Comments on Romans 3:27-31

Timotheos,

Before I make some comments on the text, I will offer a few suggestions concerning translation. In verse 28 you translate the expression dikaiousthai pistei anthropon as “a man to be justified from faithfulness.” It may be possible to translate the dative pistei this way, though I do not recall any examples. I would think that it would be more likely that we should translate the dative pistei as “by,” signifying instrumentality. In verse 29, I notice that you use the singular “Gentile” rather than the plural. Did I miss some significance as to why you chose the singular rather than the plural, since ethnōn is plural? In verses 30 and 31, I wonder if it would not be helpful to draw out Paul’s emphatic use of the article in the two identical clauses, dia tēs pisteōs. The article tēs is quite clearly anaphoric, which, for our readers who are not so familiar with grammatical terms, means that it is the use of the article to signal that it is the same “faithfulness” (pisteōs) that Paul has been speaking of since his mention of it in 3:21. It is the “faithfulness” of Jesus Christ. Finally, you do not translate the relative pronoun hos in verse 30, and thus, you translate the verse, “since God is one, he will declare the circumcision righteous from faithfulness and the uncircumcised through faithfulness.” You may have a reason for this translation that I missed, or perhaps you did not explain why you took the relative pronoun simply as “he” and made it the subject of the verb dikaiōsei.

Here, then, is my translation of the passage.

²⁷ Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Through what Law? Is it excluded through the Law of deeds? No! It is excluded through the Law of faithfulness. ²⁸ For we consider a man to be declared righteous by faithfulness apart from deeds required by the Law. ²⁹ Or is God the God of the Jews alone? Is he not the God of the Gentiles also? Yes, he is God of the Gentiles also, ³⁰ since God is one who will declare righteous the circumcised from faithfulness and the uncircumcised through the same faithfulness. ³¹ Therefore, do we nullify the Law through this faithfulness? No way! Rather, we establish the Law.

By way of comments upon the text, first it would be good to address the issue of the Jews’ boast. Because commentators are not as careful in how they understand Paul’s expression erga nomou (works of the Law), they become a little sloppy as they oscillate between “works required by the Law” (which is correct) and “works done in obedience to the Law” (which is not correct). Typically, therefore, commentators slide into the second sense to explain what Paul means when he asks, “Where, then, is boasting?” Thus, commentators characteristically identify the boasting that is now excluded as boasting in one’s obedience to the Law. This follows Martin Luther’s comments on the passage: “The law of works necessarily puffs up and induces glorying, for a man who is righteous and who has kept the law without a doubt has something about which he can boast and be proud. Now the Jews believe that they have attained this status because they do outwardly what the law orders or prohibits. Therefore, they do not humble themselves and do not detest themselves as sinners. They do not seek to be justified and they do not fervently long for righteousness, because they are confident that they already possess it” (Luther, Lectures on Romans, 118). Luther may be right about the Jews, but is this what the apostle Paul speaks of when he mentions boasting that is excluded by the “Law of faithfulness”? Where has Paul previously mentioned boasting? Timotheos, you are correct to identify the theme of boasting in 2:17—“But if you call yourself a ‘Jew’ and you repose upon the Law and you boast in God. . . .” If we return to this passage, what do we find the Jews’ boast to be? It does not seem that Paul identifies their boast to be quite what Martin Luther identifies it to be in his comments on 3:27. Here is the passage.

¹⁷ But if you call yourself a “Jew” and you repose upon the Law and boast in God ¹⁸ and know his desire and approve the things that are excellent, because you have been instructed from the Law; ¹⁹ and if you are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, ²⁰ an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, because you have the outward form of knowledge and truth in the Law; ²¹ you, therefore, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach not to steal, do you steal? ²² You who speak against adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, but do you rob the temples of idols? ²³ You who boast in the Law, through your transgression of the Law, you dishonor God. ²⁴ For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles on account of you,” just as it is written.

Though I believe that Martin Luther is right to identify the Jews' boast as a moral boast, from this passage does it not seem that Paul speaks of the Jews’ boast slightly different from the understanding Martin Luther adopts? Yes! In chapter 2, Paul does not prosecute the Jews for their misplaced confidence in observing of the Law but for their misplaced confidence in possessing the Law. Paul indicts the Jews for their failure to observe the Law while reposing confidently in the fact that they possess the Law and circumcision. Thus, though they boast in God, their boast is utterly vain because, while they disregard the Law, they repose confidently upon the Law as a possession, as if possession commends them to God despite their failure to do the things required by the Law.

So, while Martin Luther and those who follow his understanding of the text are right that the Jews were self-righteous, they seem to lodge the Jews' self-righteousness in the wrong place. They lodge it in the Jews' keeping the Law. Paul, however, lodges the Jews’ self-righteousness in their possessing the Law. The Jews’ reposing upon the Law and boasting in God is not born out of keeping the Law, but it is born out of their possessing the Law. The difference between these two is subtle but altogether important.

I believe both Martin Luther and N. T. Wright are partially correct but also partially incorrect in their explanations of the passage. I have already offered comments on Luther's understanding. Now I turn briefly to N. T. Wright who comments on 3:27--"The point here is that Paul is now ruling out the 'boast' whereby 'the Jew' maintained a status above that of the Gentiles. Paul is not addressing the more general 'boast' of the moral legalist whose system of salvation is one of self-effort, but the ethnic pride of Israel according to the flesh, supported as it was by the possession of the Torah and the performance of those 'works' that set Israel apart from the pagans" ("The Letter to the Romans," Interpreters Bible Commentary, 480). I believe that N. T. Wright is almost correct in what he affirms, and that he is almost right in what he denies. Yet, his denial and his affirmation both fall short. True, Paul is not addressing the general boast of the moral legalist whose system of salvation is one of self-effort. Nevertheless, he is addressing more than the boast of the ethnic pride of Israel according to the flesh. Against N. T. Wright, though ethnic pride may be involved in the Jews' boast, this is not in the foreground of what Paul is addressing. Even more clear is the fact that the Jews' boast, contrary to N. T. Wright's claim, is not supported by the performance of those 'works' that set Israel apart from the pagans. Wright seems to fall into the same mistake that Luther makes, that Paul indicts the Jews' for their doing what the Law requires. Paul's indictment of the Jews, in chapter 2, is not that they performed the deeds required by the Law but that they failed to do the deeds required by the Law. Furthermore, the boasting that Paul indicts is not ethnic pride but the notion that the Jews have a lock on God's approbation by sheer possession of the Law and of circumcision apart from actually doing what the Law requires.

Now I turn to your question. You asked, “What is this Law of faithfulness? As I see it there are two options. The ‘Law of faithfulness’ could be another way by which Paul is referring to the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah who suffered and died on behalf of sinful man. Or it could be another way by which Paul is referring to Law keeping Gentiles. That is, the boasting is excluded not by mere possession of the Law but by faithfulness to the Law. I am not sure at this point which one of these makes more sense. Do you know of a better option, Paulos? Or do you choose one of these two? If so, why?”

First, I take nomos pisteōs (Law of faithfulness) as Paul’s rhetorical play on the term nomos, referring to the Law of Moses. I agree with you when you say, “As a brief aside, I should mention that I did not take the ‘principle’ interpretation for nomos (‘Law’) in this section. To do so, to me, seems to do violence to the text, since what is at issue since chapter 2 is the Law of Moses. I don’t think Paul would introduce the connotation of ‘principle’ here. . . . Instead, I think he is using nomos throughout to talk about Torah.”

Because, as I commented in my brief notes above on translation that Paul makes it clear by his anaphoric use of the article in his phrase dia tēs pisteōs (“through this faithfulness”) that he is consistently referring to pistis Chistou (“the faithfulness of Jesus Christ”), it seems to me that his use of nomos pisteōs (“the Law of faithfulness”) has to refer to the same pistis, the same faithfulness. So, the sense would be “the Law of the faithfulness of Christ Jesus.” Thus, it seems to me that Paul is speaking of the Law of Moses as it has met its fulfillment and thus its end in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. What, then, excludes “boasting in the possession of the Law”? It is not the “Law of works” but the “Law of the faithfulness of Christ Jesus” that shuts out all “boasting in the possession of the Law.” It is not the Law of Moses in its jurisdiction over its subjects that puts an end to "boasting." It is the Law of Moses in its fulfillment, in that it has reached its goal in Messiah Jesus, that shuts out all "boasting." Why? It is because Jesus Christ’s faithfulness, testified to by the Law and the Prophets (i.e., Scripture), has brought an end to the Law of Moses, “the Law of works,” not by mere fiat but by fulfilling all that the Law prophesied, for all that the Law prophesied converges in one, namely in Messiah Jesus.

So, once again, I believe you are right to say, “Verse 28 would seem to tip the scale of how to take the phrase ‘Law of faithfulness’, since v. 28 grounds v. 27, and in verse 28 Paul specifically states, ‘For we consider a man to be declared righteous from faithfulness,’ which is clearly restating the argument of 3:21-26, which regards Jesus’ faithfulness as a substitutionary sacrifice for us as the reason for our vindication and for displaying God’s righteousness in justifying sinners. In other words, it would seem that ‘Law of faithfulness’ would refer to Jesus’ faithfulness.”

You rightly identify the fact that Paul recognizes that what he has argued brings up a potential problem. You identify it this way: “If one is declared righteous apart from the Law of works, does that mean that Torah is nullified by Jesus’ faithfulness? Paul’s answer to this question is ‘Banish the thought!’ Why? Because the Law is not nullified, rather it is established. To show this Paul will turn to Abraham as one who was declared righteous apart from the works required by the Law.”

Finally, as I indicated in my notes above, I believe that Paul’s phrase, “Law of faithfulness,” refers to Christ’s faithfulness which has fulfilled all that the Law prophesied. Thus, true as it is that Jesus Christ has brought the Law of works to its end (cf. Romans 10:4), he did not end the Law of Moses by decree; he ended it by fulfilling all that it prophesied. In particular, Jesus Christ gave himself up as the mercy seat of propitiation where took upon himself God’s wrath and turn God’s wrath aside from those for whom he substituted himself. Thus, the Law is not nullified through Christ’s faithfulness; rather, Christ’s faithfulness establishes the Law. What does it mean to say that "we establish the Law"? Surely, since Paul later says that "Christ is the end of the Law . . ." (Romans 10:4), the fact that here he says that "through this faithfulness . . . we establish the Law," he seems to mean that Christ's faithfulness validates the Law's God-designed purpose.

Paulos