Romans 3:30

Rom 3:30. Επεἱπὲρ,[41] seeing that indeed) The inference is: if justification be by the law, then the Gentiles, who are without the law, cannot be justified; and yet they also rejoice in God, as a justifier, ch. Rom 4:16.—εἷς) ΕἿς, Ὁ ΘΕῸς, one, namely God; the relative who depends on one, as its antecedent.—δικαιώσει, shall justify) The future, as we find it in many other passages, ch. Rom 1:17, Rom 3:20, v. 19, 27; 2Co 3:8, therefore, we have in express terms, μέλλοντος, that was to come, ch. Rom 5:14; μέλλει, will be, ch. Rom 4:24. Paul speaks as if he were looking forward out of the Old Testament [from the Old Testament stand-point] into the New. It is to this that those expressions refer, ex. gr., foreseeing, Gal 3:8; the promise, ib. 14; the hope, ib. Rom 5:5. So John is said to be about to come, Mat 11:14; Mat 17:11; the wrath to come, Mat 3:7, where we have the discourse of the forerunner, which presupposes the threatenings.[42]—ἘΚ ΔΙᾺ, of or out of [by, Engl. Vers.]—through) The Jews had been long ago in the faith; the Gentiles had lately obtained faith from them. So through is used, Rom 3:22; Eph 2:8; of or out of [by, ἐκ] in a number of passages. It is well [right] by all means to compare the same difference in the particles in ch. Rom 2:27; and difference in the thing signified [i.e., the different footing of the Jew and Gentile] ch. Rom 11:17, etc.—διὰ τῆς) He does not say, ΔΙᾺ ΤῊΝ ΠΊΣΤΙΝ, on account of faith, but through faith.

[41] So ΛG; “quoniam quidem unus,” fg Vulg. Iren. 186, 259. But ABC Orig. 4,228a, read ἐιπερ εἷς; “si quidem unus,” in g.—ED.

[42] i.e., the wrath to come is taken for granted from the Old Testament; John’s part is to warn them to flee from it.—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_3:30 is to be divided from the previous one merely by a comma. Regarding ἐπείπερ, whereas (in the N. T. only here) introducing something undoubted, see Hermann, a[929] Viger. p. 786; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 342 f.; Baeumlein, p. 204

The unity of God implies that He is God, not merely of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles; for otherwise another special Deity must rule over the Gentiles, which would do away with monotheism.

ὃς δικαιώσει] who shall (therefore) justify. This exposition contains that which necessarily follows from the unity of God, in so far as it conditions for both parties one mode of justification (which however must be χωρὶς ἔργων, Rom_3:28). For Jews as well as for Gentiles He must have destined the way of righteousness by faith as the way of salvation. The future is neither put for δικαιοῖ (Grotius, and many others), nor to be referred with Beza and Fritzsche to the time of the final judgment, nor to be taken as the future of inference (Rückert, Mehring, Hofmann), but is to be understood as in Rom_3:20 of every case of justification to be accomplished. Erasmus rightly says, Respexit enim ad eos, qui adhuc essent in Judaismo seu paganismo.

The exchange of ἐκ and διὰ is to be viewed as accidental, without real difference, but also without the purpose of avoiding misconception (Mehring). Comp Gal_2:16; Gal_3:8; Eph_2:8. Unsuitable, especially for the important closing thought, is the view of Calvin, followed by Jatho, that there is an irony in the difference: Si quis vult habere differentiam gentilis a Judaeo, hanc habeat, quod ille per fidem, hic vero ex fide justitiam consequitur. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Wetstein, Bengel, Hofmann, and others explain it by various other gratuitous suggestions;[931] van Hengel is doubtful.

The interchange of πίστεως and Τῆς ΠΊΣΤ. (from faiththrough the faith), in which the qualitative expression advances to the concrete with the article, is also without special design, as similar accidental interchanges often occur in parallel clauses (Winer, p. 110 [E. T. 149]).

[929] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[931] Bengel: Judaei pridem in fide fuerant; gentiles fidem ab illis recens nacti erant. Comp. Origen. Similarly Matthias: in the case of the circumcised faith appears as the ground, in that of the uncircumcised as the means of justification; ἐκ πίστ. signifies: because they believe, διά τ. πίστ.: if they believe. In the case of the circumcised faith is presupposed as covenant-faithfulness. Comp. also Bisping. According to Hofmann, Paul is supposed to have said in the case of the circumcised in consequence of faith, because these wish to become righteous in consequence of legal works; but in the case of the uncircumcised by means of faith, because with the latter no other possible way of becoming righteous was conceivable. In the former instance faith is the preceding condition; in the latter the faith existing for the purpose of justification (therefore accompanied by the article) is the means, by which God, who works it, helps to righteousness. This amounts to a subjective invention of subtleties which are equally incapable of proof as of refutation, but which are all the more groundless, seeing that Paul is fond of such interchanges of prepositions in setting forth the same relation (comp. ver. 25 f., and on 2Co_3:11, and Eph_1:7). How frequent are similar interchanges also in classic authors! Moreover, in our passage the stress is by no means on the prepositions (Hofmann), but on περιτομήν and ἀκροβυστίαν. And as to the variation of the prepositions, Augustine has properly observed (de Spir. et lit. 29) that this interchange serves non ad aliquam differentiam, but ad varietatem locutionis. Comp. on ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῦν (here said of Jews) also of Gentiles, Gal_3:8; Rom_9:30, and generally Rom_1:17.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_3:29, Rom_3:30

Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also; seeing it is one God who shall justify, etc. We have here the second result of the gospel method of justification; it presents God as equally the God of the Gentiles and of the Jews. He is such, because it is one God who justifies the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. He deals with both classes on precisely the same principles; he pursues, with regard to both, the same plan, and offers salvation to both on exactly the same terms. There is, therefore, in this doctrine, the foundation laid for a universal religion, which may be preached to every creature under heaven; which need not, as was the case with the Jewish system, be confined to any one sect or nation. This is the only doctrine which suits the character of God, and his relation to all his intelligent creatures upon earth God is a universal, and not a national God; and this is a method of salvation universally applicable. These sublime truths are so familiar to our minds that they have, in a measure, lost their power; but as to the Jew, enthralled all his life in his narrow national and religious prejudices, they must have expanded his whole soul with unwonted emotions of wonder, gratitude, and joy. We Gentiles may now look up to heaven, and confidently say, Thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and though Israel acknowledge us not.

Paul here, as in Rom_3:20, uses the future δικαιώσει, will justify, not for the present, nor in reference to the final judgment, but as expressing a permanent purpose. There is no distinction as to the meaning to be sought between ἐκ πίστεως (by faith) and διὰ πίστεως (through faith,) as Paul uses both forms indiscriminately; ἐκ, for example, in Rom_1:17; Rom_3:20; Rom_4:16, etc., and διὰ in Rom_3:22, Rom_3:25; Gal_2:16; and sometimes first the one, and then the other, in the same connection. There is no greater difference between the Greek prepositions, as here used, than between the English by and through.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The circumcised.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

it is one God who shall justify--"has unchangeably fixed that He shall justify."

the circumcision by--"of"

faith, and the uncircumcision through faith--probably this is but a varied statement of the same truth for greater emphasis (see Rom 3:22); though BENGEL thinks that the justification of the Jews, as the born heirs of the promise, may be here purposely said to be "of faith," while that of the Gentiles, previously "strangers to the covenants of promise," may be said to be "through faith," as thus admitted into a new family.

Objection:

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 30. Seeing it is one God] επιπερ εις ο θεος. This has been rendered, Seeing God is one. It however makes little difference in the sense: the apostle's meaning most evidently is, it is one and the same God who made both Jews and Gentiles, who shall justify-pardon, the circumcision-the believing Jews, by faith; and the uncircumcision-the believing Gentiles, by the same faith; as there is but one Saviour and one atonement provided for the whole.

It is fanciful to suppose that the apostle has one meaning when he says, εκ πιστεως, BY faith, and a different meaning when he says, δια της πιστεως, THROUGH faith. Both the prepositions are to be understood in precisely the same sense; only the addition of the article της, in the last case, extends and more pointedly ascertains the meaning. It is one and the same God who shall justify the believing Jews by faith; and the believing Gentiles δια της πιστεως, by THAT SAME faith.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

30. Who shall justify, etc. In saying that some are justified by faith, and some through faith, he seems to have indulged himself in varying his language, while he expresses the same thing, and for this end, — that he might, by the way, touch on the folly of the Jews, who imagined a difference between themselves and the Gentiles, though on the subject of justification there was no difference whatever; for since men became partakers of this grace by faith only, and since faith in all is the same, it is absurd to make a distinction in what is so much alike. I am hence led to think that there is something ironical in the words, as though be said, — “If any wishes to have a difference made between the Gentile and the Jew, let him take this, — that the one obtains righteousness by faith, and the other through faith.”

But it may be, that some will prefer this distinction, — that the Jews were justified by faith, because they were born the heirs of grace, as the right of adoption was transmitted to them from the Fathers, — and that the Gentiles were justified through faith, because the covenant to them was adventitious.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(30) Seeing it is . . .—With a slight change of reading, if at least; if, as we are sure is the case.

The argument is strictly logical. If there is to be any distinction between Jew and Gentile, this can only be upon the assumption either that there are more gods than one by whom they will be justified, or that they will be justified by some different law, in some different way. But neither of these is the case. Therefore it follows that there is no distinction.

Shall justify.—The future signifies, “throughout the Christian dispensation”—wherever the Christian system extends.

By faith.—Through faith. In the one case faith is regarded as the instrument, in the other as the means; but the two expressions come to be almost convertible. In like manner there is no essential difference indicated by the fact that the first noun has not the article, while the second has it. The former is more abstract—the quality of faith in man; the latter more concrete—faith as embodied in the gospel. The two prepositions, “by” and “through,” are in English nearly convertible, or differ from each other no more than “instrument” and “means.”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

30. seeing it is one God] This ver. may be lit. rendered thus: If indeed God is one, who will (= and He will) justify the circumcision in consequence of faith, and the uncircumcision by means of its faith. “If indeed” is an argumentative formula, assuming its hypothesis to be true. Q. d., “God is one; hence it is but likely that His action on this great principle will be one also.”—“Will justify:” this future, like many others in this argument, refers to what is and will be the Divine method through the Gospel age.—“The circumcision in consequence of faith, and the uncircumcision by means of, &c.” It is hardly possible that a distinction is to be insisted on here, as the point of the passage is similarity, equality, oneness, in regard of justification. The fulness of thought and language delights, as it were, to dwell on justifying faith in one case as God’s reason why pardon is applied to the believer, in the other as the believer’s way of accepting the pardon. The whole passage proves that Jewish and Gentile faith is one and the same in kind and effect.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Ver. 30. And uncircumcision] All by one way, lest he should seem not to be one, but alius et alius.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

God who justifieth circumcision, and also the uncircumcised by faith; that is, by the faith and religion of the new law, or by a faith working by charity, and joined with good words proceeding from faith. See the Council of Trent, Session 6. cap. viii. "When the apostle says, that a man is justified by faith, and gratis, according to the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church, we are said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning and foundation of man’s salvation, and the root of his justification, without which we cannot please God, nor be made his sons; and we are said to be justified gratis, because nothing of those things which go before justification, whether faith or works, are meritorious of the grace of justification." (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

That it may not be thought that God is variable in the action of justifying sinners, but that it might be known that he is one, i.e. unchangeable, he shows, that both the circumcised Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles are justified by the same God in Christ, and by the same way and manner, viz. by and through faith, with no more difference than there is betwixt these two phrases, (by faith and through faith), which cannot be distinguished the one from the other.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

30. One God—And he not a local or national god, but a universal God.

The circumcision—The Jew.

By faith… through faith—God justifies the Jew from a faith contained in and deduced from true Judaism; he justifies the Gentile through the instrumentality of a faith now first presented and imparted.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If indeed (eiper rather than epeiper , as in the Textus Receptus) God is one, who shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. Here the unity of God is given as the reason of his being the God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews. So also, 1Ti_2:5, eiv gav is the reason why he wills all men to be saved. It is of importance to grasp St. Paul"s idea in his assertions of the unity of God. It is not that of numerical unity, but what may be called the unity of quality; i.e. not a mere assertion of monotheism as against polytheism, but that the one God is one and the same to all, comprehending all in the embrace of his own essential unity. God"s unity involved in St. Paul"s mind the idea of "One God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him"; (1Co_8:6) "who made of one blood every nation of men"; (Act_17:26) in whom we (all of us) "live and move and have our being". (Act_17:28) Thus exclusion of the Gentiles from the paternal embrace of the one God is incompatible with the very idea, so conceived, of his unity. In the latter part of this verse it is said that God will justify the circumcision ek pistewv , and the uncircumcision dia thv pistewv , the preposition being changed, and the second pistewv being preceded by the article. The difference is not of essential importance, "faith" being the emphatic word. But it is not unmeaning. Ek expresses the principle of justification; dia , the medium through which it may be had. The Jew was already in a position for justification through the Law leading up to Christ. He had only to accept it as of faith, and not of works of law (ver. 20). The Gentile must attain to it through faith; i.e. his faith in the gospel now revealed to him. Epi twn Ioudaiwn to ak pistewv teyeiken wv an egontwn me eterav aformawsin, pistewv" (Theodorus).

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Seeing it is one God who - Shows mercy to both, and by the very same means.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

30. “Since there is one God who will justify the circumcision and the uncircumcision through faith.” We need not wonder at the amount of apparently substantial repetition in this argument proclaiming God’s great law of pardon to all the world indiscriminately, whether Pagan, Papist, Moslem, Jew, Gentile, or Protestant. It is simply by faith alone, without works wrought by yourself, a preacher, a church member, or anything else.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

if so be that God is one, and he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith . [Therefore, as the conclusion of the whole argument, we reckon that every man, be he Jew or Gentile, is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. If only those who kept the law of Moses could be justified, then only could Jews be justified, for they alone possessed this law, and it is addressed only to them. But this state of affairs would belle the character of God. Does he not create, feed and govern the Gentiles? and is he not then the God of the Gentiles? Or are there two Gods: one for the Jew and one for the Gentile? The question is absurd; there is but one God, and he is God both of the Jews and Gentiles, and as each race is alike wholly dependent upon him, he must deal impartially by each; and this he does, for he saves both Jew and Gentile in tile same manner; i. e., by faith. It may be well to note, in this connection, that Luther added the word "alone" to this verse, thus: "We reckon, therefore, that a man is justified by faith alone." In combating the error of Rome (that men are justified by works), Luther fell into another error, for repentance is as much a means of justification as faith, and there is no merit in either of them. The meritorious cause of our justification is the atoning blood of Christ, and by faith, repentance, baptism, etc., we appropriate the blood of Christ. These acts, on our part, do not make us worthy of justification, but they are the conditions fixed by Christ, on compliance with which lie invests us with the benefits of his blood; i. e., justifies us.]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

30. As there is one God, there is one plan of justification. The circumcision, the Jews are justified by faith, a faith not in God, whom they already acknowledged, but a faith in Christ, God manifest in the flesh. In the same way the uncircumcision, the Gentile world, are justified through the faith. The Gospel is meant by the faith (the article is found in the Greek). The salvation of both is by faith in Christ crucified.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

30. εἴπερ, if as is the fact; cf. Rom 8:9; Rom 8:17; 2Th 1:6; 2Co 5:3 (v.l.); diff. 1Co 15:15 = if as they maintain (with ἄρα).

εἷς ὁ θεός. Cf. 1Co 8:4; Gal 3:20; Eph 4:6; 1Ti 2:5; Jas 2:19: always in S. Paul as giving the ground for the unity of mankind and the universality of the Gospel.

ἐκ, διὰ. No essential difference: ἐκ = as the result of, in implied contrast with ἐξ ἔργων νόμου; cf. Rom 9:31: διὰ = by means of the exercise of faith, which is now open to them.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

30. εἴπερ] if at least (if we are to hold to what is manifest as a result of our former argument) God is One, who shall justify the circumcision (= the Jews, after the analogy of ch. 2:26) by (ἐκ, as the preliminary condition,—the state out of which the justification arises) faith, and the uncircumcision (the Gentiles) through (by means of) their faith. Too much stress must not be laid on the difference of the two prepositions (see ver. 22 and note). The omission of the art. in ἐκ πίστ. and its expression in διὰ τῆς πίστ. are natural enough: the former expresses the ground of justification, generally taken, ἐκ πίστεως, by faith: the latter the means whereby the man lays hold on justification, διὰ τῆς πίστεως, by his faith: the former is the objective ground, the latter the subjective medium. Jowett’s rendering of περιτομὴν ἐκ πίστεως, ‘the circumcision that is of faith,’ though ingenious, is hardly philologically allowable, nor would it correspond to the other member of the sentence, which he rightly renders ‘and the uncircumcision through their faith.’ To understand τῆς πίστεως (as Mr. Green, Gr. p.300) as referring to πίστεως just mentioned ‘by the instrumentality of the identical faith which operates in the case of the circumcised,’ is to contradict the fact: the faith was not, strictly speaking, identical in this sense, or the two cases never need have been distinguished. See vv. 1, 2.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

30. εἴπερ: decisively attested in place of ἐπείπερ. The old distinction drawn between εἴ περ and εἴ γε was that εἴ περ is used of a condition which is assumed without implying whether it is rightly or wrongly assumed, εἴ γε of a condition which carries with it the assertion of its own reality (Hermann on Viger, p. 831; Bäumlein, Griech. Partikeln, p. 64). It is doubtful whether this distinction holds in Classical Greek; it can hardly hold for N.T. But in any case both εἴ περ and εἴ γε lay some stress on the condition, as a condition: cf. Monro, Homeric Grammar, §§ 353, 354 ‘The Particle πέρ is evidently a shorter form of the Preposition πέρι, which in its adverbial use has the meaning beyond, exceedingly. Accordingly πέρ is intensive, denoting that the word to which it is subjoined is true in a high degree, in its fullest sense, &c. … γε is used like πέρ to emphasize a particular word or phrase. It does not however intensify the meaning, or insist on the fact as true, but only calls attention to the word or fact. … In a Conditional Protasis (with ὅς, ὅτε, εἰ, &c.), γε emphasizes the condition as such: hence εἴ γε if only, always supposing that. On the other hand εἴ περ means supposing ever so much, hence if really (Lat. si quidem).’

ἐκ πίστεως ̣ ̣ ̣ διὰ τῆς πίστεως: ἐκ denotes ‘source,’ διά ‘attendant circumstances.’ The Jew is justified ἐκ πίστεως διὰ περιτομῆς: the force at work is faith, the channel through which it works is circumcision. The Gentile is justified ἐκ πίστεως καὶ διὰ τῆς πίστεως: no special channel, no special conditions are marked out; faith is the one thing needful, it is itself ‘both law and impulse.’διὰ τῆς πίστεως = ‘the same faith,’ ‘the faith just mentioned.’

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vv. 30. The Alex. read εἴπερ: if truly. This reading might suffice if the apostle were merely repeating the principle of the unity of God as the basis of the preceding assertion: “if indeed God is one.” But he goes further; this principle of the unity of God serves him as a point of departure from which to draw important inferences expressed in a weighty proposition: “who will justify.” To warrant him in doing so, it is not enough that he has asserted the unity of God as an admitted supposition: “if indeed.” He must have laid it down as an indubitable fact which could serve as a basis for argument. We must therefore prefer the reading of the other two families: ἐπείπερ, seeing that.Monotheism has as its natural corollary the expectation of one only means of justification for the whole human race. No doubt this dogma is compatible with a temporary particularism, of a pedagogic nature; but as soon as the decisive question arises, that of final salvation or condemnation, the unity must appear. A dualism on this point would imply a duality in God’s essence: “who (in consequence of His unity) will justify.” The future: will justify, has been variously explained. Some think that it expresses logical consequence (Rück. Hofm.); others, that it refers to the day of judgment (Beza, Fritzs.); a third party refer it to all the particular cases of justification which have taken or shall take place in history. The last sense seems the most natural: the whole new development of history, which is now opening, appears to the apostle as the consequence of the fundamental dogma of Judaism.

Meyer alleges that the difference of the two prepositions ἐκ and διά, from and by (which we have sought to render in our translation), is purely accidental. Is it also accidental that the article τῆς, the, which was wanting in the first proposition before the word πίστεως, faith, is added in the second? Experience has convinced us that Paul’s style is not at the mercy of chance, even in its most secondary elements. On the other hand, must we, with Calvin, find the difference a pure irony: “If any one insists on a difference between Jews and Gentiles, well and good! I shall make over one to him; the first obtains righteousness from faith, the second by faith.” No; it would be much better to abandon the attempt to give a meaning to this slight difference, than to make the apostle a poor wit. The following, as it seems to me, is the shade of meaning which the apostle meant to express. With regard to the Jew, who laid claim to a righteousness of works, he contrasts category with category by using the preposition ἐκ, from, out of, which denotes origin and nature: a righteousness of faith. Hence, too, he omits the article, which would have described the conciete fact, rather than the quality. But when he comes to speak of the Gentiles, who had been destitute till then of every means of reaching any righteousness whatever, he chooses the preposition διά, by: by means of, which points to faith simply as the way by which they reach the unexpected end; and he adds the article because faith presents itself to his mind, in this relation, as the well-known means, besides which the Gentile does not dream of any other.

The harmony between the Mosaic law and justification by faith has been demonstrated from two points of view—1. That of the universal humiliation (the exclusion of all boasting), which results from the former and constitutes the basis of the latter (Rom 3:27-28). 2. That of the unity of God, which is the basis of Israelitish Mosaism and prophetism, as well as that of evangelical universalism (Rom 3:29-30). Thereafter nothing more natural than the conclusion drawn in Rom 3:31.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.