Romans 3:27,28

“ Where is the boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay, but by that of faith. For we judge that man is justified by faith without works of law. ” Οὖν, then: in consequence of the great fact which has been explained, and of the means of justification which it implies (Romans 3:23-26). Καύχησις, boasting, vainglory; this term denotes not the object boasted of, but the act of self-glorification. The article ἡ, the, marks this boasting as well known; it is therefore the boasting of the Jews which is referred to. The word might be connected with the καυχᾶσθαι ἐν Θεῷ, Romans 2:17, and understood of the glory which the Jews sought to borrow from their exceptional position; but the context, and especially the following verse, prove that the apostle has in view the pretension of the Jews to justify themselves by their own works, instead of deriving their righteousness from the work of Christ.

This pretension has been excluded forever by the work described, Romans 3:24-26. There remains nothing else for man to do than to lay hold of it by faith. This question has something of a triumphant character; comp. the similar form, 1 Corinthians 1:20. The self-righteousness of the Jews is treated here as the wisdom of the Greeks is in that passage. The apostle seeks it, and before the cross it vanishes. Hofmann understands this exclamation of the vainglory to which even Christians might give themselves up: “Have we then, we Christians, thus justified, whereof to boast?” This interpretation is bound up with that of the same author, according to which the question, Romans 3:9: “Have we any advantage (over those whom judgment will overtake)?” is also put in the mouth of Christians. But it is evident that, like the question of Romans 3:9, this refers specially to Jewish prejudice; for it is expressly combated in the following words, Romans 3:29, and it is alluded to by the article ἡ, the, before καύχησις.

Only the question arises, What leads the apostle to put such a question here? The answer seems to us to be this. His intention in these few verses is to show the profound harmony between the law and the gospel. Now the conclusion to which he had been led by the searching study of the law, Romans 3:9-20, was, that it was intended to shut the mouths of all men, and of the Jews in particular, before God, by giving them the knowledge of sin. Hence it followed that the mode of justification which best agreed with the law was that which traced the origin of righteousness not to the works of the law, by means of which man thinks that he can justify himself, but to faith; for, like the law itself, the righteousness of faith brings all boasting to silence, so that the righteousness of works, which lays a foundation for boasting, is contrary to the law, while that of faith, which excludes it, is alone in harmony with the law. And this is exactly what Paul brings out in the following questions.

In these two questions the term law is taken in a general sense. This word is often used by Paul to denote a mode of action which is imposed on the individual, a rule to which he is subject, a principle which determines his conduct. Sometimes when thus understood it is taken in a good sense; for example, Romans 8:2: “the law of the spirit of life which is in Jesus Christ;” again it is used in a bad sense; so Romans 7:23: “the law which is in my members;” or, again, it is applied in both ways, good and bad at once; comp. Romans 7:21. As Baur well says, the word law denotes in general “a formula which serves to regulate the relation between God and man.” The genitive τῶν ἔργων, of works, depends on a νόμου understood, as is proved by the repetition of this word before πίστεως.

That glory which man derives from his self-righteousness, and which the law had already foreclosed, has been finally excluded. And by what means? By a rule of works? Certainly not, for such a means would rather have promoted it, but by that of faith (Romans 3:26.) The apostle thus reaches the striking result that the rule of works would contradict the law, and that the rule of faith is that which harmonizes with it.

He here uses the word νόμος, rule, probably because he was speaking of excluding, and this requires something firm.