variation “got increase” ἐν or “in connection with” my lie and the addition “for his glory,” which makes plainer what God gets out of my falseness (i.e., supposing I get to be false as were so many Jews, v. 3). We may also note the concatenation of particles in ἔτικαὶὡς, a case of what R. 1145 calls the witchery of the Greek particles.

Romans 3:8

8 But the point of difficulty thus presented implies what no Christian, who may be disturbed by this thought, would or could believe for one minute, namely that we Christians should do the base things in order that the good may come, that we ought to go in for the lie, for falseness to the Word, in order that God’s truth may thereby get increase for his glory. Here again Paul might have exclaimed: “Perish the thought!” It is a misapprehension to think that by “my lie” Paul refers only to “my sinning in general,” that he cites the lie as a sample of a man’s sinning; he has in mind the lying treatment of the Word, which is possible only to one who has the Word and impossible to all who have not the Word. It is again a question introduced by μή with which Paul points to the frightful implication in the point of difficulty thus presented and by the form of the question voices the conviction that every Christian would abominate this implication. And that wipes out the difficulty, makes it too abominable to be entertained.

But we should understand καὶμή aright. “And not rather,” etc., in the A. V. is unsatisfactory. The R. V. and many commentators insert τί from v. 7: “and why is it not,” etc.? Aside from the fact that Paul should then have written τί these commentators overlook the fact that this μή is parallel to the two μή occurring in v. 3 and 5, with which Paul answers and removes the points of difficulty presented (see the first paragraph on v. 6). This third and last μή does not continue the question of v. 7, it answers that question.

The question asked in v. 7 presents the Christian’s difficulty, and the question introduced by μή causes that difficulty to vanish by answering it. We need supply only an ἐστί, so often omitted in the Greek as, for instance, twice in v. 1. The force is identical in all three answers with μή; so here the force is: “Certainly it is not” (you certainly do not dream of saying), etc.? The thought is that a Christian would have to say this horrible thing if he did not drop his supposed difficulty, drop it at once, as being vacuous. Καί before μή is added only to mark this as the final answer to the final point of difficulty.

The thought that no Christian would maintain even by implication is put in the form of a quotation: Ποιήσωμενκτλ., introduced by recitative ὅτι. We find no difficulty in the construction, nor do we believe that καθώς and ὅτι are “not a strong culmination” (R. 433). Culminations are not found in particles but in the thought. This quotation and its ὅτι could follow καὶμή directly as the predicate if the intervening words were left out; all would be grammatically regular. In his characteristically skillful manner Paul makes the quotation both the predicate of μή and the object of λέγειν. By inserting, “as we are being blasphemed, and as some keep reporting that we declare” (all durative present tenses), Paul brings out the vicious source from which this slander comes regarding the doing evil that good may follow.

“As we are blasphemed” does not state what the slander is; for “as some report that we (even) declare (teach),” with its second καθώς and “we declare,” shows that the quotation: “Let us do,” etc., is the word of only “some.” Many slander us, Paul says, some even report that we teach as our doctrine: “Let us do the base things,” etc. It is easy to see what the slander of the many is, namely this that we Christians act on this principle, that we do the base things that the good may come. Some think that these many slanderers were Gentiles, and that the fewer persons who lyingly reported what the Christians taught were Jews; but Paul does not specify. It is thought, too, that the many were more vicious than the few, and that the use of “blaspheme” indicates this; but the reverse is true, for to charge promulgation of an immoral doctrine includes also the charge that the promulgators act in accord with that doctrine. If the latter were indeed Jews, we know from Acts that they were far more hostile to the Christians than were the Gentiles. The three “we” of this verse denote Christians, Paul and the Romans. We need say no more at this place; see ἡμῶν in v. 5.

“Let us do” is the hortative subjunctive, an effective aorist. And the plurals, “the base things,” “the good things” (those morally good for nothing, those morally beneficial), do not refer to scattered acts but to consistent courses of action continuing throughout life. The aorist subjunctive “may come” is also effective. It has been observed that the thought goes beyond the Jesuitic principle that the end justifies the means although we should say that this is included. It is the idea that the more bad we actually accomplish the more good will result for us. These slanderers intend to say that this is a frightful doctrine which condemns the Christians to the highest degree, which it would if they, indeed, made it their doctrine and their practice.

How these slanderers arrived at their slander is not difficult to see. Christians did teach that we are not saved by works of law, and that not the law but the gospel rules our lives. This is twisted into immoral antinomism, especially by legalists and the work-righteous (the moralists of chapter 2). This old slander persists to this very day even as the generation of the Pharisees, moralists, legalists, work-righteous has greatly multiplied.

With a demonstrative relative (ὧν) like ὅς in 1:25, and οὖ in 2:29, meaning: “these are the ones whose,” and in force like an independent sentence, Paul expresses his condemnation of these slanderers. “Whose” refers to the persons and not merely to their slander; if Paul had wanted to abominate the substance of that he would have written a third, “Perish the thought!” But we are told that the logical and the nearest antecedent of “whose” lies in “let us do,” etc., therefore the judgment is pronounced on people who teach and practice evil to bring about good, and that Paul is not pronouncing it on the slanderers of the Christians. The salient defect of this idea is the fact that nobody teaches such a doctrine. The Christians do not, nor do their slanderers who charge them, the very point of their charge being that the whole world condemns such a doctrine. The antecedent of “whose” is this: the judgment of these slanderers is just. Nor is that judgment restricted to the last day—“is just” now and ever

Paul’s question implies that all Christians will answer: “No, no! not for one minute would we imply what is slanderously hurled at us, that we do evil to have good come; we repudiate the very idea.” This Christian answer is all that is necessary. It takes the wind out of the sails of the difficulty voiced in v. 7, yea, it wrecks that difficulty by means of its own implication. Whatever may be the truth regarding the thought that our lie helps God’s truth to greater glory, we will not urge it against the Word’s being a great advantage (v. 2) as though being false to God’s Word did more for God than being true; for that would mean that these slanderers are right, that we who have the Word actually see good in doing evil. That ends even the last feature of the difficulty about the Word being the greatest advantage for those who have it, who, since it is a trust, ought to help extend that advantage to as many others as possible.

Paul’s proceeding in v. 1–8 affords great food for thought. Besides what we have already said in the exegesis (note the third paragraph under v. 3) we learn that it is not necessary to have direct refutations for every difficulty which our minds may create with their little logical reasonings. Let the reasonings stand if they will, their apparent soundness is dismissed the moment we are shown that they violate fundamental facts. Here they violate the mighty facts that God is ever faithful (v. 3), ever righteous (v. 5), and that no man may do evil in order to produce good (v. 8). Whether we discover the direct flaw in our reasonings or not makes no difference as long as their violation of basic facts is seen. A true scientist lets undoubted facts serve him in the same way, he junks his reasoned theories which contradict such facts.

In the present case, however, we may point out the logical flaw. When our sin makes God’s faithfulness, righteousness, and truth stand out, this is due, not to a service we render to God, but a service which God forces our sin to render. His great attributes need nothing from us, least of all our sin to make them stand out in contrast. Rightly he damns the sinner, especially the one to whom he has given the tremendous advantage of his Word and who abuses that advantage.

Romans 3:9

9 The difficulty has been entirely cleared away. To have the logia (Word) of God is, indeed, a great advantage (v. 2). Not in every way but, as will be shown, in the great saving way (v. 19, etc.). What then (is the situation)? Have we advantage for ourselves? Not in every respect; for we already charged both Jews and Greeks that all are under sin, even as it has been written, etc.

With τίοὗν; Paul returns to v. 1, 2 and asks what the situation is now that the misgivings and the points of difficulty (v. 3–8) have been cleared away. “Have we advantage for ourselves?” If those points of misgiving considered in v. 3–8 are removed, the answer is “yes”; but an unqualified “yes” is liable to grave misinterpretation, so Paul correctly answers: οὐπάντως, “not in every respect,” which means: “Yes, in one great respect but not in all respects.” He then naturally explains (γάρ) the respect in which even we Christians have no advantage above anyone else: we are all sinners like the rest. He purposely leaves yet to be said in what respect we Christians do have an advantage; this is reserved for v. 19, etc., and consists in this that by means of the Word we have the realization of sin and the revelation of God’s pardon in Christ through faith and faith alone.

“Have we advantage?” refers to “the advantage” predicated of the Jews in v. 1 They had the great advantage of the logia (Word) In v. 1, 2 Paul mentions this advantage, not because he intends to discuss Jews, but because Christians have this same advantage, and misgivings as to its really being the great advantage that Paul says it is are cleared away in v. 3–8 To think about Jews throughout and also in v. 9 is a common misunderstanding. “Have we advantage?” does not mean “we Jews.” Paul is not a Jew! “We Christians”—have we advantage, Paul and his readers in Rome? Regarding the fact that all these “we,” beginning with “our” in v. 5, refer to Paul and the Roman Christians see the third paragraph under v. 5.

But when Paul now asks about the Christian advantage his very use of a verb (προεχόμεθα) instead of the original noun τὸπερισσόν marks the fact that in his discussion in v. 3–8 he has advanced from the idea of advantage as lying in the mere possession of the objective logia to that of what these logia (God’s Word) do for us Christians subjectively. Of course, we have the Word as such, but what does it do for us, what personal advantage have we from it? It is not this that we are no longer sinners like the rest, it is, however, something else, something mighty blessed for us sinners. Would that all sinners had this same advantage in and through the Word!

Now the details. We do not combine and read the sentence as one question: “What advantage, then, have we?” because the only answer that would be fitting would have to match “what,” would have to contain οὐδέν and not the mere adverb οὐ. This holds true no matter how the verb is translated.

There is considerable confusion regarding προεχόμεθα. See A. V., R. V., and its margin as samples. M.-M. 539 present only the wish for some evidence from the papyri, and B.-P. 1132 has a wrong exegesis. “Do we excuse ourselves?” is off the track, either as a majestic plural or as a reference to Jews. Προεχόμεθα is a true middle and not an alternate for the active (see this group of middles used as actives, B.-D. 316), for Paul wanted to stress the subjective middle sense of having an advantage “for ourselves,” in our very persons. Because so few have wished to say just that, examples are not at hand.

It would be hasty to conclude from their absence that the middle could never be used thus. Paul is asking: “Have we Christians in our own persons an advantage in having the Word (the objective advantage the Jews, of course, also had)?” That this is his point we see when he says that we are still sinners but that the realization of sin and gospel faith save us (v. 20, etc.). In 816 R. wavers but in 812 he agrees to the middle with its “intensive force.”

There is also a misunderstanding of οὐπάντως; samples are found in R. 423 and in B.-D. 433, 2. οὐ is modified and thus qualified by πάντως and = “not in every way,” i.e., only in some way. It is not οὐδαμῶς, “not at all.” It is not πάντωςοὐ, which makes the negative modify the adverb: “altogether not.” Finally, the negative is not doubled: “no, in no wise” (our versions). “Not in every way” is at once explained (γάρ): “for we already (in advance) charged both Jews and Greeks that all are under sin” (or, “that both Jews and Greeks are all”), etc. To be “under sin” means to be included among sinners, under the indictment or charge (αἰτία in the verb) resulting from sin. Because he has the Word, certainly no Christian could escape this charge. The advantage he personally has is not that.

Here again there appears this combination “both Jews and Greeks” exactly as in 1:16, and in 2:9, 10. See these passages. We do not translate “both Jews and Gentiles” (A. V.) and understand these words as referring to “all men.” If the elite of the human race are sinners, namely Jews and Greeks (men of education), then the fact that the barbarians are no better need not be mentioned. Paul says “both Jews and Greeks” because these two comprised the classes represented in the Roman congregation; it had no barbarian natives.

Where did Paul already charge Jews and Greeks as being sinners all? In 1:18–32; to hunt for this charge elsewhere, somewhere between 2:1 and 3:8 is unwarranted. “We charged.” This “we” which occurs in the same sentence with another and is the last of an entire series is not editorial; “we” = Paul and the Romans, the latter as subscribing to every word written in 1:18–32.

Romans 3:10

10 With the regular formula of quotation, “as it has been written” (used in v. 4), the perfect tense meaning that the writing stands, Paul introduces a series of Scripture proof for the sinfulness of all men. It is not asked why he should do this after having proved all men sinners in no uncertain fashion in 1:18–32 and now even refers back to that proof. It is certainly not done merely in order to show how seriously he takes the matter. No; from the start of this chapter Paul has taken his readers to the logia (the Word) and for that reason he now goes to the Word. And the point of the proof is now advanced beyond the fact that all men are sinners to the fact that Christians, too, are included. Scripture proof is the thing for that.

The Scriptures stop every mouth (v. 19), the Scriptures from which we have the great advantage of the true knowledge of sin and then of the faith that saves us from sin. Right here is where this Scripture proof belongs.

There is not a righteous person, not one;

There is not he that understands,

There is not he that seeks out God.

All did turn aside, together they became worthless.

There is, as doing goodness, there is not as much as one.

An opened sepulcher their larynx,

With their tongues they kept deceiving.

Poison of asps under their lips;

Whose mouth is packed full of cursing and bitterness.

Keen their feet to shed blood;

Things crushed and wretchedness in their ways,

And peace’s way they did not know.

There is no fear of God before their eyes.

In regard to this Scripture proof for the universal sinfulness of man we note the following. The basic proof is found in v. 10–12 which are taken from Ps. 14:1–3, which speak of all men as they are in their fallen state. The additions found in v. 13–18 elaborate and complete the frightful picture by selecting and grouping various pertinent Scripture statements. In v. 15, 16 the quotation from Isaiah refers to Israel which showed these results the moment it fell from God, thus showing what men are and must be without the saving righteousness of God (v. 21, etc.). Paul uses the LXX, but not with mechanical literalness but, where necessary, interpretatively. We ourselves often quote in this manner, and rightly, so that those who hear us may understand.

For we quote for them and not for the person quoted. Although he uses the LXX, Paul here and there indicates that he also has the Hebrew in mind. While the whole is a mosaic, it is conceived as a unit and is not a loose aggregation. When the limit reached in various sins is presented, all lesser sins are, of course, included. Matt. 5:11, etc., is instructive.

The arrangement is: 1) the sinful condition, v. 10–12; 2) the sinful life, v. 13–15; 3) the sinful source, v. 17, 18.

The line quoted from Ps. 14:1 reads: “There is none that doeth good.” Paul interprets this as meaning: “There is not a righteous person,” and from v. 3 of the psalm he adds: “not one” to show that this is the sense. For this is the very point: “not one.” When v. 3 of the psalm is reached, Paul again quotes “not one,” or as the LXX have it: “not as much as one.” Paul thus emphasizes this absolute negative. The fact that not doing good means not being righteous is self-evident and correctly states what is meant by the psalm. Paul’s interpretation elucidates “our unrighteousness,” our ἀδικία, in v. 5, by now saying “not one righteous,” δίκαιοςοὐδὲεἷς. With this interpretative term he also looks forward to v. 20–28, where he first states how we are not declared righteous and then how we are, and what the righteousness is, the only one, for which we are declared righteous. This should not be overlooked.

It answers the view that Paul’s quotation is “free,” i.e., that he makes free with words of the Bible; that he “alters”; that he depends on his memory, meaning that he did not remember correctly. Why, he constantly shows that he remembered both the Greek of the LXX and the Hebrew original with utmost exactness and at times corrects the former by the latter. So little does he make free with or alter anything that he expounds and interprets exactly. And in this the Spirit himself guided him, led him into all truth (John 16:13), brought all things to his remembrance (John 14:26), kept him from all error, all of which is not Inspiration alone but Revelation as well.

Romans 3:11

11 The psalm says that God looked down from heaven to see “if there were any that did understand and seek God.” These indirect statements Paul repeats in direct form; for God found not one that understood when he spoke to him, yea, that even cared enough to seek out God and to hear and to understand him—godless every one of them.

Romans 3:12

12 The emphasis is on “all” and on “together” in the sense of “simultaneously”: “All did turn aside,” off from God’s way, each to his own way (Isa. 53:6); “together they became worthless,” (the passive is used in the middle sense) from ἀχρεῖος, “unprofitable,” good for nothing.

In v. 11 the participles have articles because they are the predicates; here the participle is without the article because it is not the predicate but only predicative to the subject: “There is, as doing goodness, there is not as much as one,” literally: “up to one.” When we count we cannot get even to “one.” We have the reverse idiom: “down to the last one.” Not even one was found engaged in what is good, pleasing and serviceable in God’s sight. For the sake of emphasis οὐκἔστιν is repeated.

Romans 3:13

13 After dwelling on the ἀσέβεια, “godlessness,” which leads to the ἀδικία, “unrighteousness” (see 1:18 for both terms), and picturing the universal state of sin, further Scripture is added in order to dwell on the universal life of sin. Here again there is most careful thought, for the selections present in order “throat,” then “tongue,” then the “lips,” then “mouth,” all the organs of speech, and finally “feet” as bearing the entire man for every sinful act, the most violent being named as including all the rest. Paul uses Ps. 5:9, then 140:3, then 10:7, finally (in v. 15–17) Isa. 59:7, 8, and always only the line or even the half-line which he wants for his purpose without saying that different passages are being used. The Christian reader is supposed to know where the passages are found.

“An opened sepulcher their larynx.” Subject and predicate are reversed, and thus both are emphatic, and the perfect participle “having been opened” extends to the present: still thus open even now. What is in a man shows in his speech. Here larynx is the organ of speech, and the tertium comparationis in the metaphor of “an opened tomb” is not the putrid, pestilential odors rising from an old tomb in which a body was enclosed but the frightful yawning of a tomb to take in a body, and since dead bodies are put into opened tombs, this is included, namely death to kill and so to have the yawning tomb get the bodies. Into a grave we ordinarily place only one man, a “tomb” or “sepulcher,” according to its size swallows many.

The line regarding the tomb is figurative, hence it is followed by the literal and interpretative line: “With their tongues they kept deceiving.” First larynx and now “tongues.” The figure of the opened tomb is not explained but the thought now advances by showing how this tomb gets its dead: the tongues do the deadly work, kill by deceit. The Hebrew reads: “They make their tongues smooth,” which the LXX translate as to sense and Paul accepts this as satisfactory, smooth tongues being tongues that keep deceiving. The iterative imperfect ἐδολιοῦσαν has the ending -οσαν instead of -ν, hence the contraction and the circumflex.

Larynx, tongues, and now “lips”: “Poison of asps under their lips,” a line quoted from Ps. 140:3. Here again we have a figure, and again it is followed by a literal, interpretating line. In this way the opened tomb of the larynx and the deceiving of the tongues get the dead: the lips of that larynx and of those tongues are like those of deadly asps or adders, under their sides, at the base of the fangs are poison sacs. Paul has already mentioned “tongues” and hence does not use the half-line: “They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent.”

Romans 3:14

14 Larynx, tongues, lips, and now “mouth”; “Whose mouth is packed full of cursing and bitterness.” This line is quoted from Ps. 10:7. We see what the poison of asps is. Ἀρά is malediction, and Delitzsch renders the Hebrew word execratio. Paul retains the LXX’s “bitterness” which states the effect of the Hebrew word which really means “fraud”: to suffer fraud is to taste bitterness; but he drops the third noun, the Hebrew “oppression,” which the LXX wrongly translated δόλου and by this omission he quietly indicates the mistake of the LXX, but finds no necessity of making a correction at this place. “Cursing and bitterness,” however, are here not referred to merely as to their quality but as to their effect. The ones who hear what this mouth is full of find themselves struck down with a curse, are victims of bitter fraud.

On all that is said regarding speech compare Jesus’ word in Matt. 15:19 regarding the heart which is the fountain of speech.

Romans 3:15

15 Turning now to the deeds, Paul makes excerpts from Isa. 59:7, 8, and uses only three of the lines as being sufficient for his purpose. Only “the feet” are mentioned because they carry the whole body and all the other members with them: “Keen (ὀξεῖς, sharp; LXX ταχινοί, swift) their feet to shed blood,” they can hardly wait. Ἐκχέαι is the effective aorist infinitive (R. 1220) and is construed as a dative: “for shedding blood.”

Romans 3:16

16 “Things crushed (shattered and broken) and wretchedness (the effect of what is crushed) in their ways.” Where those feet have trodden this is what they leave in their trail. The combination of the neuter plural and the abstract instead of the masculine forms is highly effective. How true the graphic picture is thousands of cases under our own observation show: ruthless, devastating feet crushing and shattering, leaving wails of misery to tell where they have been; history full of broad bloody trails, and the countless little cruelties as miniature copies.

Romans 3:17

17 “And” is often used to connect opposites: “and peace’s way they did not know,” ἔγνωσαν, i.e., know by experience, by having walked on that way. This is an improvement on the LXX’s οἴδασι, mere intellectual knowing. They have many “ways” on which they leave sad trails; but the opposite is not again a multiplicity of “ways” but only one which is made definite by its genitive: “peace’s way.” It is difficult to understand how this can be the objective genitive and mean “the way to peace” and not “the way on which peace is spread” (C.-K. 776), cf., especially also Isaiah’s next line: “and no judgment (right) in their goings.” On “peace” see 1:7. This is not der Heilsweg, “the way of salvation,” but the way on which the peacemakers of Matt. 5:9 walk, who spread peace everywhere. The genitive is either subjective: the way on which peace herself walks accompanied by all lovers of peace and the peacemakers; or qualitative: the way marked by peace. It is the way of Christ, the Prince of peace, and of the Christians who “follow peace with all men” (Heb. 12:14; 2 Tim. 2:22), the way the world knows not although it is so often told about it.

Romans 3:18

18 A line from Ps. 36:1 closes the Old Testament presentation of man’s sinfulness: “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” The source of it all, the primal sinfulness, is this absence of the fear of God. Fear and its absence take us into the heart, yet the psalmist speaks of fear “before their eyes.” He speaks of it as it controls the conduct and the life. All of this sin in word and in deed is due to the lack of the fear of God. The eyes do not see God, and so tongue, feet, etc., act as if he were not.

“The fear of God” is one of the great concepts of the Bible (not by any means of the Old Testament alone). The genitive is objective: our fear directed to God. We may define it as that regard which would not offend or provoke God. This fear is the negative side of love which always seeks to please God. Love and fear are thus sisters. Here, where only sin is catalogued, the logical final expression is “no fear”; where good works are named, “love” is the proper word.

Fear should act as a deterrent with love as the incentive. When love fails, at least fear should hold men. When love is present, the fear will be that of a child who fears to offend; when love is absent, the fear ought to be at least that of a slave, the dread of punishment. When that, too, disappears, all brakes are broken, and the car roars on down the decline to destruction.

Romans 3:19

19 This Scripture proof for universal sinfulness is not a digression but an integral part of the discussion on the great advantage (v. 1, 2) which all those have to whom the divine logia are entrusted. Here we have some of these logia in regard to man’s sinfulness. By possessing them we, of course, do not have the advantage that we are not included in this sinfulness (v. 9), for we indeed are. What our great advantage is in even having these logia (divine sayings) Paul now tells us at once (in v. 21, etc.) and follows this by the further advantage in the other, the gospel logia, the testimony of “the law and the prophets” (the entire Old Testament) on the righteousness of God, which, through faith in Christ, offers us the one way of escape from sin and sinfulness.

It is vital to perceive this connection. But to use the words of Zahn, v. 19, in which this connection centers, has been “from of old strangely misinterpreted,” but we must add that Zahn himself has only partly freed himself from this misinterpretation. The fact that with οἴδαμεν, “we know,” Paul is addressing the Roman Christians, which many overlook, he notes; but the other fact, that Paul is addressing the Christians regarding themselves, the chief point which has been misinterpreted, Zahn does not observe but follows the generally accepted interpretation that Paul is speaking to Christians about the Jews.

Now we know that what things soever the Law states it utters to those in connection with the Law, so that every mouth is stopped, and all the world is become subject to punishment for God; because as a result of works of law no flesh will be declared righteous before him; for through law (only) sin’s realization.

“We know” = Paul and the Roman Christians and not Paul and the Jews. This “we” is the same as that found in v. 5–9, and we need not repeat what we have said in paragraph three under v. 5 and in detail on “we,” “us” (plus “I” and “my”) in v. 5–9. Paul is not writing to a synagogue and a group of Jews. He often uses “we know” in the same sense as it is used here and always refers to something the Christians know and do not question. So here: “Anything whatsoever (ὅσα) the Law states it tells to those who are in connection with the Law.” Here λέγει and λαλεῖ are distinguished: the Law states what it means and that it tells and is not silent about. Ἐν is not “under” (ὑπό) as our versions and some commentators think; it is “in the Law,” “in connection with the Law,” which is the original meaning of this preposition. Paul has stated at the very start (v. 2) what this connection is, namely that of having been entrusted with the logia, the written Word (v. 2).

When “we know” is taken to mean Paul and the Jews, there is a diversity of opinion with regard to “those in connection with the Law.” Many think that these are Jews and only Jews. Many refer “the Law” to the Mosaic law only and not to the whole Old Testament, and they justify their view by stating that the articulated ὁνόμος always refers to the Mosaic law, which R. 796 states also regarding anarthrous νόμος. But even if we here think only of Jews, with what were these Jews connected (ἐν)? With the Mosaic code alone? No; with the whole Old Testament; they were entrusted with the “logia of God,” “the Sayings,” with ail of them (v. 2). By what was the Jewish moralist instructed (2:18), in what did he glory (2:23)?

Only in the Mosaic code? No; in the whole Old Testament. Paul says: “What the Old Testament declares it tells those who are connected with the Old Testament.”

That, of course, refers to the Jews (v. 2; also 1:19, 23). But this is not an academic discussion about the Jews, still less one regarding only their sinfulness. They are mentioned only because Paul and the Christians are equally connected with “the Law,” the Old Testament. It is because when the Christians considered how the Jews fared with the Old Testament and might question whether it is such an advantage to have the Old Testament, that Paul straightened them out in regard to this doubt (v. 3–8), for it implied that they themselves, the Christians, were involved, since they, like the Jews, had the Old Testament. Christians are to know that the Old Testament makes all men sinners including all Christians (v. 9–18). Christians know that what the Old Testament has in mind it tells them also because they are connected with the Old Testament (just as it tells this to the Jews).

For what purpose it does this is now unfolded, for in the accomplishment of this very purpose lies the great advantage of being connected with the Old Testament. The Old Testament brings the full realization of sin (v. 19, 20) and the saving revelation of pardon by faith in Jesus Christ (v. 21, etc.). Paul’s letter is addressed to the Roman Christians. He is discussing what the Old Testament is to them!

Dogmatics also plays its part here, namely the idea that law alone reveals sin, that thus “the Law” is only the Mosaic code. But law and gospel go together. The gospel deals with sinners only. It is unintelligible except in the case of sin and sinners. And if there were no gospel, we should have no revealed law. Law and gospel meet, and they meet in the great fact of universal sin.

The Old Testament is full of both law and gospel (so also is the New Testament). Both law and gospel deal with sin; the one shows its guilt and penalty, the other shows its removal, and thus they together produce contrition and faith. The correct dogmatics is this that “the Law,” the whole Old Testament with all the law and the gospel in it (like the New Testament) reveals sin. Look at Christ on the cross. In every part of his suffering we see our sin. Listen to every absolution: “Thy sins are forgiven thee!”

If no more were added, the statement that we Christians know that the Law (the Old Testament) speaks to us would be trivial. The emphasis is on the addition: it speaks to us who have the Old Testament, “so that every mouth is stopped and all the world is become subject to punishment for God.” This is the sum of the Scripture quotations which Paul has just cited (v. 10–18). Not one of them is taken from the Mosais code, not one from the writings of Moses, the Pentateuch. They are quoted from Psalms and from Isaiah. These Paul treats as being representative of “the Law.”

But how is every mouth stopped, etc., by the fact that the Old Testament tells us what it does? Would not its telling us stop only our mouth? Ah, but we are Christians, saved from sin; and if even our mouth is stopped, if even our sin is revealed in the Old Testament, then the whole world is thereby convicted. This is more than what the Scriptures tell us about the world. By condemning the best in the world, the worse and the worst are equally condemned. If we Christians have nothing to bring before God, nothing of our own, then what about all the rest?

What is the force of ἵνα? In this connection read carefully R. 997, etc., on the ecbatic or consecutive use of this connective. Robertson does not discuss our passage; neither does C.-K., who says in 391, 5 that ἵνα can “hardly express actual result.” It can, it does, and it does so here. Most commentators are satisfied to have it express purpose: the Scriptures intend to stop every mouth, etc.; a few advance to contemplated result: the Scriptures propose to effect the result of stopping every mouth, etc. But what do the Scriptures do? Why, they actually achieve this result, they have ever done so, they have stopped every mouth, etc. If this is only an intention or only a proposal, when, if ever, will it be carried out? Is it to remain nothing more? To ask is to answer.

Ἵνα had advanced far beyond its use in the classics, how far Robertson shows who mentions the other grammarians. All the older grammars, being without the information brought by the papyri, held only to the classic idea of purpose and did an ill office to scores of passages in order to make them square with this idea. All newer grammars are beyond that, but some are still timid with regard to admitting the full length to which ἵνα has expanded in the Koine, namely that it expresses actual result.

The language is forensic. Before the judgment bar of God and his Word every mouth is stopped (φραγῇ, second aorist passive from φράσσω), silenced by the indictment of being absolutely guilty and unable to make even the least defense. “Every mouth” individualizes, “all the world,” a collective, summarizes. The Judge looks at every individual and then at the whole mass (v. 23; 11:32; Gal. 3:22). First, the silence of the accused; then, the verdict upon one and all: “become subject to punishment for God.” The two aorists are effective: stopped, become (made) with finality. With ὑπόδικος the penalty is stated in the genitive; the person injured, to whom satisfaction is due, as well as the court or the judge decreeing the penalty, is in the dative as here: Gotte straffaellig. The adjective is placed first, the dative last in order to place the emphasis on them: “subject to punishment became the world to (no less a one than) God.”

Romans 3:20

20 First the fact, now the substantiation. But it is well to note that this is not the proof for our sinfulness and thus for that of the world. This substantiation cuts off what some at least might open their mouths to advance in self-defense by claiming that they are not thus included under God’s verdict. These are the moralists who were considered in chapter 2, the whole class of them (2:1 πᾶς, “every”), in particular also the Jewish moralist (2:17, etc.), plus all those whom they may delude, among whom there may be foolish Christians.

The moralistic teaching and following are prominent today, entire denominations are swept away by them, to say nothing of the pale moralism of the secret orders and of worldly ethical preachments. None of it avails in the court of God and of his Word: “because out of (ἐκ, as a result of) works of law no flesh will be declared righteous before him.” These are almost the words of Ps. 143:2.

The Greek idiom negates the verb, ours negates the subject. Bring all the works of law in the whole world now or at any time before God, the Judge—not a single mortal (“flesh” is to be understood in this sense) will ever win acquittal by means of them. That acquittal flows ἐκπίστεως (1:17) and never even in the least degree ἐκἔργωννόμου (the two nouns are almost like a compound, the genitive is subjective: “works done by law,” or indicates source: “derived from law”).

The form δικαιωθήσεται is plainly a passive and not a substitute for the middle. See C.-K. in extenso. The word is not ethical (middle in force): “become righteous,” but everywhere forensic (a straight passive): “declared righteous.” “Before him” is equally forensic: “before God” as Judge just as is the ἵνα clause in v. 19.

But look at “works of law.” Our versions tend to mislead by translating: “the works of the law,” for the articles are absent. Any works of any law are referred to. Twice Paul uses “the Law” (v. 19), now three times “law” (v. 20, 21). The two are not identical, “the Law” = the Mosaic code and “law” = the same thing. Twice before and in extenso Paul has marked the difference: 2:12 (ἀνόμως) to 14 eight times “law,” and 2:14, 15 twice “the Law”; again, 2:17, 23, 25 “law,” and 2:19, 23, 26, 27 “the Law.” “The Law” is “the Will” (2:18), “the logia of God” (3:2) are the Old Testament, often briefly called thus; the Hebrew word is Tora, “Instruction,” that of the old covenant Bible. But “law” is any and every legal enactment, code, requirement; never that of Moses alone although it is often included but equally that of pagans who are even “law” unto themselves (2:14).

Paul includes not only the Jews with their moralistic, self-righteous use of the Mosaic code of law when he says that “works of law” never secure God’s favorable verdict; he also includes all pagan moralists and their following who used their ethical law codes in the same way. Paul had to do both, for the Roman Christians were both, former Jews and former Gentiles. The false, deadly gospel of moralism, that one will be declared righteous by God for his “works of law” (as moralists so declare them) was ever dangerous to both parts of the Roman membership, for it was preached by both Gentile and Jewish moralists. It is obvious what application this invites today when the voice of the Jew finds so few ears while that of modernist, rationalist, and ethical reformer finds so many.

Γάρ explains why “works of law” cannot possibly justify before God: “for through law (there comes only) sin’s realization,” the very opposite of justification. This opposite is intensive: not only does God not justify because of works of law, law itself brings us realization of sin. “Law,” anything in the nature of law including that of Moses but likewise including any and every other ethical code. The fact that the law of Moses is clearer than any other is true, but that truth makes no difference (2:12–16) regarding what Paul here states. “Sin’s realization,” like “works of law” has no articles, the nouns being stressed as to the quality expressed by each. “Sin,” the abstract, means anything in the nature of sin (ἁμαρτία, missing the mark); and ἐπίγνωσις (γνῶσις + ἐπί) is the German Erkenntnis. It is more than “knowledge” (our versions) which may be merely intellectual; it is “full realization” borne in upon us, personal inner conviction. There is much false γνῶσις but no false ἐπίγνωσις. Paul’s statement is axiomatic: sin misses the mark set by law, hence law reveals what sin does and so makes us realize what sin is.

Law is the medium for this (διά) even in its very nature. Works of law are not the source (ἐκ) of justification, in their very nature they cannot be. The prepositions are rightly placed, for justification demands a source or cause while sin’s realization comes through certain means (διά also in 7:7). The question is not whether one might not view these relations otherwise but of viewing them in the most exact way.

Here is the first part of the advantage which the Christians, like the Jews, have in possessing the actual logia of God, the advantage which Paul calls “great in every way” (v. 1, 2), which no twisted thought should question as being both an advantage and great (v. 3–8). It does not, indeed, lift us out of the world of sinners, this our having the logia (God’s Word), for this very Word puts us decisively among them (v. 9–18); the tremendous advantage is that by so doing this Word (v. 19) abolishes forever all moralistic delusion that after all we sinners might be justified because of works of law that are in some way wrought by ourselves; abolishes this delusion by showing us for what law really is the means, namely for producing in us realization (conviction) of sin (objective genitive). Our great advantage is that we have the very Word of God as this means. Only the Jews are like us in that respect, all pagans have less. As one of its main parts this Word brings us the law of Moses, the direct revelation of the law, by which, as by law in no other form (all other forms are more or less darkened), sin’s realization is wrought most effectively, most truly. That is, indeed, the very purpose for which God himself put law into his revealed, written Word for our great advantage.

Realization of sin is the negative part of the advantage. After stating it Paul at once follows it with the positive part (v. 21, etc.). The negative would not exist but for the positive, nor could the positive exist without the negative.

Righteousness (Justification) through Faith, 3:21–31

Romans 3:21

21 Paul really makes no division at this point of his letter but simply goes on from the negative side of the great advantage afforded by the logia (Word) of God (v. 1, 2) to the positive side; it is for our own convenience that we make a division here. No major division is in place although it is often made.

Moreover now, apart from law God’s righteousness has been made manifest, witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, yea God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ for all those believing.

In the Word we possess not only a negative advantage, the realization of sin, but also a positive advantage, the revelation of the one and only means for the removal of sin, God’s righteousness through faith in Christ. Δέ adds this as something different, and “now” is not temporal but logical. “Apart from law,” from anything and everything in the nature of law (anarthrous νόμος as explained in v. 20), bears the fullest emphasis. This is the astounding fact which no man of his own accord would have thought even possible, that righteousness is to be had by sinners wholly apart from anything like law (the Mosaic law or any other code such as human ethics presents). Men always connect righteousness with law of some kind and conceive it as consisting of “works of law” (see v. 20), yet all that law is able to produce for sinners is “sin’s realization,” the conviction that all flesh, every mortal, is damned and lost.

Glory be to God that there is righteousness altogether apart from law! Here and in the next verse belongs all that we have said in connection with 1:17 about “God’s righteousness” and its connection with “faith”; it is much too long to be repeated here. It is, in brief, the status of the sinner brought about by God himself (causal genitive) when he declares him righteous by his forensic act. In 1:17 Paul says that this righteousness has ever been revealed in the gospel; here he says that it “has (ever) been made manifest, witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.” The time indicated by any participle that modifies a verb is relative to the time of that verb. So here: the manifestation that ever continued and still continues (perfect tense) is brought about by the witnessing (present tense) which continually accompanies that manifestation.

“The Law and the Prophets” is the title for the Old Testament. In v. 29 Paul has the shorter title: “the Law.” There is one that is still longer: “the Law, and the Prophets, and the Other Books.” When Paul said that God’s Old Testament stops every mouth, etc., it was enough to call the Old Testament “the Law,” Tora, the Instruction; when he now speaks about the saving righteousness it is fitting to call the Old Testament “the Law and the Prophets,” using the more impressive title. So also by this longer title he conveys more clearly what he means than he would have done by merely writing, “Apart from law … by the Law.”

Romans 3:22

22 Here we have a case where δέ emphasizes the repetition of a term: “yea, God’s righteousness,” the one mediated by faith (διά) in Jesus Christ (objective genitive) which is for all those believing (those who have faith) the instant they believe and as long as they believe. Faith and Jesus Christ are ever combined like a cup and its contents. Faith is the heart’s trust embracing Christ, and by so embracing Christ it is the subjective means for making ours the status of righteousness created by God’s declaration. Or, beginning with God: his righteousness, the bestowal of his judicial declaration: “I declare thee righteous!” is ours where and when faith is ours, faith in Jesus Christ. The point of faith is emphasized by adding: “for all those believing,” or the longer reading: “for all and upon all those believing.” This emphasis on faith and believing is the strong positive which completes the negative “without law.” No law—just faith, and yet God’s own verdict: Righteous! “Righteousness through faith” is abstract, and all abstracts are strong, general, universal. But this one is made even stronger, the universal reach being emphasized by adding the concrete persons referred to: “for all (and upon all) those believing.”

The substantivized present (durative) participle “those believing” names the persons, “all” of them to whom this righteousness extends (on whom it rests). They “all” have it, not one is without it, be he Jew or Gentile, living in the old or in the new covenant. The whole Old Testament attests it; it has ever been so from Adam onward. Never since Adam’s fall was there righteousness in, by, and through law of any kind, it was always “through, for, upon” faith apart from law of all kinds. Jesus and the apostles attested and preached the same truth. The mighty advantage which all those have who possess the Word (v. 1, 2) lies in this revelation (1:17), manifestation, and testimony (3:21), which brings us this righteousness through faith. Through (διά)—for (εἰς)—upon (ἐπί, in the longer reading) bring out three relations of faith to righteousness, for all the phrases modify righteousness (not so the two found in 1:17); on the one hand faith is the medium (through), on the other hand faith is both the beneficiary (for) and the subject (upon) of God’s righteousness.

Romans 3:23

23 It is this for “all” believers. In fact, it could not be otherwise: For there is no distinction; for all did sin and are short of the acknowledgment of God, being declared righteous gratuitously by his grace through the ransoming, the one in connection with Christ Jesus, etc.

Law had to be abandoned; its very opposite, faith in Jesus Christ, had to be used in order to secure the verdict “righteous” and the status of righteousness for men, “for there is no distinction” whatever among them, not even a single exception (“no, not one,” v. 10), not one man who could be declared righteous by means of law. A second “for” extends the first: “for all did sin and (in consequence) are short of the acknowledgment of God,” all without exception. “They missed the mark” (ἥμαρτον) set by law, hence law can declare them only guilty and never, never righteous. To get the verdict righteous from anything like law is hopeless, some other means must be used. The constative aorist: “all did sin,” is proved to be such by all the passages which Paul quotes in v. 10–18 and by what he adds in v. 19, 20 as to their force.

“All did sin” is amplified by adding the result: they “are short of the acknowledgment of God,” they lack it, and the middle has the force: they lack it for themselves, as far as they themselves are concerned. This middle does not mean: they feel the lack. Verbs of want take the genitive. All sinners lack “the acknowledgment of God” (subjective genitive). Δόξα has no connection with God’s own essential glory; it is not the glory of heaven, not the divine image in which man was created, and not καύχησις, glorying before God. The word is used in its very first meaning: “good opinion” (Abbott-Smith), Anerkennung seitens Gottes (C.-K. 346), and is equivalent to ἔπαινος, “the praise from God” which the genuine Jew has (2:29). The point is exactly this: God cannot possibly extend his acknowledgment to sinners (and all have sinned) when nothing but law and their sins is before him, i.e., he cannot declare even a single one righteous. In a world of sinners anything like law only robs us of the favorable acknowledgment, of his verdict of righteousness.

Romans 3:24

24 But thank God, he meets this apparently hopeless situation! He has other means and ways than law, far other and most blessed means. The main thought is contained in the participial clause: “being declared righteous gratuitously,” etc. Instead of constructing a new sentence the Greek often continues with a participle. God has the means and the way of declaring righteous despite the universal sinfulness of man; we are not hopelessly lost under the verdict guilty.

We cannot change the participle δικαιούμενοι into the finite καὶδικαιοῦνται because this would alter Paul’s thought. This would assert that all sinners “are justified,” a statement that is not true. The participle says far less, namely that God’s justifying act sets in while men are sinners, the fact of their being sinners does not make it impossible for God to render the verdict of righteousness. The participial clause is general. It does not state how many are declared righteous, how many are not; it states that while all, as far as they are concerned, have lost any and every favorable acknowledgment from God, there exists another way of “being declared righteous,” a wonderful way, indeed, one that is wholly “gratuitous,” entirely “by grace,” mediated “through the ransom connected with Christ Jesus.” The fact that this declaration of righteousness is only for believers, is pronounced only upon them, has already been stated in v. 22 in the plainest language and need not be repeated; the fact that unbelievers exclude themselves has thus also been clearly implied. On the verb δικαιοῦσθαι see below in connection with v. 28.

The point to be noted here is the fact that sin excludes no man from being declared righteous by God. Besser has stated it correctly: “Gospel justification finds as miserable sinners all to whom it comes and clothes in its garment all the destitute sinners upon whom it comes. Here we see how far the promise of the gospel extends: as far as sin extends, over the whole world; and, according to Melanchthon’s admonition, we are to arm ourselves with such universal terms as all against the false notions of predestination.”

Just because all are sinners, because there is no exception, God’s verdict is pronounced “gratuitously,” δωρεάν, by way of gift, “gratis.” It could not be pronounced in any other way, for in the entire world of sinners not one mite of merit exists. The gratuity is absolute. But in this way it fits sinners most perfectly. The Scriptures are full of this δωρεάν; in 5:17, ἡδωρεὰτῆςδικαιοσύνης; in Eph. 2:8, Θεοῦτὸδῶρον; on the force of the word, see also Matt. 10:8; Rev. 21:6; 22:17. The view that faith is also barred out, that otherwise synergism results, does not understand what faith is and how it is produced. So little is faith barred out that it is always and everywhere included, and no personal justification ever takes place except “through faith.” In fact, Paul at once mentions faith in v. 22; he does so by emphatically twice naming it.

How “gratuitously” is to be understood is shown by the dative of means: “by his grace.” This is not only a gift, it is one that is wholly undeserved. Χάρις, one of the most blessed Scripture concepts, is the undeserved favor of God. Sinners deserve the verdict “guilty,” the verdict “acquitted” is possible only as one that is wholly undeserved, the voice, not of mere justice, but of pure, abounding, astounding grace. Distinguish “grace” from “mercy” (ἔλεος), the latter is the divine pity. Grace connotes guilt; mercy connotes misery, the consequence of sin and guilt. Grace is thus always first, mercy second, and the two should not be reversed. Grace and not mercy pardons; mercy and not grace binds up, heals, comforts, restores. “Grace” is the proper word in this connection. It is the inner motive that moves God to acquit.

But how can the just Judge of heaven and earth, without becoming unjust and destroying all justice, follow grace and declare righteous any sinner whose sin cries to heaven for just punishment? Only by one means, the one that perfectly satisfies God’s justice and opens the way for his grace: “through the ransoming, the one connected with Christ Jesus.” R. 776 points out that when an adjective (modifier) is added with a second article it is emphasized as much as the noun it modifies and becomes an appositional climax. Apply that here and thus get more exactly what Paul says.

Ἀπολύτρωσις is “ransoming,” an act that secures release by paying a λύτρον, a ransom. Captives of war and slaves were thus ransomed. Because of its common use our word “redemption” has lost some of this distinctive sense; and Warfield, Christian Doctrines, rightly maintains that this distinctive sense must be conserved and not be reduced to the pale idea of liberation and release in general. Only the payment of a full ransom releases the sinner in God’s court. The argument that the acquittal is then only a matter of justice and not gratuitous, not by grace, is based on insufficient evidence, for it is God who also provides this ransoming (v. 25). So Paul does not here say that Jesus ransomed but that the divine ransoming is “in connection with (ἐν) Christ Jesus.” He puts his title “Christ” before his personal name “Jesus” (see 1:1). What this connection is is at once stated.

The sense of ἀπολύτρωσις is most adequately supported by synonymous terms: ἀγοράζειν, “to buy,” 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; ἐξαγοράζειν, “to buy up,” (as when a slave is ransomed), Gal. 3:13; περιποιεῖσθαι, “to purchase,” Acts 20:28; λυτροῦσθαι, “to ransom,” Tit. 2:4. Especially instructive are Matt. 20:28 and Mark 10:45, where Jesus speaks of giving his life as a ransom or λύτρον; and 1 Tim. 2:6, ἀντίλυτρον, his “ransom in place” of all. In this place (v. 25) Paul names “his blood” as the ransom price. Διά makes the ransoming connected with Christ Jesus the means “through” which God acquits sinners; the acquittal comes only through this one channel, no other exists.*

One word more in regard to δικαιούμενοι being not a middle, but a passive. Modernistic learning seeks to remove the forensic idea from this word. We become righteous by following the example and the teaching of Jesus; we sinners are not pronounced righteous in God’s court. Hence the idea of a price of blood that was paid for us by ransoming is also eliminated. But the passive idea runs through every term of the verse. Just as “being declared righteous” makes God the agent of the act, so “gratuitously” makes him the Giver of the gratuity, and “by his grace” makes him the Bestower of that grace, and “through the ransoming” makes him the User of this medium.

Study C.-K. on δικαιοῦσθαι and its derivatives and from this exhaustive treatment learn that these terms are always forensic. We quote p. 328: “This meaning of the passive is the less a proof against the forensic sense since everywhere it is plain that the relation referred to is one in regard to God’s judgment, and since δικαιοσύνη in Paul’s language just as in the Scriptures otherwise never signifies an accomplishment or a virtue but a relation to God’s judgment, and δίκαιος one who has this judgment in his favor.”

In v. 23 some refer πάντες to “those believing” mentioned in v. 22: “they all did sin,” namely these believers. And so the δικαιούμενοι occurring in v. 24 is restricted to these: “those believing—they all—being declared righteous.” The answer to this interpretation is that the participle should then be an aorist: δικαιοθέντες, “having been declared righteous,” and not the present. Then πάντες should have a restriction just as these commentators also insert one: “they all.” But such a restriction does not fit the context that “there is no distinction,” which cannot mean no distinction among believers and certainly not no distinction from unbelievers; for as regards the latter, faith surely constitutes a mighty distinction. “No distinction” = v. 19: “all the world become subject to penalty” with every mouth stopped. And so “all did sin,” God declaring righteous gratuitously, etc.

Romans 3:25

25 Just a participle (δικαιούμενοι) to express the main thought of the previous sentence and now only a relative clause as the great statement regarding what Christ Jesus was made to be for us by God: whom God set forth as cover of the mercy seat through the faith in his blood, for demonstration of his righteousness because of his passing over the sinful acts previously done, in connection with the forbearance of God in view of the demonstration of his righteousness at the present period, so as to be righteous, and (this) as declaring righteous him who is of faith in Jesus.

God’s act of “ransoming in connection with Christ Jesus” is so vital for his declaring us righteous wholly apart from law (v. 21) and works of law (v. 20), through faith alone (v. 22), that Paul describes it and its effect in the case of God and in our case in the most graphic manner.

“The ransoming” consists in this that God set forth Christ Jesus as cover or lid of the mercy seat to be effective through faith and in connection with his blood. God is the actor throughout. This is a vital point. Subject and verb are reversed, which places an emphasis on both, the main emphasis being on the verb which is placed as far forward as possible: “set forth did God,” the aorist indicates the historical fact. While this verb is very common, in the present sacred connection it is undoubtedly a cultus term and is used with reference to things relating to the Jewish Tabernacle and its worship. The light to be shed on it must come from this source and not from pagan papyri and inscriptions; hence M.-M. 554 yields little.

It is almost a technical term and is perfectly fitting in connection with ἱλαστήριον. Some think it means: “set forth publicly,” and add: “before the whole world”; but this thought would call for a different word (such as φανεροῦν), and this idea loses the very point of sacredness implied in the word which Paul did use. In a most sacred and solemn act God “did set forth for himself” (middle voice) Christ Jesus.

Ἱλαστήριον is predicative to ὅν: God set forth Christ “as cover of the mercy seat,” Kapporeth, the Hebrew word for the “cover or lid” of the Ark of the Covenant in the Tabernacle, Luther’s Gnadenstuhl. Being predicative, the absence of the article is regular; besides Christ was not the cover or lid of the physical Ark, he was its antitype; mercy seat is to be understood in that sense. Both phrases modify the noun: “cover of the mercy seat through faith”; they likewise modify “in connection with his blood.” This is undeniable as far as the first phrase is concerned, for who could claim that God used our faith as the means (διά) for setting forth Christ as he did? That, however, settles the matter as far as the second phrase is concerned, which cannot be referred across the first and be attached to the verb. If Paul had intended this construction he undoubtedly would have placed “in his blood” next to the verb. Nor can we make the second phrase depend on the first: “faith in his blood,” for this would require the genitive (see v. 26, and v. 22, πίστις twice with the genitive to indicate the object of “faith”).

Some call ἐν instrumental (C.-K. 219, 3), but it is better to leave it in its original sense: “Cover in connection with his blood” (αὐτοῦ is in the attributive position, and is emphatic). Other blood was used in the Tabernacle, this was Christ’s own blood (C.-K. 284, 3)

Paul places the subjective phrase that features the word “faith” before the objective phrase that features the word “blood.” This, of course, makes also the latter apply to “cover”; but perhaps we may say more, namely that it is faith which Paul stresses in this entire presentation by doubling its first mention in v. 22 and then repeating faith again and again until v. 31. All is without law and works, through faith and faith alone. The prepositions, too, are most exact. This “cover” is effective “through” faith, the subjective means, but “in connection with” Christ’s blood. The blood is not a means (instrument, “by” in R. V.) for the effectiveness of this cover, it is far more. Christ himself is this cover, but as the “bloody” Christ, and thus the cover is entirely “in” (“in connection with”) his blood.

Not this or that single Jewish sacrifice is here referred to but “the highest and most perfect expiatory act of the Old Testament” (Keil), the one that was most completely typical of Christ’s expiation, yea, its very type, prophecy, and promise. Once a year, on the great Day of Atonement, the Jewish high priest and he alone took blood from the great altar of burnt offering and went into the Holy of Holies, into which none dared enter but he and he only for the purpose of this function and sprinkled that blood on the Kapporeth, the cover of the Ark of the Covenant, called the mercy seat, in order to cover the sins of the whole people. In the Ark were deposited the tables of the law, that law which condemned these sins. The Kapporeth covered those tables; but only when it was thus sprinkled with expiatory blood did it cover the sins of the people from God and from his punishment. More may be said, but this is sufficient in order to explain. Read Heb. 9, and note also v. 25, 26; it is the complete New Testament interpretation of Paul’s brief statement. We need add nothing.

But we are told that ἱλαστήριον is in this instance not this Kapporeth, that this is an antiquated notion, that the word means only Suehnmittel in general, and then there follows an extended argument in support of this contention. The chief claim is that we must ignore the Old Testament’s and the LXX’s use of the word and Heb. 9:5, and accept only the pagan and non-Biblical use of the term. But we cannot agree to accept such a claim. There are a few examples of this word in secular literature, but we cannot make them decisive for Paul in this eminently sacred connection. When we examine these examples we find that this so-called “means of expiation” is always an “expiation gift,” “an expiation memorial,” on the part of men and never, as here, on the part of God. The idea is always a pagan idea: to win the gods’ favor by some gift.

On the other hand, ἱλαστήριον is “the almost constant designation” for the Hebrew Kapporeth, both the Hebrew and the Greek words are equally “technical terms” (see the full discussion which is so decisive even in details, C.-K. 522, etc.) Both were current and were known to all who knew anything about the Scriptures. All Christians were acquainted with this Greek term from their study of the LXX.

It is unfortunate, indeed, that our versions have this error: “a propitiation”; the R. V. margin has the substantivized adjective: “propitiatory.” Ἱλαστήριον is the substantivized neuter adjective from ἱλάσκομαι, to make propitious. The fact that this neuter is predicative to a masculine relative pronoun is quite in order, for it states in what capacity God set Jesus forth. As God himself established the Jewish Tabernacle, the Ark, and its mercy seat, so it was he who set forth their antitype Christ as a mercy seat; and both of these he connected with blood. All that Paul thus says is so true, rich in meaning, and here exactly to the point that one wonders why it is ever set aside in favor of another less satisfactory view.

The following arguments are offered in support of this view: 1) Kapporeth was the place where the high priest made expiation, hence, if Paul refers to Kapporeth, this would have to be Christ’s cross and not Christ himself. This claim points to the neuter predicate over against the masculine relative and is answered by every case in which we say what instead of who a person is.—2) The Tabernacle and the Ark had disappeared a long time ago, and the Kapporeth and the rite connected therewith “found asylum only in theological Gelahrtheit.” But Paul writes to practical people of his day who in their own Scriptures of that day had the whole Kapporeth ritual and knew exactly what Paul had in mind. So in chapter 4 Paul continues with Abraham who was dead and gone long before Moses built the Tabernacle and Ark, and in his letter he refers to other persons and introduces a large number of quotations which assume a knowledge of the Old Testament. Moreover, when Paul wrote Romans, the Temple was still standing and its ritual was still practiced.—3) The ritual connected with the Kapporeth was secret, was witnessed only by the high priest who performed it, while God’s act of setting forth was public. But was it? Heb. 9:12, 24 have Christ enter the secret Holy of Holies in heaven, and “set forth” does not stress a public display as we have already seen.—4) But then Christ would be both the High Priest and the sacrifice! Quite so, we reply, and Hebrews so presents him by calling him “High Priest” and naming “his own blood” in connection with the Kapporeth or mercy seat (Heb. 9:5, 11, 12).

Here we have “the oft misjudged and vilified Biblical, Pauline, Petrine (1 Pet. 1:19; 2:24), and Johannine (John 1:29, 36; Rev. 5:9; etc.) doctrine of the substitutionary satisfaction of Christ,” Ebrard. “Grace” (v. 24), the causa interna movens et impulsiva of justification; Christ and his blood the causa externa et meritoria; faith the medium apprehendens. Here is the λύτρον of the ἀπολύτρωσις, the blood, the ransom in the ransoming; here is told how God himself made it that. The divine declaration of righteousness is not a cognitio inanis but rests on a solidum et perfectum fundamentum, a fundamentum in re. “Christ did not merit that by some certain other something we should be righteous before God for life eternal, but Christ’s obedience or satisfaction is that very something which is imputed to us for righteousness or which is our righteousness before God for life eternal.” Chemnitz.

What is thus stated in brief is the actual content of the statement: “whom God set forth as cover of the mercy seat through faith in his blood.” Now there follows what this act of God’s was to be: he did this “for demonstration of his righteousness because of his passing over the sinful acts previously done,” this passing over having taken place all along “in connection with the forbearance of God,” a forbearance (entirely, however) “in view of the demonstration of his righteousness at the present time.” Ἔνδειξις is “a pointing out,” a demonstration that is so plain that it must be seen.

But what is this “righteousness” pointed out so plainly by God’s act of setting forth Christ as the mercy seat? Some answer: his punitive righteousness and expound accordingly. We are told that “his righteousness” is only the divine attribute and not the saving status of righteousness established for the believer by the divine declaration and verdict (as in v. 21–23). Throughout all ages prior to Christ’s death on the cross men went on sinning, and although at times God struck with punitive righteousness he yet forbore so that it often seemed as though he were not righteous at all. Then at last he demonstrated that he was nevertheless righteous and just: he punished all the sins committed since Adam’s day in Christ; his long forbearance was exercised only in view of this final demonstration “at the present time.” A strange view indeed is this statement as to how God’s punitive justice acted. It becomes still stranger when it is inserted between two statements regarding what God did for faith, namely made Christ our mercy seat to whom our faith can cling with the result (v. 26): “so that God besides being righteous also declares us righteous who believe in Jesus.” The main clause at the beginning and the result clause at the end refer to faith and the saving acts of God, the middle modifications refer only to sinners who should have been wiped out summarily but were not!

After making “God’s righteousness” the subject of the entire epistle (1:17), on reaching the heart of this subject in 3:21, 22 Paul again writes “God’s righteousness,” and that emphatically because it is twice stated, and now in v. 25, 26 again twice “his righteousness”—is it possible that “his righteousness” should here be something far different from “God’s righteousness” just preceding? It cannot be. It is here not the mere attribute of God, not the punitive justice after being something far other in the two verses just preceding. Paul continues to speak about righteousness by showing that it consists in the justifying act of God which declares believers righteous and puts them into that status. In v. 21 Paul states that this righteousness was manifested all along as witnessed by the Old Testament Scripture; now the final and actual demonstration (ἔνδειξις) of it has been made: God set forth Christ as mercy seat in his blood, as mercy seat through faith.

The Old Testament could only testify of justification by faith in Christ. Christ had yet to come. The actual demonstration that the Old Testament was, indeed, true had yet to be made. It was made in the blood of Christ when the time came and God made him our Kapporeth. This demonstration sealed the Old Testament testimony as being true. It did this and had to do it “because of God’s passing over the sinful acts previously done.” This very passing over (πάρεσις) had all along taken place only “in connection with (ἐν) the forbearance of God in view of the demonstration of his (justifying) righteousness at the present time.” This “passing over” of the sins prior to Christ’s time does not refer to what God did regarding the wicked who lived prior to Christ; it means: God passed over the sins of the believers who lived prior to Christ, who believed the witness regarding justification by faith made “by the Law and the Prophets” (the Old Testament Word).

Although the mercy seat with the real expiating blood had not yet been set forth by God, although only its type existed in the Ark in the Tabernacle, God passed over their sins. They believed what the type made manifest (πεφανέρωται), what the Word testified (μαρτυρούμενοι), v. 21.

Paul writes πάρεσις, God passed over the sins of these Old Testament believers. This does not imply that he could not have written ἄφεσις, “remission” (forgiveness), that God pardoned their sins. The Old Testament uses this very word again and again with reference to the Old Testament saints (for instance, Ps. 32:1, 2). Paul’s “passing over” is used for the sake of exactness in the present connection. What actually took away the sins of the Old Testament saints was Christ’s blood. Until that blood was actually shed, all ἄφεσις was, to be exact, a πάρεσις; all “remitting” a “passing over.” The final reckoning with the sins of the Old Testament believers was, as it were, postponed until the true mercy seat was set forth.

In this way the Old Testament saints had their “remission,” it was in the form of a “passing over.” No wonder all of them longed for Christ to come (Matt. 13:17; John 8:56). The thought is not that this “passing over” was not “remission” or only an uncertain thing. The very opposite. God’s promise of Christ’s coming could not fail; in fact, as far as God was concerned, the Lamb was slain already from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), and time does not hamper God. And yet, after all, the advance certainty rested on the actual historical act of our High Priest’s entering into the Holy of Holies of heaven with his own blood (Heb. 9:12, 24). For this reason Paul writes “passing over.”

Romans 3:26

26 He adds that the passing over occurred “in connection with the forbearance of God in view of the demonstration of his righteousness at the present time.” Our versions and many commentators mar the sense by cutting this in two: “passing over in the forbearance of God,” then a semicolon and a new verse. And then, overlooking the fact that πρὸςτὴνἔνδειξιν is not the same as εἰςἔνδειξιν in v. 25, the two are made mere parallels, the second an apposition to elucidate the first. This is done because both are thought to deal with the wicked, with God’s tolerating them during the Old Testament time and letting his punitive justice strike Christ. But the passing over in connection with God’s forbearance occurred “in view of the demonstration of God’s righteousness at the present time.” The article in the phrase πρὸςτὴνἔνδειξιν is that of previous reference; this is the demonstration already mentioned which deals with God’s justifying (not punitive) righteousness. Εἰς is used with the predicative accusative (R. 481), which follows the predicative ἱλαστήριον; it states what God intended the mercy seat to be; we may translate it “for” or “as,” or even omit it; “set forth as mercy seat, a demonstration”; or “as (for) a demonstration.” This is not εἰςτό with the infinitive as our versions translate: “to declare” (A. V.), “to show” (R. V.). Πρός with a noun is also not πρὸςτό with the infinitive: “to declare” (A.

V.). This phrase modifies God’s forbearance and says that it occurred “in view of the demonstration” which God made in due time by setting forth Christ as the mercy seat.

Since the passing over occurred in connection with the forbearance, it makes little difference with which of the two we connect “in view of”; we must really read in one breath: “because of the passing over … in the forbearance of God in view of the demonstration,” etc. The thought is plain: During the entire old covenant God acted in view of what he would set Christ forth to be, namely the real mercy seat, the actual demonstration of his justifying righteousness in and through him. Thus throughout the old covenant he remitted the sins of the believers by passing over them as though they were already expiated by Christ, passing them over thus in his forbearance exercised in view of Christ.

Ἀνοχή is the proper word, “a holding up,” and matches πάρεσις, “passing by,” most exactly. All the sins of believers were passed by by holding them up, God looked away from them to the demonstration of his saving righteousness in Christ. Here we have the most exact and penetrating explanation as to how God pardoned during the old covenant. The exact difference is stated from the point of view of the way in which God pardons during the new covenant, for ἐντῷνῦνκαιρῷ, “in this present period,” denotes, not merely the moment when Christ took his blood to heaven, but the entire period since his blood is effective in heaven. Now there is no further need of forgiving by passing over, no further need of holding up in view of Christ. Christ is in heaven, the mercy seat and its blood are there.

And now the great result of it all, the result of God’s setting forth Christ as the mercy seat, this demonstration sealing all that he had done during the old covenant for believers, namely his pardoning righteousness, manifested and witnessed in the Old Testament Word (v. 21, 22), exercised in forgiving by passing over sins in forbearance in view of Christ—all of this: “so as to be (so that he is) righteous and (this) as declaring righteous him who is of faith in Jesus,” to be this now also during the new covenant and forever. Καί is explicative. The result is not two things but one. It is “the righteousness of God,” this noun (repeated in this context no less than four times) being now expounded by an adjective and a participle; its meaning is “that he is righteous and that he is this as (or by) declaring the believer in Jesus righteous.”

“That he is righteous” is not abstract: a righteous and just God despite his grace (v. 24). “And” is not “although”: righteous although he declares the believer righteous. This is not an attempt to harmonize the divine attributes of justice and grace although many insert this thought. This is not even an exposition of the one attribute, that of justice (righteousness). While, as we have shown in 1:17, this attribute is involved in “God’s (gospel) righteousness,” in that noun, as now in the adjective, we have what the participle here states: God’s “declaring righteous” the believer. Behold the revelation (1:17) and manifestation (3:21) of “God’s righteousness,” i.e., “that he is righteous,” i.e., “that he declares the believer righteous.” This is what we are ever to see. Nothing else is to be inserted.

Here Paul writes εἰςτὸεἶναι and there is no question about its often denoting purpose: “in order that he may be” (our versions: “that he might be,” but “might” is too potential). Simple purpose, however, often advances to contemplated result and even to actual result. B.-D. 391, 5 admits that contemplated result is the thought of our passage but does not accept the view that εἰς even expresses actual result. R. 1002, etc., does not list our passages but frankly holds that this phrase is often used by Paul in order to express result, namely actual result. And we surely have actual result here if we have it anywhere. The actual result is that God is righteous, etc.

It is not merely his purpose so that we must ask whether that purpose is achieved or not; nor merely a result he contemplated so that we must ask whether it advanced beyond his contemplation or not. These questions are answered: the result is most fully attained. We see this result not only in what God did by justifying the old covenant believers, we see it in all that he does for believers “in this present (new covenant) period.”

And here again is “faith” (see 1:17) beside “righteousness—righteous—to declare righteous,” the second pivotal term that runs throughout this section. Verses 24–26 concern believers, and no part of them the wicked. Here we have the striking designation of the believer: ὁἐκπίστεωςἸησοῦ, “he who is of faith in Jesus,” whose distinctive mark is derived from (ἐκ, out of) faith; the genitive (as in v. 22) is objective: “of Jesus”; in English we say “in.” Faith, faith alone has God’s righteousness, his declaration: “Thou art righteous!” Works of law and law (v. 20, 21) never secure it.

Romans 3:27

27 Where, then, the glorying? It was shut out. Through what kind of law? Of the works? No, but through faith’s law. We reckon, therefore, a man to be declared righteous by faith apart from works of law.

Why this question about glorying (καύχησις, the act, καύχημα would be the reason for the act): “Where, since things are thus (οὗν), is there any room for us to glory?” We are told that that is intended for the Jews, they are the ones who loved to boast and to look down on the Gentiles. But in this entire chapter Paul is addressing the Roman Christians. Look at the “we” (“us”) multiplied in v. 5–19 and now followed by another “we” in 28. But if this question is intended for Christians, why is it put to them? Well, not in order to humble them as some think the question was intended to humble the Jews. Where has there been an intimation that Christians may boast and glory?

Paul’s question is put because of what he himself has said about Christians having an advantage, like the Jews (v. 1, 2), by having God’s logia (Word), and because he has now explained what this advantage is, not that we are not sinners like the rest (v. 9–18), but that the Word gives us sin’s realization (v. 20) and the way to true righteousness (v. 21–26)—a tremendous advantage, indeed. This motivates the question; here is an advantage for us that, in spite of its greatness, shuts out all glorying on our part.

“It was shut out!” The aorist expresses the fact, the passive implies God as the agent. “Was shut out” is an aorist in order to match the aorist “set forth” in v. 25, for by setting forth Christ as God did he shut out all our glorying. All the glory and the glorying belong to God and to Christ.

Paul pursues the matter farther by asking by what means (διά) God shut out once for all (aorist) all glorying on our part. “What kind of law” served as the means? Here and in the reply that follows “law”’ is used in the sense of “principle,” one that is acknowledged as such. Of what nature was the principle that God used? Was it one “of the works”? The article does not mean “the well-known” works; in v. 20 we have no article, yet the same works are referred to, and in neither case are only “the well-known Jewish works intended.” This is the so-called generic article and includes the whole genus “works” as οἱἄνθρωποι includes the genus “men.” The absence of the article would mean: anything in the nature of works; the article means: all the specific things that belong under the head of works. The genitive is not objective: “a law (principle) demanding works.” Some accept this interpretation because it is so easy to place beside it: “a law (principle) demanding faith.” But faith is never demanded as works are. The genitives are qualitative: a principle marked and characterized by all the works that are works.

Why this specification? For the reason that anything and everything in the nature of glorying on our part would rest on the category of works; and if God had used a principle of this kind, glorying would not have been shut out. Despite their sins the moralists (2:1–16), also the Jewish moralists (2:17–29) and their following would go on boasting of works of theirs (their false gospel of works). See the entire second chapter. But God absolutely removed all room for even this false boast: οὐχί, “no!” God used no principle that even touched the category of the works. Be they pagan morality and moralism or Jewish obedience to Mosaic laws, God discarded any principle that might recognize them.

There is no need for introducing the good works of Christians, the fruit of their faith, and stating that they belong among “the works” and that they are also to be shut out from justification. True as this is in a general way, these good works follow faith and justification, which is entirely complete before these good works ever appear or are even possible. The discussion of the works of a Christian belongs in another chapter.

“No,” Paul says, “but through faith’s law” (principle). In this way all boasting of ours is shut out at the very source. It cannot even start. Advantage in what Christians have (τὸπερισσόν, something over and above)? Indeed! But one that precludes all glorying in any work, merit, claim of ours, and a wonderful advantage even in this respect. “Of faith” is not the appositional genitive, could not be, because here it is the exact counterpart to “law of the works,” and both genitives are identical. “Of faith” is qualitative like “of the works.” The question is not abstract, it is concrete and is controlled by the context which is here beyond question. “Faith” and “the works” are opposites, the one principle excludes the other.

Here is the place for a remark on Christian good works. James 2:14–26 connects them with faith as its essential fruits, the evidence that faith is not dead. These works justify (James 2:24) and “not faith only” devoid of these works, which is dead in itself and thus only a sham faith. How they justify Jesus states in Matt. 25:34–40, not as a merit but as evidence of faith. The good works, like their root faith, are the opposite of “the works” regarding which Paul here says that they have nothing to do with justification.

Romans 3:28

28 We confess that we waver between the readings οὗν and γάρ. Both have about the same textual attestation, both are of equal force exegetically. The former would mean: “We reckon, therefore, that a man is declared righteous,” etc., and would say that this is the conclusion at which Paul and (as he knows) his readers will arrive as the summary of all that is stated in v. 21–27. The view that such a summary belongs after v. 26 rests on the assumption that it does not include v. 27. Hence this view claims that the summary would include a new point, the works of law, and thus be more than a summary. But “the works” are contained in v. 27, and thus, not merely v. 21–26, but v. 21–27 are summarized in v. 28. So this reading yields a good sense.

But γάρ is equally good. Instead of summarizing it states the proof, of course, only for v. 27: All glorying is shut out by the principle of faith, “for” we are convinced that by faith alone, without works of law, are we declared righteous. Only one point may favor the idea of a summary and thus the reading οὗν, namely the fact that Paul writes λογιζόμεθα, “we reckon” (as he did in 2:3), “we conclude” (A. V.); in a statement of proof, and this with γάρ, “we know” (as in v. 19) would seem better than “we reckon.”

Here we have a perfect summary of the doctrine of justification put into the form of a confession. Paul’s verb “we reckon” is just what our great Confessions mean when they state, “we believe, teach, and confess.” “We reckon” signifies that God has produced this conviction in us. The moralist referred to in 2:3 also reckoned, also was convinced, but he had no Word and revelation, (v. 21) such as Paul and the Christians have. See his false conclusion and compare it with the true one which has always been regarded as a locus classicus for justification by faith.

All that we have said regarding the noun δικαιοσύνη in 1:17 might be repeated here when we consider the verb δικαιοῦσθαι, for this verb expresses the divine act which lies in the noun. The righteousness of God is this very fact that he declares a man righteous by faith without works of law. This status of righteousness originates with God (remember, in “God’s righteousness” the genitive “God’s” indicates origin), in this action of his, this declaring a man righteous as here indicated. As the noun, so the verb is forensic, only forensic. The overwhelming evidence for this in both Testaments and beyond them is presented in C.-K. 317, etc. The forensic sense “to declare righteous” and in the passive “to be declared righteous,” namely by God who acts as the Judge, before his judgment seat, in a verdict pronouncced by him, thereby changing our status and our relation to God, is the heart of the term, to omit which is to alter it.

This doctrine, which is the central one of the entire Bible, with which also the church stands or falls, centers in this word (its derivatives, adjective, noun, its synonyms and antonyms). Hence this word never means “to make righteous,” “to become righteous,” to make or to become upright, and the like.

Δικαιοῦσθαι, as well as δικαιούμενοι in v. 24, are present tenses, the tense regularly used in all doctrinal and general statements. This statement even has ἄνθρωπον, “a man,” a person, no matter who he may be so long as he has faith. The infinitive is passive, “to be declared righteous.” When it is made a middle, “to become righteous,” the heart of the word is lost. Whether πίστει, the dative of means, is placed before or after the infinitive makes no difference, for its emphasis is assured by the contrast with the phrase “apart from works of law” (χωρίς as in v. 21). In v. 22 and 25 Paul has δία, here the simple dative; the preposition indicates the medium as the dative indicates the means so that the sense is the same. In his judicial verdict of acquittal God is influenced by faith, faith alone and not by faith apart from works of law. And faith includes Christ even as twice before, in v. 22 and 26, he is mentioned as the object.

Here in this summary Paul condenses as much as possible. No man trusts unless he trusts in somebody or in something. Whenever faith is named, what it rests on is thereby also named. And the whole value of faith lies in its object or basis. The mightiest faith that trusts an insolvent bank loses its money. All crooks want to be trusted as though they were honest, but no one who trusts them escapes their crookedness. Yet some men still advocate that it makes no difference what we believe (trust in). This passage stresses the truth that “faith” is so adequate before God because it embraces Christ whom God himself has made our mercy seat (to be effective) through faith, v. 25.

So also “grace” and gratuitousness are here included as they are mentioned in v. 24. They are included in the very act of God, the act of pronouncing righteous. Since all “works of law” are disregarded in that act, what is left in it save grace alone? Although Paul condenses as much as possible he finds it necessary to insert the phrase (and without a connective): “apart from works of law.” This recalls v. 20: “no flesh will (ever) be declared righteous as a result of works of law” (ἐκ). This fuller statement is condensed in the positive summary now made by saying how justification is declared, it is “apart from works of law,” all of which and none of which help to justify. The phrase sums up also v. 27, that the principle of “the works” is once for all shut out.

Anything and everything in the nature of “works of law” is barred out as being in any way concerned in God’s act when he declares any persons whatever righteous, be they Jewish or pagan; this is the force of the absence of the articles just as in v. 20. All human merit is excluded. The folly of all legalism and of all moralism is once more exposed.

Since all “works of law” are barred out, “faith” alone is left. Luther so translated, and since his time Sola Fide has become a slogan. Romanism helped to make it that by violently attacking this translation of Luther’s. Luther himself most ably defended his translation. “Alone” is not found in the Greek text and yet is there. The vocable is not there, the sense is. If faith alone is not the sense, what else goes with it? Anything else that has ever been or can be named belongs in the category of “works of law,” the very thing which Paul shuts out here and everywhere. Thus faith alone is left, and Paul himself places it in this lone position.

Rome does far worse than to attack this little sola. It perverts the idea of faith. When it is analyzed, faith is composed of knowledge, assent, and confidence (fiducia), and confidence is chief. Rome cancels knowledge and confidence and leaves only assent, and that only formal assent, not assent to what one knows of Christ and the Word but a blanket assent to whatever Rome may say regarding Christ and the Word. Such assent is enough even if one never gets to know to what one really assents. This has been aptly called Koehlerglaube.*

No wonder Rome fights “faith alone.” A faith that is mere assent “alone” is not enough. This is the Roman fides informata. In order to procure justification it must become fides formata. What gives to blind assent its forma? Not knowledge and confidence but charitas, love, meaning good works. Man is justified by assent that is completed by good works (those prescribed by Rome).

How many good works of this kind? God alone knows. Hence I can never be certain that I am really justified. The whole thing is a process. The more God infuses his grace into me in order to fill me with charitas, the more I may hope for justification. In other words, the more God makes me righteous (in this Romish way), the more he may accept me as being so.

No wonder we hold to the forensic sense of the verb and insist that the force of πίστει is “by faith alone.”

Rome’s error is protean. It merely changes words and terms and then appears in those quarters where Rome itself is violently repudiated. Rome’s assent-faith takes this form: “It makes little or no difference what one believes.” Rome’s charitas, which fills out the blind assent with substance, is put into this form: “Just so one does right.” And this “right” that one must do is now formulated with the same authority which Rome herself uses. And this is called “the gospel,” the real gospel; and this camouflaged Romanism resounds from many pulpits that are not labeled Roman.

As to Luther’s little word “alone” it may be of interest to know that it antedates Luther and is in this sense Roman. Origen has it in our passage, Ambrosiaster in 3:24, Victorinus rhetor and even Pelagius have it (Zahn). In addition to these ancients it is also found in the Italian translations of Genua, 1476, and of Venice, 1538: per la sala fede; the Catholic Nuremberg Bible, 1483: nur durch den Glauben (also in Gal. 2:16 where Luther does not have it); and Erasmus writes in defense of the word in his Liber concionandi III: Vox sola tot clamoribus lapidata hoc seculo in Luthero reverenter in patribus auditur. Stoned with so many clamors in this age in the case of Luther, it is reverently listened to in the case of the (ancient) fathers. Stoeckhardt, Roemer, 165.

Romans 3:29

29 Paul has said: “a man” is declared righteous, ἄνθρωπον. His readers must not miss what this really implies, namely that, as far as justification is concerned, no national restriction applies. Or is he only the God of the Jews, not also of Gentiles? Yes, also of Gentiles if, indeed, God is one—he who will declare righteous circumcision as the result of faith and foreskin through that faith. Are we, then, abolishing law through this faith? Perish the thought! On the contrary, we are establishing law.

Paul begins a sentence with the rhetorical “or”: “Or,” if anyone should for a moment doubt what I have said regarding “a man’s” being declared righteous by faith alone, apart from all law whatsoever. Has Paul anyone in particular in mind, say Jews or Judaizers? He is not dealing with such opponents. He is speaking to the Roman Christians who most heartily agree with his teaching. He is answering thoughts that may occur to any of them regarding what they accept, in fact, thoughts that have occurred to Paul’s own mind and that he has already answered as far as he himself is concerned.

Questions and answers are brief, for no elaboration is needed. That makes them lively, a feature of style that Paul likes. But by at once asking whether God is only the God of Jews and not also of Gentiles he harks back to v. 1, 2 where he said that the Jews do have a great advantage. That is the very point that may suggest a difficulty for Christians as regards Jews and Gentiles in the matter of justification: Would that advantage not appear in justification? We have already seen what the Jewish (and the Christian) advantage really is, see v. 21, etc. The very form of Paul’s double question which asks regarding God’s relation to Jews and Gentiles (no article with either) already contains the answer. Succinctly Paul states it: “Yes, also of Gentiles.” But with surprising simplicity he adds: “If, indeed, God is one!” In εἴπερ the πέρ has the note of urgency (R. 1154), but there is not an ellipsis, save that the apodosis is omitted (R. 1025).

“If, indeed,” means that no one will think of questioning this absolutely fundamental fact that God is one. Who created the Gentiles? The same God who created the Jews. To whom do they belong? To the same God to whom the Jews belong. Here there is a use of Deut. 6:4: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord!” that is as arresting as the use Jesus made of Exod. 3:6 in Matt. 22:32: “I am the God of Abraham,” etc. God’s very name proves the resurrection, for he is the God of the living and not of a lot of dead people; God’s very oneness makes Gentiles his as much as Jews. That is the foundation, the premise.

Romans 3:30

30 Now the structure, the conclusio. We might word it: “Therefore he will justify,” etc. Paul uses a simple relative, but one of these Greek demonstrative relatives we have noted in 2:29 and 3:8: “he the very one who,” etc. He, this God who is one, the same for Jews and for Gentiles, this righteous and just God cannot have two ways of declaring men righteous, one for Jews, a different one for Gentiles, he can have and does have only one way, that of faith. Paul asserts, “He will declare righteous” Jew and Gentile equally by faith and by faith alone. The future is not in opposition to the present tense used in v. 28: “will declare” = at any time that one believes just as a man “is declared” at any time when he believes.

Here the omission of the articles is vital to the sense. “He will declare righteous circumcision … and foreskin,” etc.; to say “the circumcision, the foreskin,” would include all of both; the omission of the articles means, whatever part of either is to be considered. Beautifully Paul uses the two abstract terms, which are not only opposites but bring out the very point of which the Jews always boasted over against Gentiles. They counted on their circumcision as being decisive with God in his hour of judgment. Of course, they counted also on more, but all else went together with this great covenant mark, was really part of it. Gentiles lacked all this, hence the Jews thought that Gentiles would first have to become Jews in order to be acquitted in God’s judgment otherwise they would be hopelessly damned. But God will make (makes) no such distinction (v. 23; 11:32); he will treat both alike Any supposed advantage at the time of God’s judgment is nonexistent.

But why does Paul change the prepositions: God will declare circumcision righteous ἐκπίστεως, foreskin διὰτῆςπίστεως? This change is not merely literary, verbal, a matter of style. Nor can one be satisfied with the thought that, whatever preposition is used, faith remains the medium ληπτικόν. The first thing to be noted is that the faith is the same in both phrases, for in the second the article is resumptive, “that faith” just mentioned in the first phrase. We have the same resumptive article in the phrase occurring in v. 31. Now ἐκ views this faith as the source (origin, cause), and διά views it as the means.

That is a difference that no careful reader erases. But source does not intend to deny means, nor means to deny source. Although they are not the same, either could be used with reference to either Jews or Gentiles. But here a plain propriety uses ἐκ with reference to Jews and διά with reference to Gentiles. We see to what point Paul carries exactness in thought and in expression. The Jews thought that they had a source from which God’s acquittal would come to them; it was a false source, with ἐκ Paul points to the true one.

The Gentiles had no supposed source, so Paul speaks only of means regarding them. Some seem to fear to speak of ἐκ and source, for they think that it makes too much of faith; God’s declaration, they think, cannot rise out of faith. Their conception of faith is inadequate. It is both source and means because its contents are Christ and his blood. see 1:17.

Romans 3:31

31 But if faith is the only source and the only medium of God’s act of justifying does it not, by ruling out all “works of law,” then abolish “law,” anything and everything in the nature of law? Is that what we are doing, Paul and we Romans? The very question suggests that “we” could not and would not do such a thing. Καταργέω (see v. 3) means to render ineffective and thus to abolish. After its effect has been removed, law, whether of the Mosaic or of any other type, might as well be thrown aside altogether (antinomism).

“Perish the thought!” Paul exclaims (see v. 4). The very idea is intolerable. “Abolish law?” “On the contrary (we are doing the very opposite), we are establishing law,” upholding, supporting law. The verb used is not “giving” or “setting up” law (δίδωμι, τίθημι) but maintaining whatever law has already been properly given and set up (ἱστῶμεν, an -άνω verb; some texts have ἱστάνομεν). “Law” is again generic and includes Jewish as well as pagan law and also the fact that pagans are “law” for themselves (2:14). Our teaching that faith is the only source and means of justification, Paul says, upholds all law.

Both of the misgivings stated in these last two verses are not of a serious nature; the brief answers suffice. In other connections Paul treats these matters more at length. Yet some ask further regarding this matter of law: “Just how does our Christian teaching regarding faith support law?” They usually answer: “Faith itself requires law, for it brings forth the new life that delights to run the way of God’s commandments” (Ps. 119:32). Then Luther is quoted: “Faith fulfills all laws; works fulfill not a tittle of the law.” But when this is said to be the whole of faith’s support of law, when the law’s function of producing the realization of sin (3:20) is ruled out, we cannot agree. It, too, receives the support of “this faith” teaching. Without law and the realization of sin faith itself would be impossible in the first place; and after we come to have faith, it remains only when by means of the law we daily see our sins, daily repent, daily cry for pardon. Rom. 7:7–25 is Paul’s own full exposition of this subject.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Aufiage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

• In his Roemer, 180, Zahn corrects Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 331, etc., regarding the inscriptions and the Hellenist and Hellenistic parallels (pagan) to terms used by Paul, who lived in the Old Testament and not in pagan literature.

• The story is told that a collier was asked what he believed. He replied: “What the church believes.” Asked what it is that the church believes, he did not know, was perfectly satisfied not to know, and replied: “I do not know but nevertheless believe what the church believes.”