Bible Commentaries
Romans 3

Verses 1-31

III 1-2. A Fourth Objection— If the Law and Circumcision cannot save Israel what then remains of Israel’s so highly-praised privileges? Paul’s reply begins as if he intended to answer with a long description of Israel’s privileged position as in 9:4. In fact, however, he does not get beyond the first. point, that she has been entrusted with the Scriptures. 2. ’The words of God’: can mean (1) the whole OT; (2) the Messianic promises in the OT, because Of v 3.

3-4 A Fifth Objection— What is the use of the Scriptures, since accordins to Paul’s own argument God is no longer bound to his promises after Israel has broken the covenant by unfaithfulness to her obligations? Paul answers as in 2 Timothy 2:13 ’even if we are unfaithful (= untrue to our trust) God remains faithful (= true to his promises) for he cannot disown himself’, cf. also Romans 9:6; Jar 31 (38 LXX):32. True as it is that God’s relation to his people is a bilateral covenant, yet this is not all. God’s truthfulness and faithfulness to himself are above any changes which man may introduce. Man’s untruthfulness and unfaithfulness only serve to bring out the opposite attributes of God all the more clearly.

3. ’If some have "not believed", will their "unbelief" not render ineffective the faithfulness of God?’ The words in double inverted commas have been understood (1) of Israel’s ’unbelief’ in Jesus of Nazareth as the Messias; (2) of Israel’s ’unfaithfulness’ to the covenant of Sinai referred to in 2:11-24, 25-29. The second explanation is recomended by the contrast with God’s ’faithfulness’ in the context and by the same thought in 2 Timothy 2:13. But see SH and Lagrange. 848f

5-8 A Sixth Objection— If our unjustness (= sinfulness) serves to make God’s justness (= justice) stand out the more clearly, why are we still threatened with his wrath, and urged to seek justification? Is God not unjust in punishing such sinfulness? Paul’s reply in 6-8 is difficult to follow. It seems to consist of three points, each meant to lead the objector ad absurdum. (1) According to such reasoning God could not judge the world at all, and yet we know that he will judge everyone, and that his judgements will be true, cf. 2:2, 6-8; Psalms 118:137, Psalms 118:142; Job 34:10-12, etc. (2) According to such reasoning the Jews could not condemn me (Paul) as a sinner = an apostate, but should rather acquiesce in my apostasy as a means of manifesting and glorifying God’s truth in the possession of Israel. Yet the objector, being a Jew, must know very well how harshly Paul is judged by his former coreligionists, 7. So Jülicher. (3) According to such reasoning it would be right to teach as some maintain that I (Paul) do: ’let us do evil that good may come’. Yet, such a doctrine is evidently abhorred by all, 8. 7 is taken by most commentators as a further objection, in which case it is but a weakened repetition of v 5. 8. ’Let us do evil that good may come’: is a malicious misinterpretation of St Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith and not by works, cf. 6:1, 15.

9-20 Concluding Statement of Israel’s Need for the Salvation of the Gospel— The Apostle returns from the various digressions in 2:3-3:8 to the principal question of 2:1-2, is he who claims exemption from the charge of idolatry and immorality in 1:18-32 (esp. Israel) entitled to regard himself as ’just’ before God, or in such a privileged position that he does not need the Christian justification? St Paul’s concluding answer is an uncompromising No. The Jews as well as the Greeks, i.e. Israel, the Chosen People (= the Church of old), as well as the pagan world, all are in the bondage of sin, as the Scriptures prove. The Apostle’s proof from the Scriptures in 10-18 is a free combination of the following texts from the LXX: Romans 3:10-12 = Psalms 13:1-3 = Psalms 52:2-4; Romans 3:13a-b = Psalms 5:10; Romans 3:13c = Psalms 139:4; Romans 3:14 = Psalms 9:28; Romans 3:15-17 = Isaiah 59:7 f.; Romans 3:18 = Psalms 35:2.9. p??e?óµe?a = ’Do we excel them’ = have we Israelites then still any advantage over the Gentiles? According to this translation the Greek middle is here used for the active, cf. Lagrange, Boylan. If the Greek form is taken as passive, the translation is ’are we excelled’ = are we Israelites then in a worse position than the Gentiles? So SH and WV. ’No, not so’ = (1) not altogether, (2) not at all. In either case, Paul does not deny that Israel has privileges, but she has none as regards the need for the salvation of the Gospel which is the point here under discussion. 20. Law convinces man of sin (cf. 7:7-12) but does not produce justness or salvation, cf.John 1:17.

Application of 1:18-III:20—St Paul’s argument for the universal need of the salvation revealed in the Gospel is still practical and convincing. For laws are still insufficient to make men saints, no matter whether we consider the laws of conscience, or the laws of the various systems of moral philosophy, or the laws of Christian moral theology. All these systems agree in showing the ideal more or less clearly, but they do not produce the longed-for justness—righteousness—salvation, because in practice no one lives in complete accordance with all these laws. ’If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us’, 1 John 1:8. Because of sin men needed the salvation of the Gospel in the days of St Paul, and because of sin they still need it today. The need for that salvation is the result not of religious speculations but of hard realities.

III 21-IV 25 The Way to the Salvation of the Gospel — In this second part of the dogmatic section of his letter Paul sets out to describe the means by which the salvation of the Gospel is obtained. The logical connexion with the previous discussion, proving man’s need for it, is self-evident. The two sections belong together as man’s need and God’s answer. At the same time it is easy to notice a gap in the argument. Between man’s need for salvation and the way to the salvation of the Gospel one expects a discussion on the nature of this salvation. According to the dogmatic textbooks of today such a discussion would have to deal first with Christ’s work of redemption, then with the negative side of salvation = justification = remission of sins, and finally with its positive side = sanctification = infusion of sanctifying grace. St Paul in his exposition of the way to salvation, 3:21-4:25, and of the effects of salvation, 5:14:39, does cover the ground of such a modern discussion on the nature of Christian salvation, but in a way that is not systematic according to our standards; cf. Prat I 171; II 250-53; textbooks of dogma, treatises on Christ’s work of Redemption and on Sanctifying Grace, e.g. Tanquerey II 749-84; III 34-102. 849a

Plan.—According to the most common opinion 3:21-4:25 can be subdivided as follows: (1) 3:21-30 the way to the Christian salvation is faith in Christ; (2) 3:31-4:25 the Scriptural evidence in favour of this doctrine. Another arrangement is: (1) 3:21-26 the way to the Christian salvation; (2) 3:27-31 some practical conclusions; (3) 4:1-25 the case of Abraham as proof from Scripture for the Christian doctrine of salvation by faith.

21-26 The Way to the Christian Salvation is Justification by Faith in Christ— In a picture which is very different from that in 1:18-3:20 St Paul here gives a summary description of the new salvation which he is reaching and defending. Unfortunately for us, the description is so brief, compact and sententious that it becomes difficult to understand. The negative picture in 1:18-3:20 is much fuller and easier to analyse. The outstanding importance of the passage, however, is generally recognized. It has been called ’one of the key passages’ of Paul’s epistles, ’the epitome and mother idea of Paul’s theology’, cf. Prat I 205. The characteristics of the Christian salvation singled out in this description by St Paul are: (1) it is a justification which does not come by way of any law, 21; (2) it is obtained by faith in Christ, 22a; (3) hence it is open to all, without distinction, 22b, 23; (4) it has its ultimate origin in the propitiatory death of Christ, 24-26. See the similar description in 1:16 f.; and the detailed analysis in Prat I 204-6.

21. ’A justice (justness) of God without law’ = independent of, apart from all existing law or legal systems. The law in its various forms (be it conscience, or moral philosophy, or OT Scriptures) offers salvation to all who abide by this law and keep it in every point. From this system of justification the salvation of the Gospel must be clearly distinguished. They are worlds apart. Man’s failure in the one is God’s opportunity in the other. Another possible explanation translates Law as Mosaic Law, e.g. WV, Boylan. 22. ’A justice (justness) of God through faith in Jesus Christ’: the justness which the Gospel promises is obtained by way of faith in Jesus Christ. The law-fulness of the former system of salvation has been replaced by faith-fulness; cf. Council of Trent, sess VI cap 8 (Dz 801), quoted § 846d. On the suitability of faith for playing such an important part in the process of salvation see Prat I 172 f.; Gifford 89. 23. ’All . . . have fallen short of the glory of God’ = the perfection of God, cf. 1:23 = the justice of God. In this context it is evidently the justice of God as it was meant to be shared by men, therefore = justness = sanctifying grace; cf. C. Lattey, WV III245. Others explain dó?a (= glory) here as high opinion, honour, praise, favour from God, which leads to the same idea. All have sinned and thereby lost God’s good opinion of them = his favour = his grace. Cornely understands it of eternal life as in 2:7; 8:18, 21.

24-45. ’Justified freely by his grace through the redemption . . . in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set up as a propitiation . . . in his own blood’: the Christian justification derives its existence ultimately from the propitiatory death of Christ, which the Council of Trent, sess VI cap 7-8 (Dz 799, 801) called ’the meritorious cause of our justification’. That this central thesis of all Christian doctrine of salvation— justification—sanctification (soteriology) is clearly expressed in our passage is beyond any doubt, and the differences of opinion which exist on the exact meaning of this or that term here employed by St Paul should not be allowed to obscure this fundamental doctrine of the passage; cf. Prat II 181, 184; I 380-4; SH 91-4, note after 3:26. For a dogmatic treatment see textbooks of dogma, Christology; e.g. Tanquerey II 731-8 (736!); 750-4; 776-80. Commentators differ mainly in the explanation of ’redemption’, 24, and ’propitiation’, 25. 24. ?p???t??s?? = redemption. Does this term imply the idea of a ransom being paid, the ransom being the blood of Christ? This question cannot be decided for certain. The word ?p???t??s??, redemption, taken by itself, need not carry the idea of a ransom. For LXX uses it for the ’deliverance’ from Egypt; and the NT uses it in the same general sense of ’deliverance’ six times out of ten: Luke 21:28; Romans 8:23; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Ephesians 1:14; Ephesians 4:30; Hebrews 11:35, On the other hand it has the meaning of ’ransom’ in Colossians 1:14; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:15. To these references we must add the passages in the NT in which the idea is clearly expressed that the Christians have been ’bought for a price’, 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Corinthians 7:23; Galatians 3:13; 2 Peter 2:1; Apoc 5:9; cf. also Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 1:18 f.; Prat II 181. The last two groups of texts provide strong evidence in favour of the idea of a ransom being implied also in Rom 3, 24 f. 25. ??ast????? = propitiation. There can be no doubt that this term describes our Lord’s death as propitiation = expiation of our sins. But does it define our Lord’s death as a propitiatory sacrifice? The doctrine that Christ’s death was a sacrifice for men’s sins = a propitiatory sacrifice, follows clearly from such texts as Matthew 26:28 and parallels; 1 Corinthians 11:24 f.; 15:3; Ephesians 1:7; 5:2; Colossians 1:20; Hebrews 10:12-14; 1 Peter 1:18 f.; 3:18, etc. The question whether this doctrine is also expressed in Romans 3:25 must be left open. For the word ??ast????? (= propitiation) taken by itself cannot be shown to have had the meaning ’propitiatory sacrifice’. According to etymology it signifies ’something connected with reconciliation, propitiation or expiation’. LXX uses it 25 times for the lid of the Ark of the Covenant’ = the mercy-seat or propitiatory; cf.Exodus 25:17. So also Hebrews 9:5. The only other text in the NT where it occurs is here, where its exact meaning is consequently largely a matter of conjecture. The main explanations that have been put forward are: (1) a means of propitiation = a propitiatory = a mercy-seat; (2) a propitiator (taking the adjective as masculine which is possible in the Greek); (3) a propitiatory sacrifice. The last of these explanations is favoured in our context by the phrase ’in his own blood’, 25. Cf. Prat I 429 f.; II 180-8; SH 91-4.

25-26. The structure of this sentence is: God set up Jesus Christ as a propitiation . . . 25a: (1) with the intention of showing his justice, 25b; (2) the reason being his having passed by the sins of the past in patience, 25c, 26a; (3) with the intention of showing his justice in the present time, 26b; (4) with the intention that he may be found just himself and justifying those who believe in Jesus, 26c. Nr 1.3.4 form a clear and continuous line of thought. But how are we to fit in nr 2? It is evidently closely connected with nr 1 and at the same time there is a contrast with nr 3. Accordingly there are two explanations. (1) If the connexion with nr 1 is stressed then it seems inserted to explain why God manifested his justice with such severity in the death of Christ, 25a, 26c. The Apostle warns against interpreting God’s forbearance with man’s sins in the past as a proof that God’s punitive justice had fallen into abeyance for ever. The cross is the true measure of the rigour of God’s justice in punishing sin. (2) If the contrast between nr 2 and nr 3 is stressed, i.e. the contrast between past and present, then nr 2 seems intended to show that God in the past merely passed by sin but did not justify = sanctify = save the sinner, as he has decided to do in the present time. The choice between these two possibilities depends on the interpretation given to ’the justice of God’ in this paragraph; cf. note on. 25b.25b = 26b. ’For the shewing of his justice’; WV translates in both cases ’the justness of God’ his communicated justice, as in 3:21. This explanation has the advantage of consistency and simplicity. It does away with the necessity of remembering the distinction between justice of God as it is in God and as it is in man; and it concentrates on the main idea of the whole section 3:21-4:25 which is man’s justification according to the Gospel. From the practical point of view, therefore, this explanation is certainly the easiest to follow. But it must be admitted that this is not the only possible explanation. In view of the respective contexts many commentators maintain that Paul’s usage of the term ’justice of God’ is not consistent in this paragraph. The different meanings are (1) = God’s justice in man = communicated justice = justness, in 21; (2) = justice in God, in 25; and that with the emphasis on the special meaning of justice as punitive justice, the reference being to God’s punitive justice as revealed in the terrible death of Christ for man’s sins; (3) = the justice in God, in 26; but with the emphasis on the general meaning of justice = the whole moral perfection of God, as revealed in Christ’s propitiation and in the justification of man. See Rickaby, Boylan. 25c, 26a. ’For the remission of former sins. Through the forbearance of God’, DV = ’because of God passing by former sins in his patience’, so according to the best editions of the Greek text, p??es?? meaning praeter-mission rather than re-mission. There are two explanations of the idea here expressed. (a) In the past God only passed by man’s sins in his patience (cf.Acts 14:15) but there was no real justification of man, as this was reserved for the present time. Such must be the thought if the justice of God in 25b is =justness. (b) God showed his justice so severely in the death of Christ, 25ab, because of his having apparently overlooked man’s sins in the past by showing patience. To avoid this patience being misinterpreted as indifference to sin on God’s part is one purpose of the terrible death of Christ for man’s sins. This must be the idea if the justice of God in 25b is the punitive justice of God. 26b. ’That he may be found just himself and justifying him who believes in Jesus’: this text makes it very clear that St Paul uses the one term ’justice of God’ in two different meanings: (1) the justice of God as God’s attribute; and (2) the justice of God as communicated and imparted to us.

27-31 Three Practical Conclusions from the Christian Doctrine of Justification by Faith— These verses throw further light on the way to salvation by means of three conclusions from its previous description in 21-26. (1) The Christian doctrine of justification by faith excludes all that boastful self-sufficiency and selfcomplacency which the various claims to superiority in law and lawfulness had spread and always will spread among men. In the Christian doctrine of salvation, law and lawfulness have been dethroned from the first place in the process of man’s salvation, and their place of honour has been given to faith in Jesus Christ, 27 f. (2) The Christian doctrine of justification by faith supersedes the old distinction between Israelites and Gentiles based on circumcision. All attempts to retain that distinction in the question of salvation are in vain. For faith in Jesus Christ cannot be made dependent on circumcision or descent from Abraham. And it is this faith which is henceforward the one only condition for salvation required on the part of man, 29 f. (3) The Christian doctrine of justification by faith is in complete agreement with the Scriptures = the Law of Moses = the Pentateuch, 31. The proof of this follows in ch 4.

28. ’Justified by faith without works of a law’: Christian justification is obtained by faith; no one can earn it by works according to this or that system of law, whatever the name or character of that law may be: be it the law of Israel, or the law of the Gentiles; be it natural, moral or ceremonial law; cf. 3:20-22; Dz 801, 1793; Prat I 180 f. Already Origen uttered a warning against the false conclusion that according to this verse works after justification are of no account. To draw such a conclusion would be to overlook two important points: (1) Paul is here concerned not with the Christian life after justification, but with the way of obtaining justification. ’Initial justification’ = the beginning of justification, is his point. (2) When Paul does speak of the life after justification has been obtained he leaves no doubt that works are necessary to retain the justification obtained by faith. The evidence is to be found in his many exhortations, e.g.Rom 12-14. Among the more popular references to the same effect are Matthew 25:34 ff.; 1 Corinthians 3:8; 2 Corinthians 11:15; Galatians 5:6; James 2:14, James 2:17, James 2:24-26. But St Paul would call these works ’works of faith’ and not ’works of law’. Thus there is no contradiction. Faith leads to virtue, but virtue need not lead to faith (St Gregory the Great, Hom. 19 in Ez, cf. Estius). The necessity and meritorious character of good works after justification had to be defended by the Council of Trent, sess VI cap 7, 10; Dz 800, 803, 834, 842.

Another conclusion from 28 that had to be rejected by the Council of Trent is, that before justification only faith is necessary as a preparation and no other works. To prove such a conclusion it would be necessary to show that Paul considered here not only the immediate preparation for justification which is admittedly faith, but also the possibilities of a more remote preparation and deliberately excluded any such steps before the decisive act of faith. Such a proof is impossible and other texts show that we must leave room for such a more remote preparation. The Council of Trent, sess VI cap 6 (Dz 798, 819), mentions: fear of God’s punishment of sin, Ecclus 1:28; Hebrews 11:6; hope of is forgiveness for Christ’s sake, Matthew 9:2; Mark 2:5; love of God = hatred of sin, 1 John 3:14; repentance, Luke 13:3; Acts 3:19; the resolution to receive the Sacrament of baptism and to keep the commandments, Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38; cf. Tanquerey III 54-8, esp. nr 54.

Verse 28 has also become famous through Luther’s translation ’by faith alone’ = sola fide. The adjective ’alone’ was not in the text from which Luther translated, since no MS or edition has it. He may have added it for the purpose of bringing out the sense of the passage more clearly. In fact, however, the addition has led to the false conclusion that—faith excepted—all other works both before and after justification are of no account according to St Paul’s doctrine of salvation. This so-called sola-fides doctrine was rejected by the Council of Trent, Dz 819, 798, 803 f. 30. ’by faith . . . through faith’: stylistic variation seems to be the most natural explanation of the difference in the preposition; so Boylan, differently SH.