Lessons # 115 and 116
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are +
+ comments given in the actual delivery not in the note. +
+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version, +
+ CEB = Common English Bible, ESV= English Standard Version, +
+ GW = God’s Word, ISV = International Standard Version, +
+ NAB=New American Bible, NASB= New American Standard Bible, +
+ NEB= New English Bible, NET = New English Translation, +
+ NLT = New Living Translations NJB = New Jerusalem Bible, +
+ NJV = New Jewish Bible, TEV = Today’s English Version. +
+AMP = Amplified Bible, UBS = United Bible Society +
+ HCSB = Holman Christian Standard Bible +
+ 3. Notes have not been edited for grammatical errors. +
+ 4. Text is based on 1984 edition of the NIV +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justification excludes boasting (Romans 3:27-31)
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Let me refresh your mind that we have been considering the subject of revealed righteousness of God Apostle Paul discoursed in Romans 3:21-31. We indicated that this section may be studied by recognizing that there are three major declarations of the apostle in it. The first declaration concerned the fact of revealed righteousness with other facts and reasons for the revealed righteousness given in verses 21 to 24. The second is the apostle’s declaration that God set forth Christ as our expiation/propitiation in verses 25 and 26. The third declaration given in Romans 3:27-31 is that revealed righteousness or justification by faith excludes any form of boasting as he makes his conclusion based on the facts he marshalled out in the section. Additionally, we stated that to help understand this section that deals with revealed righteousness, it is necessary for us to focus on each of the three major declarations of the apostle so that we may harness the message contained in the various declarations of the apostle in passage of Romans 3:21-31. We have studied the first that consists of verses 21 to 24. Its message is that God’s revealed righteousness that is independent of the law and obtained through faith in Christ, is necessary because all humans do not meet God’s approval. Also, we have considered the second declaration given in verses 25 and 26. Its message is that Christ is our expiation/propitiation through His death on the cross so that God maintains His character as He justifies us. So, this morning we continue with the third declaration of the apostle in Romans 3:27-31.
The third declaration of the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:27-31, as we have stated, is that revealed righteousness or justification by faith excludes any form of boasting as he makes his conclusion based on the facts he marshalled out in the section. The facts the apostle considered in this subsection are derived from five or six rhetorical questions he posed in it that we are about to consider as will become clearer as we proceed. These facts that are derived from the apostle’s questions are indeed reasons boasting is excluded with regard to justification that comes from God. Consequently, the message we believe the Holy Spirit wants you to hear from this subsection of Romans 3:27-31 is that Justification by faith in Christ excludes boasting since Jews and Gentiles are justified in the same way. It is this message that we will expound as we examine the section before us.
The apostle continued this subsection that we are about to consider by referencing what he stated in the previous verse. We say this because of the first rhetorical question of the apostle in Romans 3:27 Where, then, is boasting? The word “then” is our indicator that the apostle had in mind what he stated in Romans 3:21-26, especially in verse 26. You see, the word “then” is translated from a Greek particle (oun) that is used in two general ways. It may be used as a marker of continuation of a narrative so that it may be translated “then, so, now.” It may also be used as a marker of inference, denoting that what it introduces is the result of or an inference from what precedes in which case it may be translated “therefore, then.” It is in this second usage with the meaning “then” that the word is used in our verse to indicate that it is used to add a question suggested by what was said previously. In the last verse (Romans 3:26), the apostle conveyed that those who believe in Jesus Christ are justified. In effect, that it is faith in Jesus Christ that leads to a person being justified. Since this is the case, the apostle conveyed that there is no room for boasting in the question Where, then, is boasting?
The word “boasting” is translated from a Greek noun (kauchēsis) that may mean “boasting,” that is, the act of taking pride in something as Apostle Paul used it to convey to the Corinthians what no one could keep him from doing, that is, his speaking of preaching the gospel to them free of charge as we read in 2 Corinthians 11:10:
As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine.
The word can refer to that which constitutes a source of pride and so means “reason to boast, object of boasting” as it is used by Apostle Paul to write of the lifestyle of his and his team in 2 Corinthians 1:12:
Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God’s grace.
In our passage of Romans 3:27, the word has the sense of “boasting,” that is, “the act of publicly (and ostentatiously) displaying or proclaiming a satisfied contentment with one’s own or another’s achievements.” Because boasting is an important concept regarding believers’ conduct on this planet, I'll try to review what we have studied in the past about this concept once we encounter it.
Boasting can be right or wrong depending on the object or reason for it. Boasting that is wrong is one that is self-centered so that God is left out or robbed of His glory and so a human claims credit for what God has done. Apostle Paul mentioned this kind of wrong boasting as that which characterized his opponents who wanted to boast about the number of people, they got to become circumcised, as we read in Galatians 6:13:
Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh.
As we indicated, when God is left out in any kind of boasting, it is wrong, as conveyed in James 4:16:
As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil.
In the context of James, the boasting that is evil is any kind of assertion about the future that is devoid of the recognition that God controls the future as should be indicated by prefacing such assertion by saying if God wills or permits or by the thought that a person’s plan is wholly in God’s hand.
The right kind of boasting is one that is centered on God or what He did or does through others or directly. Thus, we have examples of the right kind of boasting in the Scripture. Apostle Paul indicates that his boasting is in what Christ did on the cross hence, his assertion of wanting to boast about the cross of Christ in Galatians 6:14:
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
It is not only the cross of Christ that led the apostle to boast but also the impact of the cross in the spiritual lives of believers. Therefore, the apostle boasted about those who excel in their spiritual life, as he did to Titus regarding the Corinthians, according to 2 Corinthians 7:14:
I had boasted to him about you, and you have not embarrassed me. But just as everything we said to you was true, so our boasting about you to Titus has proved to be true as well.
He did the same thing in praising the Corinthians to the Macedonians concerning their generosity, as we read in 2 Corinthians 9:2:
For I know your eagerness to help, and I have been boasting about it to the Macedonians, telling them that since last year you in Achaia were ready to give; and your enthusiasm has stirred most of them to action.
The apostle also boasted concerning an aspect of the spiritual life of the Thessalonians, as we read in 2 Thessalonians 1:4:
Therefore, among God’s churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring.
Anyway, we should be careful about boasting that is self-centered. The apostle was careful of this that when he boasted of the revelations he had received from the Lord, he used the third person, as in 2 Corinthians 12:5:
I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.
The “man” the apostle meant is himself. It is because he was cautious regarding boasting about self that he used the third person in his boasting of the visions he received from the Lord. A reason we should be careful not to boast about self is so that others do not overrate us, so to say, as the apostle stated in 2 Corinthians 12:6:
Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say.
Boasting about self or self-achievement is an indicator that a person does not understand that there is nothing that the individual achieved or attained were it not for the grace of God, as indicated in 1 Corinthians 4:7:
For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?
It is important we be conscious that whatever we have by way of blessing is from God, as the Holy Spirit taught us through Apostle John in John 3:27:
To this John replied, “A man can receive only what is given him from heaven.
The word “heaven” here is a reference to God. Consequently, it is important we constantly remind ourselves that everything we receive is from God. Boasting that is correct should be related to spiritual matters. This is the implication of boasting about knowing God that the Holy Spirit spoke through Prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 9:24:
but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the LORD.
In any case, the apostle’s first rhetorical question in Romans 3:27 Where, then, is boasting? should be understood to mean that the apostle meant to convey that because a person is justified by faith in Christ, no human has any right to boast about being justified or receiving the righteousness of God by the keeping of the law. It is probably the case that in posing this rhetorical question, the apostle had also in mind the Jews who prided themselves of being in good standing with God by keeping of the Mosaic law and so his point is that since no one can obtain righteousness of God through the law, the Jews who think otherwise should not boast of being in good standing with God because they keep the law. Of course, those who have been justified by faith in Christ should also not boast as if they attained such position by anything in them.
In any case, the apostle’s rhetorical question implies that there is no basis for anyone who has indeed been justified by God to boast. Thus, he immediately answered the rhetorical question with the statement of Romans 3:27 It is excluded. The word “excluded” is translated from a Greek verb (ekkleiō) that appears only twice in the Greek NT. In its other appearance, it means “to shut out, exclude,” that is, to “to exclude or withdraw from fellowship” as Apostle Paul used it to describe to the Galatians what his opponents want to do to his association with them in Galatians 4:17:
Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them.
In our passage of Romans 3:27, the word means “to exclude” in the sense of “not allow.” Hence, the apostle states that boasting is not allowed. The apostle used what is known as an aorist tense in the Greek in this assertion implying in our verse that what he stated is true for all times. There is never a time it is allowed for a person to boast regarding justification by God or to boast that by keeping the law an individual enters a state of good standing with God.
It is often necessary when something is prohibited to provide a justification for it. Thus, it is not only that the apostle indicated that boasting regarding justification is not allowed but he goes further with second and third questions related to his assertion. The second question concerns the basis for not allowing boasting. So, he posed the question of Romans 3:27 On what principle? Literally, the question reads By what sort of law? The word “principle” is translated from a Greek noun (nomos) that is used in three ways in the Scripture. It is used for a procedure or practice that has taken hold and so means “a custom, rule, principle, norm, law.” It is in the sense of “principle” that Apostle Paul used it in Romans 7:21:
So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.
The context of Romans 7:21 indicates that the word “law” refers to “principle” as reflected in the translation of many English versions, such as the NASB and the NAB. The translators of the CEB and the NJB used the word “rule” in place of “law” in their rendering of this passage in Romans 7:21. Another usage of the Greek word translated “law” is for describing the first five book of Moses (i.e., Genesis to Deuteronomy) often known as the Torah, as in John 1:45:
Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
Still another usage of the Greek word translated “law” is as a reference to the entire OT Scriptures. It is in this sense that the word is used in John 12:34:
The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this ‘Son of Man’?”
Law here could not refer to the Torah but to the entire OT Scripture since nowhere in it that we have what the Jews asserted in John 12:34. In our passage of Romans 3:27, the word has the sense of “principle,” that is “a rule or law concerning a natural phenomenon or the function of a complex system.” So, the question of the apostle is concerned with basis or the principle that governed his declaration that with respect to justification, boasting is not allowed.
There is a sense that because the apostle was fired up in the point he was making about boasting not being allowed when it comes to the matter of justification, that without giving any time to answer the second question, he immediately fired up a third question as given in Romans 3:27 On that of observing the law? A literal translation is Of works? as reflected in the NIV2011. This is because the word “observing” of the NIV84 is translated from a Greek noun (ergon) that may mean “work” in the sense of that which one does as regular activity as Apostle Paul used it to describe the activity of Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:30:
because he almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help you could not give me.
The word may mean “deed” as that which displays itself in activity of any kind as Apostle Paul used it to describe sinful activities that believers should reject in Ephesians 5:11:
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.
In our passage of Romans 3:27, the word has the sense of “deeds,” that is, “works that a person is obliged to perform for moral reasons.” However, probably because the word “law” is mentioned in the context, the translators of the NIV and a handful of other English versions, such as the ESV, added the word “law” so we have the phrase observing the law or a law of works. Thus, the apostle’s question is to be understood as asking if the principle by which he excludes boasting when justification is concerned is based on law although it is true the law has nothing to do with justification.
All the same, the apostle answered the second and third questions with one answer that is intended to convey that justification is not by work but by faith as we read in the last phrase of Romans 3:27 No, but on that of faith but the NIV2011 reads because of the law that requires faith. A literal translation reads No, but through (the) law of faith. This is because the apostle used a Greek particle and a preposition. The word “but” is translated from a Greek particle (alla) that has several usages. For example, in certain clauses it is used to indicate that what precedes it is to be regarded as a settled matter, thus forming a transition to something new and so means “other matter for additional consideration.” In our passage, it is used as a marker of emphatic contrast to what preceded so that the Greek particle may be translated “but.” The apostle signaled that what he was about to answer the second and third questions, especially, the third, is contrary to what many would have expected. He followed the Greek particle with a Greek preposition (dia) with a basic meaning of “through”, but it has other nuances. The word may mean “by” used in different ways. The meaning “by” may be used a marker of the instrument by which something is accomplished. The meaning “by” may be used as a marker of the means between two events. The word may mean “because” as a marker of reason something happens. In our passage of Romans 3:27, the preposition is used to indicate the means of justification or obtaining righteousness from God and so may be translated “through.” The translators of the NIV2011 used the meaning “because” to translated both the particle and preposition probably to be consistent in how they translated the Greek preposition in its first use in the verse. For, instead of the question of verse 27 On what principle? of NIV84, the NIV2011 reads because of what law?
Anyway, the apostle stated in the last phrase of Romans 3:27 No, but on that of faith or literally No, but through (the) law of faith. The word “law” in the literal translation is translated from the same Greek word (nomos) that we considered previously and its meaning this second usage is the same as the first, that is, it has the sense of “principle.” That aside, there is the question of how to relate the word “law” or “principle” to “faith” in the literal phrase law of faith. It seems that the apostle intended to convey that the law or principle is one that is characterized by or described by faith. This being the case, the apostle is concerned to get across the point that justification or righteousness from God is obtained by the principle that is characterized or described by faith as in the phrase of Romans 3:27 No, but on that of faith. The point is that the apostle is emphatic that human efforts have no place in justification or obtaining of the righteousness from God. So, the first reason boasting is excluded with regards to justification is that it is an act of God that is based on faith. This brings us to the next thing the apostle states, that is both an elaboration of the first reason and a second reason boasting is excluded as it pertains to justification.
The reason for stating that what the apostle states next in the passage we are considering is both an elaboration of the first reason and a second reason boasting is excluded regarding justification is the first word for that begins Romans 3:28. The word “for” is translated from a Greek conjunction (gar) that has several usages. For example, it can be used as a marker of inference with the meaning “so, then, by all means” or it can be used as a marker of cause or reason for something in which case it may be translated “for, because.” In our verse, it is used as a marker of explanation that elaborates the first reason for not boasting about justification the apostle gave in verse 27 and so should be translated “for.”
We assert that the word “for” is used for explanation or elaboration of what was said in previous verse regarding not boasting about justification is because the word “justification” was not directly mentioned in verse 27 but the concept is derived from what the apostle wrote in verse 26. However, in the verse we are considering, the concept of justification is directly mentioned since the apostle wrote in Romans 3:28 we maintain that a man is justified by faith.
The word “maintain” is translated from a Greek verb (logizomai) that may mean “to determine by mathematical process” and so may mean “to count, take into account” as the word is used to describe a blessed individual as one that God does not hold the individual’s sin against the person as per the quotation from the OT Scripture by Apostle Paul that is recorded in Romans 4:8:
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.
Under the concept of determining by mathematical process is the meaning of “to evaluate, estimate, look upon as, consider” as a result of a calculation. It is in the sense of “to consider” that Apostle Paul used it in his quotation from OT Scripture in support of his teaching that the love of God for us cannot be changed as we read in Romans 8:36:
As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
The word may mean “to hold a view about something,” that is, “to think, believe, be of the opinion” as the apostle used it to describe himself to the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 11:5
But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.”
The word may mean “to give careful thought to a matter” and so may mean “to consider, to ponder, think about, let one’s mind dwell on something” as the apostle used it to caution those who are superficial in spiritual matters, to recognize that he and his apostolic team belong to Christ as we read in 2 Corinthians 10:7:
You are looking only on the surface of things. If anyone is confident that he belongs to Christ, he should consider again that we belong to Christ just as much as he.
In our passage of Romans 3:28, the word has the sense of “to hold a view” or “to believe.” The apostle used a present tense in the Greek either to state what he stated as a simple fact or to convey that the view he expressed is something that began in the past and is continuing at the time he wrote. Of course, the apostle stated we maintain in Romans 3:28 but there is no clear indication of who he meant by “we” so he probably meant himself or he included all the apostles of Jesus Christ who no doubt had the same view or believe the same way.
The thing the apostle believes or the view he holds is about justification as in the clause of Romans 3:28 that a man is justified by faith. The word “man” is translated from a Greek noun (anthrōpos) that means “a human being” without regard to gender, as Apostle Paul used it to describe the fate of evil doers as stated in Romans 2:9:
There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;
The word may mean “man” as male person as the apostle used it to describe Jesus Christ in His humanity in Romans 5:15:
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
The word may mean “person” as that is the way the word is used when the concern is to be inclusive of men and women, as in the doctrine of justification by faith Apostle Paul stated in Galatians 2:16:
know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Justification is for both men and women so that the phrase a man is to be understood as “a person,” hence the NRSV simply used the phrase a person. In our passage of Romans 3:28, the word is used in the sense of “person,” that is, “a human being” as reflected in the NIV2011 and other English versions.
The word “justified” in the clause of Romans 3:28 that a man is justified by faith is translated from a Greek verb (dikaioō) that we considered in our last study. It may mean to render a favorable verdict, that is, “to vindicate.” It may mean “to declare, pronounce, righteous and therefore acceptable.” In our passage of Romans 3:28, the word has the sense of “to be justified,” that is, “to be or become judicially vindicated as having complied with the requirements of the law (of God).” This the apostle indicated is appropriated by faith as in the clause that a man is justified by faith. Faith is translated from a Greek noun (pistis) that we have considered in previous studies but here it is used in the sense of “trust in Jesus Christ as presented in the gospel.”
At times, it may be necessary to reinforce a positive statement by a negative statement intended to ensure that there is no misunderstanding of the positive assertion. Consequently, the apostle went on to make a negative statement that is intended to ensure that one understands that justification is only through faith in Jesus Christ. This, the apostle did in the phrase of Romans 3:28 faith apart from observing the law. The expression “apart from” is translated from a Greek adverb or preposition (chōris) that is related to a Greek verb (chōrizō) that means to separate by departing from someone and so means “to separate, leave.” The verb form assumes there is a previous relationship between those involved in the separation. For example, when the apostle used the verb to caution against separation of husbands and wives, there is the assumption of an existing relationship, as implied in 1 Corinthians 7:10:
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
The Greek preposition may mean “separated from someone, far from someone, without someone” as it is used to remind the Ephesians that they had no connection with Christ or the covenant God made with Israel prior to their salvation as stated in Ephesians 2:12:
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.
In our passage of Romans 3:28, it has the sense of “without relation to or connection with,” that is, “independent of.”
The word “observing” is translated from a Greek noun (ergon) that we have already examined that may mean “work” in the sense of that which one does as regular activity. In our passage of Romans 3:28, the word means “deeds that the law commands a person to do.” The inclusion of the word “law” in the meaning of our Greek noun in this verse is influenced by the fact that the apostle used the Greek noun (nomos) that we have examined previously. However, in Romans 3:28, it is used in the sense of Mosaic Law. Hence, the apostle is clear that keeping the requirements of the Mosaic Law would not lead to justification that is obtained only through faith in Jesus Christ. So, the second reason a person cannot boast about justification is that it is obtained by faith without any positive contribution from the law. This brings us to the next thing the apostle wrote that is also a third reason boasting is excluded with regards to justification.
A third reason a person cannot boast about justification is that God makes it available to Jews and Gentiles without distinction in the same way that involves faith. This third reason is derived from what the apostle wrote in verses 29 and 30. The apostle conveyed that God is for Jews and Gentiles through two rhetorical questions and answer in verse 30.
The fourth rhetorical question is given in first part of Romans 3:29 Is God the God of Jews only? The word “Jew” is translated from a Greek adjective (Ioudaios) that although strictly means “persons belonging to Judea”, that is, a “Judean” but it has been used in different ways depending on the period of history of Israel that is in view. For example, prior to exile, the term “Jews” was used to describe Judeans as well as for all Hebrew people. We have, of course, examined the word extensively in our study of Romans 3:1 and so if you have forgotten what we said about the word “Jew” and require a refresher, you may go to the website of Berean Bible Church in Bay Springs, Mississippi, and listen to lesson numbers 83 and 84 of Romans study. Nonetheless, the apostle used the word “Jews” in Romans 3:29 to refer to naturally born Hebrews who are considered different from Gentiles. Thus, the apostle’s rhetorical question is intended to convey that God is not only the God of the Hebrew people or the Israelites.
The expected answer of the fourth rhetorical question of Romans 3:29 is “no” but the apostle without giving the expected answer, asked a fifth question that certainly helps to recognize that the expected answer to the fourth rhetorical question of the verse is “no.” So, the fifth question is given in Romans 3:29 Is he not the God of Gentiles too? “Gentile” is translated from a Greek noun (ethnos) that refers to a group of persons united by kinship, culture, and common traditions and so means “nation, people.” It is in the sense of “nation” that the word is used in the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
When the Greek word is used in the plural with the definite article, it refers to people groups foreign to a specific people group. Thus, the word was used in Greek for foreigners. However, in the NT it is used in two ways. First, it is used for those who do not belong to groups professing faith in the God of Israel so means “Gentiles, pagans.” It is in this sense that the word is used by Apostle Paul when he chastised the Corinthians for the sinful conduct of one of their members in 1 Corinthians 5:1:
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife.
The word is also used to describe non-Israelite Christian, as in Romans 16:4:
They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.
In our context of Romans 3:29, the word means “Gentile,” that is, “a person from an ethnic group or nation not allied with and trusting in the God of Israel (and later in Jesus as the Messiah).”
In any case, the apostle answered the fifth rhetorical question in an emphatic manner as stated in the last sentence of Romans 3:29 Yes, of Gentiles too. An indicator of emphasis is the word “yes” that is translated from a Greek particle (nai) that is for “affirmation, agreement, or emphasis” and so may mean “yes, certainly, indeed.” In our verse, it may be translated “yes” or “of course” to indicate that apostle is being emphatic in his answer that indicates that God is also for the Gentiles as He is for the Jews.
The apostle is certain that God is for both Jews and Gentiles that he conveyed that God grants justification to both in the same manner that involves faith although he presented this fact using a conditional clause that the NIV rendered as a fact in the clause of Romans 3:30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. A literal translation is if indeed God (is) one who will justify (the) circumcision by faith and (the) uncircumcised through faith. The word “since” is translated from a Greek conditional particle (eiper) that is used five times only by Apostle Paul in the Greek NT as a marker of an emphatic condition with the meaning “if indeed, if in fact, if after all, since.” The translators of the NIV used the meaning “since” probably because everything the apostle asserted in the conditional clause is true and to provide the reason for what the apostle stated in verse 29. He asserted that there is one God, something he asserted also in 1 Corinthians 8:6:
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
The apostle asserted that God is the One that will justify the Jews by faith in the clause of Romans 3:30 who will justify the circumcised by faith. The apostle used the future tense of the Greek word (dikaioō) that we previously stated means “to be justified,” that is, “to be or become judicially vindicated as having complied with the requirements of the law (of God).” The apostle’s use of the future tense, no doubt, implies that there would be a final justification when Christ returns but he used it here probably to indicate what will always happens whenever a Jew believes in Christ. We use the word “Jew” because of the word “circumcised” is translated from a Greek noun (peritomē) that we examined extensively in our study of Romans 3:1. Our examination of the Greek word (peritomē) indicates that it can be used to describe an ethnic Jew as well as believers in Christ whether Jews or Gentiles. Nonetheless, in Romans 3:30, the apostle used it with the meaning “of a person who is circumcised” but as a reference to Israel as group of people whose circumcision is a sign of their covenant relationship with God of Israel. Thus, a Jew will be justified whenever such a person believes in Christ.
The same truth that justification is by faith applies to Gentiles so that the apostle stated in Roman 3:30 and the uncircumcised through that same faith. We use the word “Gentiles” because the word “uncircumcised” is translated from a Greek noun (akrobystia) that in the Septuagint is used to translate a Hebrew word (ʿārlāh) that means “foreskin” as it is used to describe the genitals of the Philistines that Saul demanded from David as bride price for marrying his daughter, with the expectation that such demand might lead to his death as stated in 1 Samuel 18:25:
Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’” Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.
In the NT, the word may mean “uncircumcised” as it is used to describe those in Cornelius’ house that Peter ate with, as we read in Acts 11:3:
and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”
The word may mean “Gentiles” as those not circumcised, as in Galatians 2:7:
On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.
The phrase the gospel to the Gentiles of the NIV is literally the gospel to the uncircumcision so we see that the translators of the NIV interpreted the Greek word to mean “Gentiles.” It is in both literal and figurative usages that our Greek word is used in Colossians 2:13:
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
The phrase the uncircumcision of your sinful nature is taken by some to refer to being physically uncircumcised while others take it to mean being uncircumcised in the spiritual sense that a person is not regenerated. However, it seems that the apostle used it in both senses to refer to those who were spiritually dead in the sense of not having a relationship with God. This was the state of Gentiles who were also not circumcised physically. Anyway, in our passage of Romans 3:30, the word is in the sense of being physically uncircumcised as a description of non-Israel people and so means “Gentiles”. Anyhow, the fact that a Jew is justified the same way as the Gentile, that is, by faith in Christ, is indeed a third reason no one could boast about justification or receiving of the righteousness of God.
The doctrine the apostle espoused so far that justification is by faith without the law would raise the question in the mind of the Jew about the validity of the law. Therefore, the apostle makes a conclusion that faith indeed upholds the law. He began with a rhetorical question in Romans 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? It may not be readily apparent that this question arises from what the apostle has taught but it is since a literal translation reads Therefore do we invalidate (the) law through faith? The word “therefore” in the literal translation is from a Greek particle (oun) that in our verse is used as a marker of inference, denoting that what it introduces is the result of or an inference from what precedes in which case it may be translated “therefore.” This helps to understand that the question the apostle posed is what would result from a person who raises a question about what the apostle taught about justification by faith without the law.
The word “nullify” is translated from a Greek verb (katargeō) that has several meanings. It may mean “to use up, to waste” as it is used to describe the uselessness of the unproductive fig tree that use up the soil in Luke 13:7:
So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
The Greek word may mean to cause the release of someone from an obligation hence “to be released, to be discharged” as in the release of a woman from marriage bond at the death of the husband in Romans 7:2:
For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.
It may mean to cause something to lose its power or effectiveness, that is, “to invalidate, make powerless” as it is used to indicate that the law did not invalidate God’s covenant with Abraham in Galatians 3:17:
What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
The expression does not set aside may be translated does not invalidate. The Greek word may mean “to abolish, wipe out, set aside” as in Galatians 5:11:
Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.
In our passage of Romans 3:31, the word has the sense of “to invalidate”, that is, “to render inoperative or to cause something to lose its power or effectiveness.” So, the question of the apostle is if his teaching that justification is by faith invalidates the law, that is, a question is to ask if his teaching means that the law has been stripped of its function as given by God.
The apostle denied absolutely that his teaching does no such thing because of the phrase of Romans 3:31 Not at all! The expression is translated from a Greek phrase or formula (mē genoito) that we considered in detail in Romans 3:6 and indicated that it is intended to convey a strong negation of something that should not happen or occur. So, the apostle denied that his teaching of justification by faith invalidates or strips the law of God given function. On the contrary, he stated that it established the law in the last sentence of Romans 3:31 Rather, we uphold the law. The word “uphold” is translated from a Greek verb (histēmi) that can mean literally to stand up on someone’s feet as in the instruction of the Lord to Paul at the point of his conversion, as per his testimony recorded in Acts 26:16:
‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you.
The Greek word can mean to stand firm so as to remain stable hence means “to stand firm, to hold someone’s ground”, as it is used in Romans 14:4:
Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
The first “stand” in this passage is to be understood to mean “to stand firm” or “hold one’s ground” although the entire clause to his own master he stands or falls probably meant whether one maintains one’s status or relationship to a master depends on the master’s judgment or evaluation. Anyway, our Greek word can also mean “to stand up against”, that is, “to resist.” In our passage of Romans 3:31, the word has the sense of “to validate something that is in force or in practice,” that is, “to establish, uphold.”
How does the apostle’s teaching that justification is by faith establish or uphold the law? The apostle did not elaborate on how the teaching of justification by faith in Christ does this. Nevertheless, the apostle meant that justification by faith proves that the Mosaic law is right in conveying human sinfulness since no ordinary human could fulfill its requirements but in justification, its requirements are met since God provided the way by which a person could be righteous before Him through faith in Jesus Christ. With this we conclude our exposition of Romans 3:27-31 but let me close with a reminder of its message which is that Justification by faith in Christ excludes boasting since Jews and Gentiles are justified in the same way.
05/15/26