1 Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision?

2 Actually, there are many advantages.tn Grk “much in every way.” First of all,tc ‡ Most witnesses (א A D2 33 Ï) have γάρ (gar) after μέν (men), though some significant Alexandrian and Western witnesses lack the conjunction (B D* G Ψ 81 365 1506 2464* pc latt). A few mss have γάρ, but not μέν (6 1739 1881). γάρ was frequently added by scribes as a clarifying conjunction, making it suspect here. NA27 has the γάρ in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.tn Grk “first indeed that.” the Jewstn Grk “they were.” were entrusted with the oracles of God.tn The referent of λόγια (logia, “oracles”) has been variously understood: (1) BDAG 598 s.v. λόγιον takes the term to refer here to “God’s promises to the Jews”; (2) some have taken this to refer more narrowly to the national promises of messianic salvation given to Israel (so S. L. Johnson, Jr., “Studies in Romans: Part VII: The Jews and the Oracles of God,” BSac 130 [1973]: 245); (3) perhaps the most widespread interpretation sees the term as referring to the entire OT generally.

3 What then? If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God?

4 Absolutely not! Let God be proven true, and every human beingtn Grk “every man”; but ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo") is used in a generic sense here to stress humanity rather than masculinity. shown up as a liar,tn Grk “Let God be true, and every man a liar.” The words “proven” and “shown up” are supplied in the translation to clarify the meaning. just as it is written: “so that you will be justifiedtn Grk “might be justified,” a subjunctive verb, but in this type of clause it carries the same sense as the future indicative verb in the latter part. “Will” is more idiomatic in contemporary English. in your words and will prevail when you are judged.”tn Or “prevail when you judge.” A quotation from Ps 51:4.

5 But if our unrighteousness demonstratestn Or “shows clearly.” the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is he?tn Grk “That God is not unjust to inflict wrath, is he?” (I am speaking in human terms.)sn The same expression occurs in Gal 3:15, and similar phrases in Rom 6:19 and 1 Cor 9:8.

6 Absolutely not! For otherwise how could God judge the world?

7 For if by my lie the truth of God enhancestn Grk “abounded unto.” his glory, why am I still actually being judged as a sinner?

8 And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may come of it”? – as some who slander us allege that we say.tn Grk “(as we are slandered and some affirm that we say…).” (Theirtn Grk “whose.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, this relative clause was rendered as a new sentence in the translation. condemnation is deserved!)

9 What then? Are we better off? Certainly not, for we have already charged that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin,

10 just as it is written:

11 there is no one who understands,

12 All have turned away,

13 “Their throats are open graves,tn Grk “their throat is an opened grave.”

14 “Their mouths aretn Grk “whose mouth is.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation. full of cursing and bitterness.”sn A quotation from Ps 10:7.

15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,

16 ruin and misery are in their paths,

17 and the way of peace they have not known.”sn Rom 3:15-17 is a quotation from Isa 59:7-8.

18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”sn A quotation from Ps 36:1.

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are undertn Grk “in,” “in connection with.” the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

20 For no one is declared righteous before himsn An allusion to Ps 143:2. by the works of the law,tn Grk “because by the works of the law no flesh is justified before him.” Some recent scholars have understood the phrase ἒργα νόμου (erga nomou, “works of the law”) to refer not to obedience to the Mosaic law generally, but specifically to portions of the law that pertain to things like circumcision and dietary laws which set the Jewish people apart from the other nations (e.g., J. D. G. Dunn, Romans [WBC], 1:155). Other interpreters, like C. E. B. Cranfield (“‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 [1991]: 89-101) reject this narrow interpretation for a number of reasons, among which the most important are: (1) The second half of v. 20, “for through the law comes the knowledge of sin,” is hard to explain if the phrase “works of the law” is understood in a restricted sense; (2) the plural phrase “works of the law” would have to be understood in a different sense from the singular phrase “the work of the law” in 2:15; (3) similar phrases involving the law in Romans (2:13, 14; 2:25, 26, 27; 7:25; 8:4; and 13:8) which are naturally related to the phrase “works of the law” cannot be taken to refer to circumcision (in fact, in 2:25 circumcision is explicitly contrasted with keeping the law). Those interpreters who reject the “narrow” interpretation of “works of the law” understand the phrase to refer to obedience to the Mosaic law in general. for through the law comestn Grk “is.” the knowledge of sin.

21 But nowtn Νυνὶ δέ (Nuni de, “But now”) could be understood as either (1) logical or (2) temporal in force, but most recent interpreters take it as temporal, referring to a new phase in salvation history. apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets)tn Grk “being witnessed by the law and the prophets,” a remark which is virtually parenthetical to Paul’s argument. has been disclosed –

22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christtn Or “faith in Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pisti" Cristou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730-44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.sn ExSyn 116, which notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that “the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful.” Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith is reliable and worthy of such faith. for all who believe. For there is no distinction,

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

24 But they are justifiedtn Or “declared righteous.” Grk “being justified,” as a continuation of the preceding clause. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation. freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

25 God publicly displayedtn Or “purposed, intended.” himtn Grk “whom God publicly displayed.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation. at his deathtn Grk “in his blood.” The prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (ejn tw aujtou {aimati) is difficult to interpret. It is traditionally understood to refer to the atoning sacrifice Jesus made when he shed his blood on the cross, and as a modifier of ἱλαστήριον (Jilasthrion). This interpretation fits if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to a sacrifice. But if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to the place where atonement is made as this translation has done (see note on the phrase “mercy seat”), this interpretation of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι creates a violent mixed metaphor. Within a few words Paul would switch from referring to Jesus as the place where atonement was made to referring to Jesus as the atoning sacrifice itself. A viable option which resolves this problem is to see ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι as modifying the verb προέθετο (proeqeto). If it modifies the verb, it would explain the time or place in which God publicly displayed Jesus as the mercy seat; the reference to blood would be a metaphorical way of speaking of Jesus’ death. This is supported by the placement of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι in the Greek text (it follows the noun, separated from it by another prepositional phrase) and by stylistic parallels with Rom 1:4. This is the interpretation the translation has followed, although it is recognized that many interpreters favor different options and translations. The prepositional phrase has been moved forward in the sentence to emphasize its connection with the verb, and the referent of the metaphorical language has been specified in the translation. For a detailed discussion of this interpretation, see D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999). as the mercy seattn The word ἱλαστήριον (Jilasthrion) may carry the general sense “place of satisfaction,” referring to the place where God’s wrath toward sin is satisfied. More likely, though, it refers specifically to the “mercy seat,” i.e., the covering of the ark where the blood was sprinkled in the OT ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This term is used only one other time in the NT: Heb 9:5, where it is rendered “mercy seat.” There it describes the altar in the most holy place (holy of holies). Thus Paul is saying that God displayed Jesus as the “mercy seat,” the place where propitiation was accomplished. See N. S. L. Fryer, “The Meaning and Translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25,” EvQ 59 (1987): 99-116, who concludes the term is a neuter accusative substantive best translated “mercy seat” or “propitiatory covering,” and D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999), who argues that this is a direct reference to the mercy seat which covered the ark of the covenant. accessible through faith.tn The prepositional phrase διὰ πίστεως (dia pistew") here modifies the noun ἱλαστήριον (Jilasthrion). As such it forms a complete noun phrase and could be written as “mercy-seat-accessible-through-faith” to emphasize the singular idea. See Rom 1:4 for a similar construction. The word “accessible” is not in the Greek text but has been supplied to clarify the idea expressed by the prepositional phrase (cf. NRSV: “effective through faith”). This was to demonstratetn Grk “for a demonstration,” giving the purpose of God’s action in v. 25a. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation. his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.tn Grk “because of the passing over of sins previously committed in the forbearance of God.”

26 This wastn The words “This was” have been repeated from the previous verse to clarify that this is a continuation of that thought. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation. also to demonstratetn Grk “toward a demonstration,” repeating and expanding the purpose of God’s action in v. 25a. his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be justtn Or “righteous.” and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.tn Or “of the one who has faith in Jesus.” See note on “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” in v. 22 for the rationale behind the translation “Jesus’ faithfulness.”

27 Where, then, is boasting?tn Although a number of interpreters understand the “boasting” here to refer to Jewish boasting, others (e.g. C. E. B. Cranfield, “‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 [1991]: 96) take the phrase to refer to all human boasting before God. It is excluded! By what principle?tn Grk “By what sort of law?” Of works? No, but by the principle of faith!

28 For we consider that a persontn Here ἄνθρωπον (anqrwpon) is used in an indefinite and general sense (BDAG 81 s.v. ἄνθρωπος 4.a.γ). is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law.tn See the note on the phrase “works of the law” in Rom 3:20.

29 Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too? Yes, of the Gentiles too!

30 Since God is one,tn Grk “but if indeed God is one.” he will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

31 Do we then nullifytn Grk “render inoperative.” the law through faith? Absolutely not! Insteadtn Grk “but” (Greek ἀλλά, alla). we uphold the law.