Boasting excluded, justification by faith apart from works of the law, the one God, and the law upheld (Romans 3:27–31)

Says "Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of works? No, but on that of faith" (3:27, BSB). καύχησις (lex.G2746) recalls the boast of 2:17 and 2:23 (note.exegetical.Rom.2.17-Rom.2.24.the-name-blasphemed). Uncertain What νόμος means in νόμου πίστεως (note.language.Rom.3.27.nomos-pisteos). This commentary leans to "principle" (BSB). The main alternative is the Mosaic law viewed in relation to faith (compare 3:31; 9:31–32). Implies Boasting is excluded because justification is a free gift received by faith (3:24, 28; 4:2–5).

Says "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (3:28, BSB). The Byzantine text and TR read οὖν for γάρ (var.Rom.3.28.gar-oun) and put πίστει first (var.Rom.3.28.pistei-order). Neither change alters the statement.

Implies "Faith alone" is a fair summary of 3:28. Justification is "apart from works of the law" (3:28), "freely by His grace" (3:24, BSB), and without boasting (3:27), and 4:4–5 says the same (note.language.Rom.3.28-Rom.3.30.pistei-ek-dia). Faith is the means, and the ground is the redemption in Christ Jesus (3:24–25). How this agrees with judgment according to deeds is set out in note.exegetical.Rom.2.6-Rom.2.16.judgment-according-to-works. James 2:24 is left to James. In his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen (1530) Luther defended rendering 3:28 with "allein" ("alone"), granting that the word is not in the Latin or Greek text (src.luther-sendbrief-1530).

"Works of the law." E. P. Sanders described the Judaism of the period as "covenantal nomism," in which a person entered the covenant by grace and stayed in it by obedience (src.sanders-ppj). Building on this, Dunn reads "works of the law" chiefly as the practices that marked Israel off, such as circumcision, food laws, and the Sabbath (src.dunn-wbc-romans), and Wright reads them similarly as badges of covenant membership (src.wright-nib-romans). Westerholm defends the older reading that they are the deeds the law requires (src.westerholm-perspectives), and Gathercole argues that the boasting excluded in 3:27 includes confidence in obedience to the law (src.gathercole-where-is-boasting). The 4QMMT parallel is set out in note.historical.Rom.3.1-Rom.3.31.works-of-the-law-4qmmt. Uncertain This commentary leans to all that the law requires, boundary markers included (3:20b; 2:21–23; 4:4–5). The narrower reading takes Israel's distinguishing practices as chiefly in view. On either reading, 3:28 excludes works of the law as the ground of justification.

Says "Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith" (3:29–30, BSB). Implies εἷς ὁ θεός echoes the Shema, Deut 6:4, אֶחָד (ekhad, "one"); the LXX has Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν (note.language.Rom.3.30.shema; xref.Rom.3.30.Deut.6.4.heb). Because God is one, he justifies circumcised and uncircumcised alike by faith (compare 10:12; lex.G4061; lex.G203). The Byzantine text and TR read ἐπείπερ for εἴπερ (var.Rom.3.30.eiper-epeiper) and add δέ in 3:29 (var.Rom.3.29.ouchi-de). Uncertain Whether ἐκ πίστεως and διὰ τῆς πίστεως (3:30) are a stylistic variation (lean: both describe the same justification, and the article is anaphoric) or a deliberate distinction between Jew and Gentile (main alternative).

Says "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Certainly not! Instead, we uphold the law" (3:31, BSB). Uncertain How faith upholds the law (note.language.Rom.3.31.histanomen). This commentary leans to the law as Scripture bearing witness to justification by faith (3:21), which Romans 4 goes on to show. The main alternative is that faith leads to the fulfillment of the law's requirement (8:4). The two can be held together. The Byzantine text and TR read ἱστῶμεν (var.Rom.3.31.histanomen).