Big Idea: Paul anticipates here in verses 21–26 Martin Luther's famous question, “How can I, a sinner, stand before a holy God?” The apostle's answer is that at the cross of Jesus Christ, the judging righteousness of God (his holiness) is reconciled to God's saving righteousness (his mercy) such that God is at once both just and the justifier of him whose faith is in Jesus.

Understanding the Text

Romans 1:17–18 signaled two aspects of divine righteousness: saving righteousness and judging righteousness. Paul has dealt with the latter in 1:19–3:20, demonstrating that even attempting to obey the law brings about divine wrath and spiritual exile. Now Paul intends to show that God’s saving righteousness has been manifested in the death of Jesus and is to be received by faith alone; at the cross God’s judging righteousness (3:25–26) and saving righteousness (3:21–24) were reconciled.

Paul draws upon a series of contrasts between God’s judging and saving righteousness, shown in table 1.

Historical and Cultural Background

A number of considerations provide the reader with the needed background to better interpret this passage. Only the first is mentioned here; the other, more technical considerations appear in the “Additional Insights” at the end of this unit.

“The Law and the Prophets” (3:21) was a characteristic way to refer to the twofold division of the Old Testament in Second Temple Judaism, if not to all three divisions: Law, Prophets, and Writings1(see 2 Macc. 2:2–3, 13; 15:9; the prologue to Sirach; 4 Macc. 18:10; 4QMMT 95–96; Matt. 11:13 // Luke 16:16; Matt. 5:17; 7:12; 22:40; Luke 24:44; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23). Only here does Paul refer to the Old Testament in this way. Elsewhere he has other designations (e.g., “law,” “prophets,” “Scripture”).

Interpretive Insights

3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known. “But now” marks the eschatological shift between this age and the age to come; between the old covenant and the new covenant; between the old era of the domination of sin and the new era in Christ of salvation that began at the cross (cf. Eph. 2:13; Col. 1:22).

“Righteousness of God” (3:21) is the key theological term in 3:21–26. The noun “righteousness” (dikaiosyn?) occurs four times (vv. 21, 22, 25, 26), the verb “to make righteous” (dikaio?) twice (vv. 24, 26), and the adjective “righteous” (dikaios) once (v. 26). As mentioned earlier, there are two aspects of divine righteousness in these verses: God’s saving righteousness (3:21–24) and his judging righteousness (3:25–26). In verse 21 we have the first contrast between God’s judging and saving righteousness: the old covenant belongs to the former, while the new covenant belongs to the latter. But Paul’s statement that, in effect, God’s saving righteousness was also attested in the Old Testament warns against the notion (later embraced by Marcion) that only God’s wrath was manifested in the Old Testament and only his love was shown in the New Testament. On the righteousness from God apart from the Torah that is witnessed to in “the Law and the Prophets,” see further the commentary on Romans 3:27–31.

3:22 righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe . . . Jew and Gentile. One of the two contrasts that Paul touches upon is that whereas the stipulation of the old covenant was the law of Moses (3:21), the stipulation of the new covenant is faith in Jesus Christ (3:22). The second contrast is that the old covenant pertained only to Jews, but the new covenant includes Gentiles (3:23–24). But Paul seems to dig deeper when he makes the two contrasts: the new covenant does not include the old covenant (contrary to the Old Testament, which seems to have anticipated the incorporating of the old covenant in the new covenant), and the conversion of the Gentiles precedes the restoration of Israel, even replaces it to some extent. (Though, as Rom. 11 will make clear, Jewish Christians represent a partial restoration of Israel in the present, yet it is also clear that the remnant in Paul’s day did not constitute the majority of the church, as the Gentile believers did.) Yet we see here how fair God is in all of this: all have sinned before him, but all can be saved through faith in Christ (see sidebar).

3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Two pieces of Paul’s Adam theology surface here. First, the aorist tense of the verb h?marton (“have sinned”) no doubt alludes to Adam and Eve’s fall in the garden of Eden (see Rom. 5:12–21; cf. 1:18–32). Thus, in some mysterious way all of humanity has been impacted by Adam’s sin (see the commentary on Rom. 5:12–14). Second, Paul’s reference to all of humanity falling (hysterountai [“fall short”] is a present tense used in gnomic fashion, indicating something that is constantly going on) probably alludes to the first couple’s loss of divine glory upon their sin in paradise (see Gen. 1:26–28; Ps. 8:4–8; Apoc. Mos. 21.6; 3 Bar. 4.16; 1QS 4.22–23; CD 3.19–20; 4Q171 3.1–2) as well as the eschatological hope of the restoration of that glory.2

3:25–26 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement [propitiation] . . . to demonstrate his righteousness. The death of Jesus reconciled God’s judging and saving righteousness (see “The Text in Context” section above and table 1). According to Paul, the Old Testament sacrificial system (in this case, the Day of Atonement) was temporary and insufficient to fully pay for the sins of Israel (and even more so the sins of Gentiles, who did not have access to the Old Testament sacrificial system as did Jews). But this was according to the divine plan. The sacrifices of the old covenant simply anticipated the full and final atonement of Jesus. God therefore could look beyond the Old Testament sacrificial system to the cross. To put it another way, the complete forgiveness of the sins of ancient Israel depended on the coming sacrifice of Christ. Herein is the final contrast in 3:21–26: the judging aspect of God’s righteousness under the old covenant (in that Israel’s sins were not fully forgiven) finds its counterpart in the saving aspect of God’s righteousness at the cross (where sin is fully forgiven). Thus, the death of Jesus demonstrates that God is both just (judging righteousness) and justifier (saving righteousness).

Theological Insights

A number of truths confront us in Romans 3:21–26. First, God is just and justifier, holy and loving. The cross demonstrates this to be so. Second, God is fair: if all have sinned and fall short of his righteousness, then through faith in Jesus Christ all can be saved. As the old saying goes, “The ground at the foot of the cross is level.” Third, the major theological point that Paul makes here is that the promised restoration of Israel is now occurring in Christ. Various notions make that clear: God’s righteousness is his faithfulness to the covenant with Israel; redemption from exile and judgment is now available in Christ; the anticipation in the law and the prophets of Israel’s deliverance is here, and with it the new covenant. Yet Paul reveals some surprises regarding the restoration of Israel. The long-awaited new covenant means a break with the old covenant. The restoration of Israel is based on faith in Jesus Christ, not on the law of Moses and its sacrificial system. The restoration of Israel includes Gentiles; indeed, from Paul’s day until ours it is composed largely of Gentiles. Finally, Jews who do not believe in Christ remain under the judgment aspect of the righteousness of God.

Sacrifice: First, an important tradition informing Paul’s language of sacrifice in Romans 3:25–26, especially his choice of the word hilast?rion in 3:25, is the Day of Atonement. Some seventy-five years ago C. H. Dodd disagreed that hilast?rion referred to the mercy seat, the cover over the ark of the covenant where Yahweh accepted the high priest’s sacrifice on the Day of Atonement for Israel’s sins (see Lev. 16:2 LXX; also Heb. 9:5).1Leon Morris, however, has convinced many against Dodd.2Dodd argued that hilast?rion should not be translated “propitiation” because that conveys the idea that God was like the Greek gods, bloodthirsty and capricious. Rather, it should be rendered as “expiation,” a more general term for forgiveness. Morris demonstrated, to the contrary, that in the Old Testament hilast?rion does indeed convey the idea of the appeasement of God’s wrath through animal sacrifice and should therefore be translated “propitiation.”3Moreover, Morris showed that Dodd overlooked the fact that Romans 3:25–26 indicates that it was God who initiated the process of forgiveness, something completely different from the deities of Greek religion.

Redemption: Second, the Greek word apolytr?sis (“redemption”) in Romans 3:24 harks back in the LXX to Israel’s liberation from Egypt (e.g., Deut. 7:8; 9:26; 15:15; 24:18) as well as to Israel’s release from the Babylonian exile (Isa. 41:14; 43:1, 14; 44:22–24; 51:11; 52:3; 62:12; 63:9).4In other words, “redemption” could be a synonym for Israel’s restoration, which is no doubt how Paul uses the term in Romans 3:24. An issue with the word “redemption” is whether it involves a ransom price. Thomas Schreiner offers two decisive arguments that it does: (1) Paul does say that we are justified “freely” by God’s grace through the redemption that is in Christ (3:24), which implies a price paid freely for the sinner—the death of Jesus; (2) the sacrificial language in 3:25–26 invokes the offering of an animal (paying a price with its life’s blood), to which Paul compares the death of Christ (compare Rom. 3:24–26 with Eph. 1:7; see also Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23). These considerations lead to the conclusion that Christ’s death was the price paid to satisfy the righteous wrath of God for sin. However, in accepting this conclusion, one need not subscribe to the patristic theory that the ransom that Christ paid was to Satan.5It is clear in Romans 3:24–26 that redemption starts and ends with God, not some dualistic force.

Paul's Use of Traditional Material: Third, the reader of Romans 3:21–26 needs to be aware of the debate during the last generation as to whether Paul is here drawing upon traditional material. This is the case for 1:3–4, where Paul shows his agreement with the Christology of the early church by quoting an early Christian hymn. Is it also the situation for 3:21–26? The theory is that 3:21–24 is Pauline, but 3:25–26a is pre-Pauline. Those who support this view point to two “un-Pauline” ideas in these verses: (1) the sacrificial language of 3:25, especially “faith in his blood”; (2) God overlooked past sins committed in the Old Testament. The upshot of these arguments is that Paul corrects a hymn that emphasized God’s making sinners right with himself by introducing the notion that the death of Christ did more than that: it appeased the wrath of God toward humankind.6The crux of the matter is that Paul introduces the judging aspect of divine righteousness into a creed that emphasized only the saving aspect of God’s righteousness. These arguments appear to be valid, but if one accepts Ephesians 1:7 as Pauline and the report of Acts 20:28 as reliable, then referring to Jesus’ death as a “bloody” sacrifice is not un-Pauline at all. Furthermore, the fact that only once in his letters does Paul mention God’s passing over the sins of the past need not preclude this mention as being from Paul. But most important, already in Romans 1:17–18 (which no one thinks is pre-Pauline) we see Paul juxtaposing God’s saving and judging righteousness. Actually, for Paul, both are needed to present the character of God, who is both holy and loving (so 3:26b). There is no need, therefore, to resort to the theory of Romans 3:25–26a being pre-Pauline.

Teaching the Text

A couple of sermons/lessons come to mind in contemplating Romans 3:21–26. One is a sermon entitled “Is Christianity a Slaughterhouse Religion?” I well remember hearing just such a sermon when I was a teenager. The preacher captured the loathing that many moderns feel about the cross of Christ. And yet, Paul would be the first to say, “No blood, no forgiveness.” Today, however, even some evangelicals are calling Christ’s sacrificial death a case of “cosmic child abuse.” Related to this criticism, C. H. Dodd rejected the term “propitiation” as an appropriate term for Jesus’ death because he felt that such a concept presented God as fickle and bloodthirsty, stemming from the portrayal of the ancient Greek gods. Instead, Dodd preferred the word “expiation” or “forgiveness” for Jesus’ atonement because that seemed more humane and palatable to modern readers.3 But in the face of all of this criticism, the Scriptures do not cower away from presenting Jesus’ death as violent and sacrificial, nor should Christians. Christ’s death was his voluntary choice, not something forced upon him. In this regard he was much like a soldier who volunteers to be put in harm’s way to protect the homeland. And as that soldier who is killed in action pays the supreme cost for the good of others, so Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of others’ relationship with God. Jesus’ death on the cross also is a stark reminder that the holiness of God is not to be taken lightly. All of us will have to face this righteous God one day, and the only way to find acceptance in him is to embrace God’s Son, who was willing to be forsaken by God on the cross so that we never will have to face that foreboding reality.

Another sermon from this text is “The Fairness of God: All Are Lost, and All Can Be Found.” This sermon makes the point that salvation by grace through faith in Jesus’ atoning death is the only fair way for all of humankind to find peace with God. God does not discriminate in this most important matter: if the observance of the Torah were the only avenue to salvation, then the Gentiles would be disqualified from the get-go. And, despite Jewish possession of the law of Moses, that people group does not actually match up to the perfect standard of the Old Testament law, and thereby fall short of God’s righteousness as well. So Paul’s point is that God offers justification equitably to all. Therefore all must acknowledge that they do not keep the divine revelation given them and humbly bow before God and by faith accept his offer of forgiveness of sin and justification through the finished work of Christ on the cross.

Illustrating the Text

God is just and justifier, holy and loving, as seen through the cross.

Church History: One idea is to talk about the second-century heretic Marcion, his aversion to the Old Testament, and his splitting of God into two deities: the Old Testament god of wrath and the New Testament god of love. One could contrast this with Romans 3:21–26. As suggested above, a sermon could be preached entitled “Is Christianity a Slaughterhouse Religion?” Marcion observed a vast difference between the God represented in the Old Testament and the God of Jesus in the New Testament. His answer was to reject the God of the Old Testament, seeing him as the creator of an evil world. Marcion then constructed the first recorded listing of New Testament texts, basically his personal canon. He excluded the entire Old Testament, and from the New Testament he retained only Paul’s letters and Luke’s Gospel. In addition, he excluded parts of Paul’s letters that refer to the Old Testament (Marcion claimed that these had been tampered with by the Jews) and references to hell and/or judgment (e.g., 2 Thess. 1:6–8). This is the unorthodox canon that led the church fathers to begin naming the “accepted” documents. Marcion’s influence was significant enough for his teaching to be refuted by several church fathers, including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian.

Bible: One could tell the story of the Day of Atonement as found in Leviticus 16: on one day each year the high priest spread the blood of a slain goat on the mercy seat in the holy of holies and then sent a second goat, associated with Israel’s sin, into the wilderness, never to be seen again. The scapegoat symbolized forgiveness of the sins of the whole nation for a year. The imagery graphically informs the death of Christ.

Because God is fair, all who are lost can be found.

Literature: Cry, the Beloved Country and Too Late the Phalarope, by Alan Paton. In Cry, the Beloved Country (1948), a novel about the unjust social structures in South Africa, Theophilus Msimangu, a priest, says, “The tragedy is not that things are broken. The tragedy is that they are not mended again.” In Too Late the Phalarope (1953), likewise set in South Africa, the protagonist, Pieter van Vlaanderen, is a gifted, handsome, young police officer who is tormented by internal darkness and sexual temptation brought about through the breakdown of his relationship with his father. He cannot find mercy in the face of God. One Sunday at church, the minister preaches a powerful sermon, arguing for hope for all, a sermon that deeply affects the tormented Pieter. This appears in chapter 10 and can be read aloud, as it is short.

Apologetics: Mere Christianity, by C. S. Lewis. In chapter 5 of book 1 of this renowned work (1952) Lewis approaches the problem of the lost and has some quotable things to say about God’s character. All of book 1 is useful.

Boasting in the Law versus Justification by Faith

Big Idea: These verses contain three contrasts between boasting in the law of Moses and justification by faith in Christ alone: boasting in individual legalism versus justification by faith and acceptance before God; boasting in national exclusivism versus justification by faith and monotheism; boasting in the old covenant versus justification by faith and the new covenant.

Understanding the Text

Romans 3:27–31 is a transitional passage. It points backward to Paul’s argumentation in 1:18–3:26, reiterating that justification before God is conditioned on faith in Christ and not on the works of the law. And it looks forward to Paul’s argumentation in 4:1–23 that Abraham, the founding father of the Jews, was accepted by God on the basis of faith some four hundred years before the advent of the law of Moses.

The theme of Romans 3:27–31 is that boasting in the law is antithetical to justification by faith. Three contrasts drive that message home:

1. Boasting in individual legalism versus justification by faith and acceptance before God (3:27–28)

a. Law (3:27a)

b. Faith (3:27b)

b?. Faith (3:28a)

a?. Law (3:28b)

2. Boasting in (Jewish) national exclusivism versus justification by faith and monotheism (3:29–30)

3. Boasting in the old covenant versus justification by faith and the new covenant (3:31)

Historical and Cultural Background

1. As Simon Gathercole has perceptively demonstrated with regard to Romans 3:27–31, against the New Perspective on Paul, the literature of Second Temple Judaism is filled with individual boasting before God based on observing the whole Torah—boasting, no less, in anticipation of judgment day (e.g., 2 Maccabees, Testament of Job, Sibylline Oracles, Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Dead Sea Scrolls). In other words, boasting in the Judaism of Paul’s day went well beyond Jewish national pride in the three covenant markers (circumcision, Sabbath, diet). And it is individual boasting in the entirety of the Torah that Paul condemns in Romans 3:27–28.1

2. Romans 3:29–30 draws on the fundamental tenet of Judaism: God is one—monotheism. Thus, Jews recited the Shema (Hebrew for “hear,” the first word of Deut. 6:4) every day: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord [Yahweh] our God, the Lord is one . . .” (Deut. 6:4–5).

3. Two covenants are at work in Romans 3:27–31; 4:1–23: the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant. For Paul, these two are in tension, and the former anticipates the gospel, the new covenant (see below).

The Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12-50) vs. the Mosaic Covenant (Exod. 20; Deuteronomy; Josh. 24):

Based on the faith of the individual vs Based on the law of Moses

Rooted in God’s grace vs. Rooted in an individual’s works

Unconditional (God promised to keep his covenant with Abraham regardless of human response) vs. Conditional (Israel’s response determined whether the nation would experience the covenant blessings)

Interpretive Insights

3:27–28 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law [nomos]? The law that requires works? No, because of the law [nomos] that requires faith . . . a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law [nomos].2 These verses point out that boasting in individual legalism is antithetical to justification by faith. This is seen in the chiasm that these verses form:

A Law (of Moses) (v. 27a)

B Faith (in Jesus Christ) (v. 27b)

B? Faith (in Jesus Christ) (v. 28a)

A? Law (of Moses) (v. 28b)

There are two standard opinions on the meaning of nomos (“law” or “principle”) in 3:27–31 (v. 27 [2x], v. 28, v. 31 [2x]). Some think that “law” in verses 27, 28, 31 refers to the law of Moses.3Others think that two different nuances of law are intended: “law of Moses” (v. 27 [the first instance], v. 28, v. 31 [both times]) and “principle” (v. 27 [the second occurrence]).4I suggest instead that nomos, both times in 3:27, means “principle,” but two different principles: the principle of obeying the works of the Torah (v. 27a) versus the principle of justification by faith (v. 27b). Many commentators who take nomos here either as the law of Moses (v. 27a) and the principle of faith (v. 27b) or as the law of Moses in both cases miss the antithetical parallelism and the double meaning of nomos in 3:27:

Verse 27a: principle (nomos) of works (of the Torah) (cf. v. 28b) versus

Verse 27b: principle (nomos) of faith (cf. v. 28a)

On this reading, in 3:27–28 Paul is summarizing his argument in 1:18–3:26: no individual can boast before God regarding obedience to the law of Moses because no one can ever follow the law perfectly enough to be accepted by God on judgment day. More than that, the law stirs up disobedience, not obedience, to God in the first place. Verses 27–28 add one more vital detail to Paul’s argument: the law itself stirs up individual pride before God and others. Rather, it is only by faith in Christ that anyone will be justified before God.

3:29–30 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Here Paul turns his attention to criticizing Jewish national exclusivism.5Jews fancied themselves to be better than Gentiles because they worshiped the one true God and possessed his law. In 3:29–30 Paul turns this argument on its head: monotheism means that the one true God is uniting all humankind (Jew [circumcised] and Gentile [uncircumcised]) on the basis of justification by faith in Christ (see Paul’s extensive argument in Rom. 4:1–25). In other words, for Paul, justification by faith is rooted in monotheism. In this scenario there is no longer any room for the law of Moses. It divided humankind, but justification by faith unites humankind. This is because all can have faith in Jesus, whereas only one nation (Israel) can lay claim to the law of Moses.

3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law [nomos] by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law [nomos]. This verse has generated three major interpretations, to which I will add a fourth. First, the more traditional perspective on Paul sees a problem with his statement here about faith establishing the law of Moses. Up until now in Romans the apostle has said next to nothing positive regarding the Torah, but now suddenly he seems to assert that faith establishes the law. How so? This view answers that Paul is talking not about the law of Moses per se but rather about the intent or commands of the Torah. In light of Romans 2:25–29; 8:4; 13:8–10 (which seem to say something similar: faith in Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit empower the Christian to do even better than the Torah, namely, to fulfill the divine intent behind the Torah in the first place without getting bogged down in its 613 specific laws), this may well be the case. A second traditional view is that Paul is not making a positive comment about the law in 3:31 but rather is saying that the purpose of the Torah is strictly negative: to bring all humanity up short of the righteousness of God and thereby drive all people to the gospel (cf. Rom. 3:19–26; Gal. 3:1–4:7). This, too, is quite possible. Third, the New Perspective argues that nomos is the law of Moses throughout 3:27–31, and Paul is criticizing not the law but rather the improper usage of it whereby Jewish covenant markers are used to marginalize Gentiles in their relationship with God. This view seems to me off base in that it does not recognize that Paul is using nomos in more than one way in these verses, and that in 3:27–28 he is attacking individual boasting before God, not just national exclusivism.

A fourth view of 3:31 is reflected in my suggested translation: “Do we then nullify the old covenant [nomos] by faith? May it never be! [Implied: faith did not need to nullify the old covenant because the law of Moses itself already did that by stirring up humans to sin against God.] Rather, we establish the new covenant [nomos] by faith.” Here, nomos means “covenant,” and, as in 3:27, Paul is using nomos in antithetical parallelism and with a double meaning:

Verse 31a: we do not nullify the old covenant (nomos) by faith (implied: the law of Moses itself did that by stirring up sin)

Verse 31b: rather, we establish the new covenant (nomos) by faith

Several factors lead me to this translation. (1) The law was the stipulation of the covenant for Israel; the two ideas went hand in hand. Indeed, the New Perspective assumes that Paul is talking about the “covenant” markers in 3:29–30. (2) My suspicion that Paul is continuing to think about the covenant in 3:31 seems confirmed by his choice of the word “establish” (hist?mi), which is used in the LXX for establishing the covenant (Deut. 28:69 [29:1 ET]; 1 Sam. 15:13; 2 Chron. 35:19a), including the new covenant (Jer. 42:14, 16 [35:14, 16 ET]). In other words, for Paul to say in 3:31 that faith establishes the covenant would have reminded his Jewish readers of the Old Testament phrase “the law establishes the covenant.” (3) Here the antithetical parallelism surfaces in 3:31: the other word that Paul uses of nomos in 3:31 (besides “establish”) is “nullify” (katarge?), which in 2 Corinthians 3:1–4:6 Paul uses four times regarding the demise of the old covenant in light of the arrival of the new covenant in Christ (2 Cor. 3:7, 11, 13, 14). Thus, it appears that Paul signals by the two words “nullify” and “establish” the antithesis between the old and new covenants. (4) Immediately following 3:31 is Paul’s discussion of the contrast between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. (5) Since Paul uses the word nomos in two different ways in 3:27–28 (“principle” [2x in v. 27] and “Torah” [v. 28]), it would not be surprising that he would continue to offer another nuance of the word in 3:31 (“covenant”). This to say that Paul provides a play on the word nomos throughout 3:27–31: “principle” (v. 27), “Torah” (v. 28), and “covenant” (v. 31). (6) The verb katarge? is also used in Romans 4:14 of the promise to Abraham—the Abrahamic covenant—as being void if that promise/covenant is based on the law of Moses. (7) This proposed reading would mean that Paul is perfectly consistent with his negative presentation of the law of Moses throughout Romans 1:18–3:31. These seven considerations combine to suggest that 3:31 contains a third contrast between boasting in the law and justification by faith: the former is not appropriate since the old covenant has passed away; only the latter is the avenue to the new covenant.

Theological Insights

Even though it is a short passage, Romans 3:27–31 is full of profound theological truths. First, individual boasting before God because of one’s supposed good works is a dead-end street spiritually. Such arrogance only distances a person from God because trying to match one’s righteousness with God’s is a hopeless endeavor. Second, boasting in one’s supposed national superiority over others can also lead to a quagmire in relationships. Patriotism is not wrong, but it can go awry and bring about disastrous results. What we can learn from these two theological insights is that humility before God and others is the best way to go through life. Third, the divine plan for salvation is based on faith, beginning with the Old Testament and continuing to the New Testament. The Abrahamic covenant (compare Rom. 3:29–30 with Rom. 4) revealed that acceptance before God is based on faith; indeed, the true children of Abraham are those who are saved by faith, not by the law of Moses. Why, then, did God give the Torah to Israel? Ultimately, it was to drive both Jew and Gentile to belief in Jesus (compare Rom. 1:18–4:25 with Gal. 3:1–4:7). Fourth, the overarching argument that Paul makes in Romans 1:18–3:31 is that the stipulation of the new covenant is faith in Jesus Christ, not the law of Moses.

Faith and Law in Paul: Related to the issue of the meaning of nomos and the differing approaches between the old and new perspectives toward Paul is the challenge of explaining the relationship between faith and law in Romans 3:27–31 (cf. 3:21) and, indeed, in all of Paul’s letters. The question is this: are they positively related or not? The literature on the subject is vast and vexing, but we can identify some six constructs regarding the relationship between faith and law. Space permits only, in table form, a list of the options and my own view (see below).1

Six Constructs on the Relationship between Faith and Law

1. Traditional (Old Dispensationalism)

Explanation: Old Testament legalism (salvation by the works of the law) versus New Testament grace (justification by faith in Christ alone).

Weakness: But Paul says that the Old Testament teaches salvation by faith apart from legalism (see Rom. 3:21; 4:1-23)

2. Covenantal Nomism

Explanation: The Old Testament does not teach legalism; rather, it teaches that one entered the covenant by faith and remained in the covenant by obeying the law.

Weakness: But Paul declares that the old covenant / Mosaic system was based on legalism (see Rom. 2:1—3:20; 7:1-13; 8:1-4; 9:30—10:5). And covenantal nomism is still legalistic because it is synergistic.

3. Two-Covenant Theory

Explanation: Paul taught that Jews should continue to be saved by obeying the Torah like the Old Testament says, but that Gentiles are saved by faith in Christ apart from the Torah.

Weakness: But Romans 1:18—3:26; 9:30—10:5, for example, make it clear that Paul believes that both Jews and Gentiles can be justified before God only by faith in Christ alone apart from works of the law.

4. Modified Judaizing Theory

Explanation: Paul taught that Jews are saved by obeying the whole of the Torah, while Gentiles are saved by obeying the moral summary of the Torah/Noahic laws.

Weakness: But we have seen that Romans 1:18—3:20 makes precisely the opposite point: Jews are not saved by obeying the Torah, and Gentiles are not saved by obeying the Noahic commandments. Both Jew and Gentile are saved by trusting in Christ alone.

5. Law/Gospel

Explanation: Luther’s famous law/gospel hermeneutic claims that the Bible conveys two basic words from God: law=conviction, and gospel=grace, with the one dialectically driving the reader to the other. This twofold message occurs throughout both Testaments.

Weakness: This venerable approach to the Bible has much to commend it, but it does not ultimately explain why Paul does not explicitly attribute grace to the Torah and law to the gospel, which one would expect if the two are in a dialectical relationship.

6. Abrahamic Covenant versus Mosaic Covenant

Explanation: Paul reads the Scriptures (= the Old Testament) as conveying two different approaches to salvation: according to the Abrahamic covenant, acceptance before God is based on faith in God’s grace, but according to the Mosaic covenant, salvation is based on the works of the law. The former takes precedence over the latter, while the latter serves the divine purpose of driving sinners to the gospel (see Rom 4:1-23; Gal 3:6-29).

Weakness: I see no weakness in this construct; indeed, it seems to be a better approach than the traditional and new perspectives on Paul. It is better than the traditional perspective on Paul because that approach sees only law/works in the Old Testament, not grace, whereas my approach sees grace/faith in the Old Testament (= Abrahamic covenant). My approach also is better than the New Perspective on Paul because that approach sees only grace in the Old Testament, not legalism, whereas my approach (which, of course, I did not originate) sees legalism in the Old Testament (= Mosaic covenant).

Teaching the Text

The best way to preach or teach Romans 3:27–31 is to title the message something like “No Boasting before God” and then simply to explain the three contrasts between boasting in the law of Moses and justification by faith. First, individual legalism constitutes a roadblock to justification by faith because most people in this category are religious by nature and therefore assume that their good works—church/synagogue/mosque attendance, helping others, living a morally upstanding life, and so on—will earn them salvation. Indeed, Christian evangelism exposes such a baseless assumption when a person is asked, “If you stood before God today and he asked you why he should let you enter heaven, what would you say?” Most folk in the category of individual legalism will point out the good works in their lives as grounds for their justification on judgment day. The challenge of the Christian evangelist is to wean such persons from trusting in their own merits before a perfect God.

Second, millions of people trust in their national identity to be justified by God. One thinks especially of Americans who claim that their country is a Christian nation and therefore they have inherited the blessings of that faith, including acceptance before God. But Paul and Jesus vociferously denied that one is born a believer by being born in Israel (compare Rom. 3:29–30 with John 1:11–13), and the same argument can be made for America.

Third, Paul contrasts the old covenant with the new covenant in 3:31. Since the law and the old covenant failed to justify humans before God, the new covenant received by faith in Christ alone is the only legitimate way to be accepted by God.

Illustrating the Text

Boasting before God because of one’s supposed good works is a dead-end street.

Literature: The Wind in the Willows, by Kenneth Grahame. This British children’s classic (1908) features four colorful characters, Beaver, Rat, Mole, and Toad. Toad is a proud, self-obsessed character who brags about himself incessantly, inventing good works that he has done, even composing songs to his glory, and making self-destructive decisions. The book is funny and wise and full of camaraderie as the friends try to rescue Toad from himself. A passage from this book could be read to either children or adults during the service, especially for a children’s sermon.

Humility before God and others is the way to go through life.

Theological Book: A Little Exercise for Young Theologians, by Helmut Thielicke. Thielicke (1908–86), a German theologian and pastor who served as a professor of systematic theology at the University of Hamburg, talks directly to young theologians about the inherent dangers at their stage of life. Of the importance of humility he writes,

Truth seduces us very easily into a kind of joy of possession: I have comprehended this and that, learned it, understood it. Knowledge is power. I am therefore more than the other man who does not know this and that. I have greater possibilities and temptations. Anyone who deals with the truth . . . succumbs all too easily to the psychology of the possessor. But love is the opposite of the will to possess. It is self-giving. It boasteth not itself, but humbleth itself.6

Poetry: “The Apologist’s Evening Prayer,” by C. S. Lewis. In this poem Lewis asks to be delivered from all his “lame defeats,” from all his “victories,” from his “cleverness,” things that make audiences “laugh” and angels “weep.” He also asks to be delivered from all his proofs of God’s divinity and to be set free from trusting in himself, from his thoughts, and from his “trumpery."