Romans 3:27-31
27 Where then is the boasting? It has been shut out. Through what law? [The law] of works? No, but through the law of faith. 28 For we consider a man to be justified apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God only [God] of the Jews? Is He not also [God] of the Gentiles? Yes, even of the Gentiles, 30 since there is one God who justifies [the] circumcised by faith and [the] uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? Certainly not! Rather, we establish the Law.
Once again we had a great discussion on Sunday on some vitally important topics. We also managed to finish chapter three! I would strongly encourage those in the study, and anyone else following along, to keep in mind what Paul has been talking about thus far, since this forms the context for the discussion starting in chapter four.
Paul opens with a question that should, by now, be rhetorical. If anyone is boasting in their works, believing that they have some kind of superior status before God and men as a result of their law-keeping and good deeds, they should realize that no-one is righteous. We all start from the same sinful position. So, there is no room for boasting: it has been shut out. There is no room for arrogance and pride in the face of our depravity. Ephesians 2:8-9 comes to mind, where Paul declares that salvation is by faith and not by works, “so that no-one may boast.” Since our efforts can’t attain righteousness in the eyes of God, and our salvation is only by faith (which, as the Ephesians passage points out, is given to us by God), then we have nothing in which to boast. If we could claim to be saved by the fact we did something, a good deed, or even by making a “decision,” we could claim credit. If it was my free choice that saved me, me casting the tie-breaking vote between God and Satan, then I have a reason to boast. I was smarter than the person who didn’t choose, or I spoke to the right person–in other words, as long as I do something to give God a reason to save me, then I can pat myself on the back. But we have no reason to boast. Salvation is all of God. He is the one who makes us righteous. The faith we declare is given by Him and it is a result of His first saving us.
What law is it that shuts out boasting: the law of works or of faith? Clearly the answer is the law of faith. Should “law” here be capitalized, reflecting the Law, as in the Torah, the Law of Moses? Some say yes, since what Paul is talking about here is two different ways of approaching the Mosaic Law, either by works or by faith. According to this viewpoint, Paul is saying if you approach the Torah by works, you can’t be justified; you have to approach the Torah by faith. However, in the next verse Paul says that a man is justified apart from works of the Law. Further, in verse 31, Paul thinks his readers might conclude from his argument that faith nullifies the Law, a conclusion that would be impossible to reach if he was talking about the same Law in verse 27. So, I favor a view that looks at these “laws” as two different things.
What makes this verse confusing is the fact that there is no separate word for “law” in the Greek when referring to the Law, or general laws or principles. Philo and Josephus, who were both first century Jewish writers use the Greek word nomos to refer to the Law, and also laws of warfare, laws of music, as well as other types of “law.” I think Paul is using “law” in this latter sense, but I suspect there is a deliberate play-on-words here too with “the Law.”
Verse 28 is interesting in that it affirms that a man (Greek anthrôpos) is justified apart from works of the Law. Not “a Jew” or “a Gentile,” but “a man”–anyone. Once again, he affirms that both Jew and Gentile are in the same boat with regard to sin, and the Law will not help the Jew any more than the Gentile not having the Law may or may not help him. Neither will be saved because of their relationship to the Law. Paul underscores this in verse 29: Is God only the God of the Jews? The Jews were (and are) monotheists. Deuteronomy 6:4 was at the heart of their understanding of God. Just because the Gentiles didn’t believe in the God of the Old Testament, that didn’t mean there really were other gods. Regardless of what the Gentiles believe, there still is only one God. So, whether they like it or not, God is the God of the Gentiles too.
In verse 30, Paul says God justifies the circumcised by faith (Greek: ek pisteôs), and the uncircumcised through faith (Greek: dia tês pisteôs). Is there significance in the change of prepositions? Since ek can also be translated “from,” it’s possible that Paul is saying that the circumcised are justified from (in the sense of “coming out of”) the faith they have as God’s people, and the uncircumcised are justified through, or by means of, that faith which is not native to them. Others think this is a bit of a stretch, and really doesn’t make a lot of sense, preferring to see it as stylistic difference. That is, there’s no real reason to change prepositions, Paul is just making his writing a little more interesting. Whichever position one takes doesn’t change Paul’s meaning in the slightest: whether Jew or Gentile, circumcised or not, it is the same God who justifies both by faith.
Since we are justified apart from the Law, does that mean the Law is useless? Has it been nullified now that we no longer need to worry about it? Paul rather emphatically says “no,” using the mê genoito phrase we noted in a previous section that Paul likes to use: certainly not! The Law isn’t nullified by our faith, but it is established. In other words, through our faith in Christ, the Law comes alive in our hearts. God’s standard of righteousness is our standard. We love His Law, and our heart’s desire is to keep it so we might please Him–not that we might be saved. Of course, because we still have sin, we cannot hope to keep God’s commands perfectly, but that’s okay. We’re not declared righteous on the basis of our ability to keep the Law, but because of our faith in Christ. Further, Christ perfectly obeyed the Law, and His righteousness has been imputed to us. This means that God looks upon our failure to keep the Law and sees Christ’s perfect obedience instead.
Thought from the passage: What do you consider to be unjust, or unfair? The suffering of the seemingly-innocent? The guilty getting away with their crimes? The US tax code? 🙂 Is it fair that guilty sinners such as us should get away with our sin? God owes us nothing, so wouldn’t His justice be fulfilled by pouring His wrath upon us for our flagrant, willful disobedience? And yet we have in the gospel this wonderful truth, that God’s justice is fulfilled in what, to our eyes, is the most unjust act in human history, wherein the truly guiltless and blameless Son of God takes the punishment for our sin upon Himself, so that we can have His righteousness.
So, question regarding verse 31: Paul writes that we establish the law by faith rather than abolishing it. How does this match up with other parts of the New Testament where the Law (at least in pieces) seems to be overturned by Christ’s establishment of the New Covenant over the Old Covenant? Take Ephesians 2:13 and following
– “But now in Christ Jesus you who were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by (here’s where I’m looking ->) Abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hositlity” –
Add to this the fact that we simply don’t do much of what the OT law says. Much of this is cultural differences to be sure, but perhaps the distinction ought to be made that the law could perhaps be, to an extent, a looking forward to Christ and using a vast law of works to show God’s people their brokenness and inability to attain salvation on their own. Can it still fairly be said that the OT law is still, as a whole, a guide for our actions? Much of Christ’s work in the NT (RE: sabbath, etc…) was an act of overturning a wrong way of viewing the law. The OT ceremonial laws are fulfilled thru Christ and are no longer appropriate. New Covenant replaces the Old, and thus, rather than saying that we still have the OT law as a guide, distinctions must be made as to what is or is not fulfilled and what in the OT law actually still remains as a guide for our present actions.
Thoughts? Concerns? Corrections? Accusations of Heresy?
The context of Ephesians is Paul addressing a church of Gentile Christians and it seems he is affirming them in their faith, possibly in light of pressure from Jewish Christians to adhere to the Law (a common issue at the time). I don’t think we can understand Paul’s statement that the law of commandments and ordinances has been “abolished” in Christ to mean that the Law is no longer in any way applicable. If this were the case, then his appeal to the Fifth Commandment in 6:1-3 would be meaningless.
Without going into a lot of detail–and we could do some very profitable study on the subject–I think the classical distinctions between Ceremonial, Judicial, and Moral Law are helpful, and can be biblically substantiated, especially in Hebrews. The Ceremonial aspect of the Law has indeed been fulfilled in Christ. The Judicial Law operated during the time of Biblical Israel. There are some Christians who believe that under a Christian theocracy, the Judicial aspects of the Law should be brought back (e.g., stoning for adultery)–but that’s another discussion. For the most part, I think we can accept we are not in a theocracy, so that aspect of the Law is not practiced. The Moral Law, however, The Ten Commandments, constitute the only part of the Law that was written in stone by the finger of God. I believe this is significant, because it emphasizes their lasting importance. They were written into the creation (see a previous Romans post, I forget which), and they continue to have significance, as Paul clearly realized.
So, yes, the Ceremonial Law points toward Christ, but when Christ came, the type became reality, so the type is no longer needed. The Judicial Law at least shows us God’s holiness and purity. And the Moral Law is the obligation of every creature–and the fact we cannot keep the Moral Law to the level of perfection required to be justified shows us the depth of our sin and our need for a savior. Once our hearts have been changed by the Spirit, and our desire becomes to please God, we can look to the Ten Commandments to remind us of that Law written on our hearts–though as we saw in Romans 2, even those who don’t have this Law know it, because it is written on their hearts. Even the atheist knows that murder is wrong. Just don’t ask him why. 🙂
I would hesitate to say New Covenant *replaces* the Old–I prefer to say that the New Covenant *fulfills* the Old. I could make this response much longer than your comment, so instead, if you’re interested in what I mean by this, take a look at my paper on Covenant Theology from a Reformed Baptist perspective. You can find it here: http://www.colindsmith.com/papers/papers.html under “Theology.”
Does that help? Feel free to follow up if you don’t think I’ve responded to your comment.
Edit: I found my notes from last Sunday. I’ll just throw these in:
– Heart/Spirit of the law vs. ordinances of the OT – Christ is greater than the temple – he fulfills/overturns the temple/law = We are under Christ who is over the temple (it is and never has been our righteousness, or even our unrighteousness made clean [which would require perpetually new cleaning] but rather Christ’s righteousness credited to us as our own)
– Overturning the law or overturning a faulty conception of the law?
– Christ didn’t die for you so that you can fulfill the laws and doctrines of men, but to free us from these performances
I don’t think during OT times the practice of the Law was ever “wrong.” It’s not that the Jews performed Temple ordinances, sacrifices, etc. that was troublesome. After all, these were given to them by God. It was the fact that many of them did so without the underlying faith that gave meaning and purpose to those ordinances. I think this is one of the things that will come out as we get into Abraham’s faith in chapter 4. It’s not what he did that made him righteous, its the fact that he had faith, and that faith informed what he did. And there’s a lot of application there to many in the church today–including ourselves from time to time. If this is what you mean by a “faulty conception of the law” then yes, certainly.
If by “laws and doctrines of men,” you mean man-made laws above and beyond the Law, then yes, we are under no obligation to those. But The Law was not man-made; it was God ordained for a specific purpose. Part of that purpose was to point His people to Christ. When that purpose was fulfilled, they were freed from the obligation to keep this aspect of the Law. As for the Moral Law, Christ’s death and resurrection freed us from the guilt we have because of our inability to keep it. God no longer judges us on the basis of our failure, but on the basis of Christ’s perfect obedience. That doesn’t free us from the obligation to keep God’s Moral Commands. In fact, as children of God we should delight to obey Him. But we shouldn’t feel condemned when we fall short.
Comment/Question 2:
We opened the discussion last Sunday with a question of fairness – “If God has the ability to save everyone, then it’s not fair that he doesn’t = God must be unmerciful or simply not good” – This was countered with the standard – “It’s not fair that any should be saved – as all are guilty, fairness would necessitate eternal punishment for all – Thus, what’s amazing is that any at all are saved – This comes only thru Christ’s amazing grace, etc….”
This is a good answer, and one that I have both heard and given to others on numerous occasions. However, when conversation turns to that example, it rarely seems to be enough. The question remaining is: ok. But still, though eternal damnation for all would be fair, and it’s an act of unfair grace that any are saved, within that accepted framework, it still seems unfair/at the very least, strange on God’s part to choose some and not others. A good God is performing an unfair act of divine grace based on an arbitrary and eternal system of determination that is evidently beyond our comprehension – but which translates in the unsaved believer’s mind as – That’s still not fair. – Answering this with a standard, answer-to-Job, “Who are you to question the ways of an infinite God,” may work well on those of us who are already in awe of the infinite complexity of our Creator, but for those who are not convinced, we’re back where we started – It’s still unfair
Ah, but here’s the flaw: “… an unfair act of divine grace based on an arbitrary and eternal system of determination…” The difference between election and fatalism is the fact that God ordains *with a purpose.* See Ephesians 1:5-8, 11. God doesn’t just flip a coin to decide who He’s going to save. Romans 8:28 tells us that God is working all things for the good of His people. That means He decides what will happen, who is saved, who isn’t, which rulers come to power, etc. based on what He deems is best for His people.
And honestly, I wouldn’t expect someone who isn’t a Christian to understand this. Their worldview precludes the idea that the Christian God can be good, holy, and just. So, I wouldn’t be afraid to use this as a response to the “God’s not fair” objection since it is biblical truth, but I wouldn’t expect a sympathetic response. In fact, I would use that unsympathetic response as evidence of the truth of Romans 1. 🙂
Good point about not expecting a sympathetic response. Minus Biblical truth it’s hard to accept someone telling you that there is an infinitely complex divine purpose behind such things that you are unable to comprehend.
Comment 3:
The way my mind works I automatically start making literary parallels to things. Here’s what I’ve thought about concerning these verses and these ideas from Romans:
1) The Hound of Heaven image/metaphor – This is a fairly ancient idea, but it comes more recently from a rather lengthy poem by Francis Thompson, soon after depicted in a series of paintings by the American artist RH Ives Gammell. I don’t know much about either of those particular men, but the idea is fascinating. – Essentially, this is an image of us and God. Christ, in his grace, chases us without ceasing (“with all deliberate speed”). We (the hare) are fleeing souls, running and hiding from Christ (an image of our own inability and unwillingness to turn from our sins to God. It is only thru the actions of Christ (the Hound of Heaven), and through his unceasing pursuit and capture that we are saved. = Inescapable Grace
2) Theological symbolism in “Moby Dick” – (In one of innumerable interpretations) Captain Ahab’s pursuit of the White Whale is actually a related sentiment to that above, only from a twisted perspective of the unsaved. The White Whale is a symbol of an omnipotent and infinitely wild and complex deity/force of nature/God who roams the sea (itself a traditional symbol of chaos, mystery, and complexity [much like Borges’ conception of the universe – more on that later perhaps]). Ahab, rather than engaging in righteous pursuit of God, or being pursued by a righteous God, pursues the whale (read – “God”) with an intent to destroy it, seeing him as evil. The twisted understanding of an infinitely complex God leads to a worldview and series of actions which ultimately lead to Ahab’s destruction. God cannot be tamed, destroyed, or understood. – Granted, there are lots of other interpretations of the book (including the whale as Satan), many of which are just as valid and helpful, but I thought this one was appropriate. I’d like to keep writing, but for the sake of brevity I’ll move on.
3) Finally, and briefly: “Blood Meridian” by Cormac McCarthy – This is one of the most brilliant, beautiful and horrific books I’ve ever read. McCarthy presents the reader with a world without God and without grace. Here, willful and evil men are gods, and the world is made in man’s image, resulting in an extremely violent and bloody and sinful world. Yet, throughout the book, there are moments of extreme beauty and poetry, particularly in nature. Despite man’s destruction, God is inescapably seen in his creation. McCarthy presents us with man’s sinful inability to be justified by God’s standards, or even his own standards – it is an amazing portrait of the brokenness of the world, but despite the brokenness, little glimpses of grace and hope shine through the cracks
I’ve written and rambled too long…and yet there’s always more to say
Thoughts?
Thoughts:
1) The image of the Hound of Heaven I think is certainly applicable to God with regard to His people. I would, of course, be sure to qualify it by saying that the Hound of Heaven *never* fails in His pursuit of those He intends to save, and He gives them the desire to be saved and the ability to repent and believe. Limited Atonement. 🙂 But I know it wrecks the beauty of the imagery if you keep saying “umm… let’s be sure we’re being theologically correct here…” Reformed people often get overly pedantic when it comes to poetry. Let’s just assume we’re being theologically correct. 🙂
2) Ahab’s pursuit of God to tame or destroy him sounds like much of the New Atheism going around today. Very applicable.
3) Dr. James White, who mentored me through my M.Div., has often made the comment that even the worst of humanity is not as bad as it can be, and that’s because God is restraining evil in this land. Sometimes He relinquishes His grip just a little, resulting in events like Columbine and 911. This is to remind us of the depths of our depravity, especially when we get too comfortable thinking we’re not really all that bad. But I certainly agree that even in the worst depravity of creation, because it was created by God, there is still beauty to be found. Even the pot made for destruction has the Potter’s fingerprints on it. Ooo… I’ll have to remember that one for when we get to Romans 9! 🙂
Thanks for your thoughts and comments, Andrew!