1

Exegesis of Romans 3:21-31

I. Translation
21 But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, though borne
witness1 by the law and the prophets; 22 that is,2 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus
Christ3 for all who believe, for there is no distinction. 23 For [they]4 all sinned and [thereby]5
lack the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in
Christ Jesus— 25 whom God set forth as a propitiatory sacrifice6 through faith, by his blood, for
the demonstration of his righteousness due to the passing over of sins previously committed 26
in the forbearance of God; for the demonstration of his righteousness in the present time, [to the
end]7 that he be righteous even in justifying8 the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. Through what kind of law? Of works? No, but
through a law of faith. 28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the
law. 29 Or is God of the Jews only? And not of the Gentiles? Yes, even of Gentiles, 30 since
God—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith—is one. 31
Then do we nullify the law through faith? May it never happen! Rather, we uphold the law.
II. Exegetical Idea
Subject: The righteous status before God, previously absent from man because of his sin, has
now been made available by the sacrificial work of Christ on the cross—a work which
simultaneously satisfied the wrath of God and eradicated sin from man’s ledger. Because the
results of this act of redemption are enjoyed by men solely on account of their faith in Jesus,
there is no cause for boasting and every cause for unity among the people of God, both Jew and
Gentile.
Complement: This subject focuses primarily on the δικ-root terms which form the heart of Paul’s
message in this passage. The righteous status (δικαιοσυνη) is gained by man’s faith in Jesus
(δικαιοω). The underlying requirement for justification has been met in the sacrificial work of
Jesus (ἱλαστηριον, ἀπολυτρωσις) and this work is appropriated to man sola fide, by faith alone.
III. Exegetical Outline

I. The righteousness of God is revealed (vv. 21-26)

a. This revelation occurs apart from the law (v. 21)
i. Though the law and prophets testify to it (v. 21b)
b. This manifest righteousness is accessed via a specific avenue and directed toward
specific objects (v. 22a-b)
i. Righteousness is through faith in Christ Jesus (v. 22a)
ii. Righteousness is for all who believe (v. 22b)

1
Concessive participle. See commentary.
2
Explanatory δε.
3
Objective genitive. See commentary.
4
I take πας here as a reference to the same πας in the preceding verse. See commentary.
5
This clarifies the causal relationship between the two verbs.
6
See commentary for full discussion of ἱλαστηριον.
7
This emphasizes the result/purpose intention.
8
Concessive participle. See commentary.
 2

c. Righteousness is available to all who believe because all share the same
unrighteous status (vv. 22c-24)
i. There is no distinction (v. 22c)
1. All have sinned (v. 23a)
a. By sinning, all lack God’s glory (v. 23b)
b. Therefore, all require the gift of justification (24)
i. Justification is possible through Jesus’ redemptive
work (v. 24b)
d. The redemption in Christ Jesus is an act of God’s righteousness toward sins past
and present (vv. 25-26)
i. God gave Jesus as a means of atonement (v. 25a)
1. The resultant propitiation is received by faith (v. 25b)
2. Jesus is given for the purpose of displaying God’s righteousness
toward past and present sins (v. 25c-26)
a. The need for this display is found in God’s seeming
disregard for past sins (v. 25c)
b. God also shows his righteousness in the present by
justifying those with faith in Jesus (v. 26)
II. Human boasting is excluded on the basis of justification by faith (vv. 27-31)
a. Boasting is not excluded on account of works (v. 27a)
b. Boasting is excluded on account of faith (v. 27b-28)
i. This is because justification occurs by faith without works of the law (v.
28)
1. Part of the evidence for this is that God rules over both Jew and
Gentile (v. 29-30)
a. Both Jew and Gentile are justified by faith (v. 30)
i. Since justification happens apart from the law, one
might conclude it null (v. 31a)
ii. Instead, the law is to be kept (v. 31b)

IV. Commentary

a. Introduction
“When we think of Romans, we think of doctrine,”9 and rightfully so, as this epistle, while no
less occasional than the rest, forms one of the most complete treatments of systematic
redemptive theology present among the New Testament writings. Rarely do we find Pauline
thought as crystallized as it is presented in his letter to the Romans. This thorough doctrinal
presentation is given with good cause, since the church was likely founded by Roman Jews
present for the events of Acts 2.10 Without direct apostolic leadership or influence, the Romans
had thus far been deprived of the discipleship privileges enjoyed by their brothers and sisters in
places such as Thessalonica, Philippi, or Corinth.

9
Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, 1.
10
Ibid., 4.
 3

So, Paul sets out to, among other things, convey the apostolic understanding of the gospel, of
which he is not ashamed, “for it is the power of God for salvation to all who believe.”11 A key
aspect, perhaps the key aspect, of this gospel which is repeatedly expounded is the revelation of
δικαιοσυνη θεου. This passage is no exception and defines precisely that event in which said
δικαιοσυνη was revealed—the act of God putting Jesus forward as ἱλαστηριον and the particular
purpose this act served. This “one decisive, once for all, redemptive act of God”12 neither leaves
room for human boasting nor nullifies the necessity of keeping the law.
In Romans 3:21-31, then, we have what most commentators consider “the heart of the
epistle.”13 This passage represents a necessary elaboration14 on 1:16-17, a truth without which
there is no reversal of the devastation and hopelessness of condemnation described in 1:18-3:20.
b. Body
21. Νυνι δε. Perhaps no two words better set the stage for what is to come in this passage.
Clearly, there is a logical turning point to be observed. However, both Schreiner and
Cranfield are quick to indicate a dual significance here: logical and temporal.15 Indeed, νυνι
is never absent of some temporal meaning.16 Thus, Paul is not content to remain within an
abstract argument, but brings his conclusion into reality by signifying that the situation
previously set forth is one of the past, having now been answered in a historical event.
δικαιοσυνη θεου. This term throughout its occurrence in Romans has historically been the
subject of debate, not least in this passage. It is generally accepted that the sense here is the
same that Paul intended in 1:17,17 meaning that any legitimate interpretation must appeal to
both instances for clarity. Various options have been proposed throughout the history of the
epistle’s exegesis, with the following representing the most common:18
1. An attribute of God.19 If understood attributively, then the sense here would be divine
righteousness. An attempt to clarify this in the text might arrive at something along the
lines, “But now the fact that God is righteous has been revealed.”
2. An activity of God.20 This option and the following differ only slightly in emphasis
between subject and object. Here, the subject (God) is emphasized as the one who acts.
This interpretation could be read into the text as, “But now God’s work of salvation has
been revealed,” focusing in on the δικαιοσυνη as a display of God’s power.
3. A status before God.21 Finally, the implied object of said δικαιοσυνη might be
emphasized. Thus, the text could alternatively be read, “But now [man’s] righteous
status before God has been revealed.”

11
Rom. 1:16.
12
C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 1, ICC, 199.
13
Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT, 186.
14
Dodd calls it “a full and careful re-statement of the thesis.” C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 49.
15
Schreiner, 188; Cranfield, 201.
16
BDAG, s. v.
17
Cranfield, 202.
18
Most commentators give the same basic options. I have chosen, unless otherwise noted, to use Moo’s wording and
general layout here. Moo, 70-71.
19
Moo asserts that this option has not enjoyed many proponents since the early church. See Moo, 70.
20
Dodd’s view. See Dodd, 10, 13.
21
Cranfield’s view. See Cranfield, 98, 202.
 4

Some combination of these final two is to be preferred, with perhaps slightly greater stress on
the third option.22 In the immediate context, this δικαιοσυνη θεου (and that in v. 22) is
present δια πιστεως Ἰησου Χριστου and εἰς παντας τους πιστευοντας. These clauses both
emphasize human reception of δικαιοσυνη θεου, made all the more striking by the pre-
justification state of humanity in v. 23. The δικαιοσυνη is given to remedy the fact that “all
sinned and lack the glory of God.”
Nevertheless, δικαιοσυνη θεου is also an action taken by God whereby this status of
δικαιοσυνη θεου is granted to its beneficiaries. This notion of activity is made obvious in vv.
24-26, where the revelation of δικαιοσυνη θεου is described in detail.
To arrive at the precise proposed meaning, then, we might interpretively translate, “But
now [man’s] righteous status before God on account of God’s saving work has been
revealed.”
χωρις νομου...πεφανερωται. Here Paul further indicates the relationship of the present
passage to what has come before it. From 2:12 until now, Paul has been dealing with the
subject of the law in one form or another—whether in the natural inclinations of the Gentiles
(2:14) or in the explicit divine commandments with which the Jews were entrusted (3:2).
Considering the context and Paul’s other, similar uses of νομου, it is most appropriate to
understand this as “apart from [men’s striving for righteousness through works of] the law.”23
Thus, the δικαιοσυνη θεου is not revealed in a vacuum which is absent of law, but it is
revealed apart from and in spite of man’s pursuit of adherence to the law.
That πεφανερωται is given in the perfect tense is no surprise, as it references a decisive,
past event which has present ramifications. This only heightens the temporal quality of νυνι
δε mentioned above.
μαρτυρουμενη ὑπο του νομου και των προφητων. Paul does well to leave no room for
belief that the law (or by association, the prophets) has been negated by this revelation of
δικαιοσυνη θεου. In response to χωρις νομου, the question naturally arises, “what is the
relationship of the law to this revelation?” Here is the apostle’s answer: “the OT as a whole
anticipates and predicts this new work of God.”24 Thus, the participle should be understood
as one of concession.
22. δικαιοσυνη δε θεου. For δικαιοσυνη θεου, see the same phrase in v. 21. The δε here is best
taken as an indication of clarification or expansion.25
δια πιστεως Ἰησου Χριστου. This phrase acts as the first clarification. Paul is not speaking
of any δικαιοσυνη θεου, but that which comes δια πιστεως Ἰησου Χριστου. The above
interpretation of δικαιοσυνη θεου is also strengthened by this clause, as it is the “righteous
status before God” which is gained δια πιστεως Ἰησου Χριστου. The question is, was this
status granted on account of Christ’s faithfulness in His mission or on account of man’s faith
having been placed in Christ? While the former has its proponents, I agree with the
conclusion of Schreiner, Moo, and Cranfield, who all understand Ἰησου Χριστου to be the

22
Moo, 74.
23
Cranfield, 201.
24
Moo, 223.
25
Ibid., 224.
 5

object of πιστεως, rather than subject.26 Among other evidence, Schreiner claims that “Paul
often refers to the faith of believers, he never refers to the faith of Christ.”27 Other arguments
for the objective view include Paul’s usage of πιστις throughout the rest of the epistle,
agreement with established theology, and the immediate context surrounding the passage.28
εἰς παντας τους πιστευοντας. One argument for taking the preceding clause subjectively is
that these two together are redundant. Yet, when carefully examined, it can be shown that
each of these clauses makes distinct yet complementary contributions to the theme of the
passage: δια πιστεως denotes the means by which δικαιοσυνη θεου is attained, while ἐις
παντας τους πιστεουοντας actually assigns that means to an object. Παντας also signifies
universality, a theme which runs throughout the epistle and is especially evident in this
passage.29 Still, even universality of the gift is restrained by Paul’s inclusion of the participle
that follows; παντας do not merely receive δικαιοσυνη, but παντας τους πιστευοντας.
οὐ γαρ ἐστιν διαστολη. Universality is reiterated. Cf. 10:11-13, where Paul employs the
same phrase in v. 12 while discussing belief, and 2:9-11, where he considers the impartiality
of God in the fate of men. There is no basis for earning or deserving righteousness. This
serves as a natural connective with the surrounding verses.30 The δικαιοσυνη is available εἰς
παντας τους πιστευοντας because there is no distinction. Likewise, there is no distinction
because of the points laid out in v. 23ff.
23. παντες γαρ ἡμαρτον. The theme of universality continues to expand. This verse acts as a
conclusion to 1:18-3:20, assessing in a single summary statement the natural condition of
man before God.31 For reasons that will become apparent when we consider δικαιουμενοι in
verse 24, Johnston understands παντες to stand parallel to that in verse 22.32 Thus, the “all”
who sinned are the same “all” who believed. This interpretation reinforces Paul’s emphasis
that “the scope of [the term] all…is without distinction rather than without exception.”33 34
One should take care not to make too much of the tense of ἡμαρτον. It is important that
Paul chose the aorist, only in that the action is undefined. Thus, Wallace uses this word as an
exemplar for an author’s freedom of choice when seeking to express a particular aspectual
emphasis.35 One must appeal to other texts in order to corroborate the theological meaning

26
Cranfield, 203; Moo, 224-226; Schreiner, 189-194.
27
Schreiner, 194.
28
Moo, 225.
29
Ibid., 226.
30
Cranfield, 203.
31
Ibid., 204.
32
Johnston does not abandon the doctrine of universal sin in this assessment, noting, “[while] universal human
sinfulness is undoubtedly found in Rom 5:12, the focus of 3:23 is narrowed so that only the sinfulness of believers is
in view.” J. William Johnston, “Which ‘All’ Sinned? Rom 3:23-24 Reconsidered.” Novum Testamentum 53, no. 2
(2011): 154.
33
Ibid., 153.
34
Moo (appealing to Cranfield) takes a similar view without making an explicit connection between the two uses of
πας in v. 22 and 23 in his discussion of δικαιουμενοι. His point that this section “indicates not universality…but lack
of particularity” reflects the prominent theological stresses of his milieu. I would maintain that the term universality
does not inherently convey universalism as an eschatological doctrine; thus, properly understood, it appropriately
describes Paul’s teaching here. Moo, 227.
35
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 503.
 6

behind παντες ἡμαρτον—whether to be understood as a reference to all having individually

sinned, all having sinned in Adam, etc.
και ὑστερουνται της δοξης του θεου. Here is the present result of the fact that all sinned.36 I
agree with Cirafesi in his estimation that the translation, “falling short,” is widespread
primarily because of translators’ reverence for the King James Version, but the rendering, “to
lack,” better approximates Paul’s intended meaning.37
This may seem a matter of semantics, but one’s conclusion on the issue can have
powerful interpretive ramifications. “To fall short” is regularly interpreted to mean “[failure]
to exhibit that ‘being-like-God’ for which [humans] were created.”38 While this represents a
correct evaluation of human behavior in relation to God’s glory, it is likely not what Paul
intends here. “To lack” better captures the idea that the glory of God “is something that
human beings simply do not possess.”39 The applicative sense, then, is not that human beings
ever come close to attaining to the glory of God through the various means described in 1:18-
3:20 and just “fall short,” but that the glory of God is simply a thing absent altogether as a
result of human sinfulness.
With that settled, a theological idea as significant as δοξης του θεου deserves our focused
attention. I take Cranfield’s view that this term refers “to that share in the divine glory,
which, according to Jewish thought, man possessed before he fell away from his true
relationship to God and which will be restored in the eschatological future.”40 Note especially
Cranfield’s use of “share,” “possessed,” and “restored.” 41 If Paul wanted to denote God’s
standard to which men fail to conform and thereby alienate themselves, he likely would have
used a word in the ἁγιος family, as this and its lexical relatives are his primary choice when
describing the process by which men are made acceptable for entry into the presence of
God.42
24. δικαιουμενοι. Given our interpretation of παντες in v. 23, δικαιουμενοι poses no interpretive
issue here. It should be taken as an adverbial participle related to ἡμαρτον in the preceding
verse (which further links it to παντας τους πιστευοντας in v. 22). If the subject of v. 23 is
understood to have a different referent than “all who believed” in the previous verse, then
some additional interpretive work must be undertaken to explain how this participle relates to
what precedes and follows. Most commentators avoid the implication of universalism (all
human beings without exception sinned…being justified) by treating vv. 22b-23

36
Moo, 226.
37
Wally V. Cirafesi, “‘To Fall Short’ or ‘To Lack’? Reconsidering the Meaning and Translation of ὙΣΤΕΡΕΩ in
Romans 3:23.” The Expository Times 123, no. 9 (June 2012): 429.
38
Moo’s phrasing is given here, but the general sense of a “failure to live up to God’s standard of glory” is often
understood in the same manner. Moo, 226.
39
Cirafesi, 433.
40
Cranfield, 204.
41
A most telling piece of evidence that Cirafesi includes is a survey of other words in Romans pertaining to the
glory of God. Paul’s use of “ἀλλασσω (‘to exchange’) in 1:23 and περισσευω (‘to abound, be rich’) in 3:7” further
reinforces the idea that δοξης του θεου signifies first a thing to be possessed, not primarily a measure to which one
conforms. In exchanging the glory of God, humans do not merely fall short of a standard, they lack possession of
that reflected radiance which they were created to enjoy. Cirafesi, 430.
42
Cf. Rom. 6:22, 15:16.
 7

parenthetically and tying δικαιουμενοι back to παντας τους πιστευοντας.43 If the

interpretation of v. 23 given above is correct, the same result (with reference to
eschatological universalism) occurs and we are afforded a more natural reading of these
verses as a logical progression in Paul’s argument.
It should be noted that this is the first occurrence in Romans of the verb δικαιοω.44 This is
no surprise, given the overarching theme of δικ-root words in the epistle as Paul has his eye
toward justification, righteousness, justice, etc. Here, “being justified” is the declarative
action of God that results in the status mentioned in v. 21.
δωρεαν τῃ αὐτου χαριτι. This adverb and dative clause complement one another and serve
to round out the manner of God’s justifying activity.45 Justification occurs freely, as a gift, (a
theme, in contrast to the idea that justification is earned by works, which will continue to
receive Paul’s attention throughout this epistle and his ministry at large) and is granted by
God’s “undeserved love [which] may be said to sum up the whole gospel in a single word.”46
God’s grace does not so much give an attribute of God as it denotes “the way in which God
has acted in Christ: unconstrained by anything beyond his own will.”47
δια της ἀπολυτρωσεως. While Cranfield is hesitant to come down on one side or the other,
Moo affirms that the underlying “ransom” idea in ἀπολυτρωσεως should not be discarded as
antiquated.48 Many commentators shy away from such an interpretation as it naturally leads
one to speculate regarding the receiver of said ransom. Moo argues that this is a question that
does not necessarily require an answer based on the word itself. Thus, Schneider and Brown
are content to define it as “the deliverance from sin and its penalty brought about by the
propitiatory death of Christ.”49 It is through this ἀπολυτρωσεως that justification is made
possible.
της ἐν Χριστῳ Ἰησου. The article indicates that this prepositional phrase acts attributively to
ἀπολυτρωσεως. There is particularity to the redemption through which men are justified—it
is that redemptive act which God completed via the life, death, and resurrection of Christ
Jesus. This calls back to mind the πιστεως Ἰησου Χριστου that Paul mentioned previously
and further lends credence to the interpretation that Christ is the object of faith, not subject.
25. ὁν προεθετο ὁ θεος. Τhe verb προτιθημι occurs three times in the NT, twice in Paul’s epistle
to the Romans and once in his epistle to the Ephesians. In the other two occurrences, it seems
best to take the third option suggested in BDAG, “to have something in mind beforehand.”50
Given the lack of evidence, one may conclude that Paul, seeking consistency in his
semantics, intends the same meaning here.51 However, it seems that option two, “to set forth

43
Johnston, 158. Cf. Moo, 227.
44
Cranfield, 205.
45
Ibid., 205-206.
46
Ibid., 71.
47
Moo, 228.
48
Cranfield, 207; Moo, 229.
49
NIDNTT, s. v.
50
BDAG, s. v.
51
Cranfield, 209.
 8

publicly,” accords well with the language of publicity that pervades this passage, while still
carrying the sense of purpose and intention evoked by option three.52
So, though Cranfield gives a compelling argument for option three, the publicity of
option two fits better with Paul’s conviction that God did these things for ἐνδειξιν της
δικαιοσυνης αὐτου.53
ἱλαστηριον. Here is the final word of the primary clause which concludes this section.
Everything following in vv. 25-26 either modifies or clarifies ὁν προεθετο ὁ θεος
ἱλαστηριον.54 So the meaning of this word is especially significant given that each following
clause acts subordinately to the idea therein.
Τhe term Paul uses here to describe Christ is the same regularly used in the LXX to speak
of the mercy-seat which figured prominently in the day of atonement and other Old Covenant
rituals.55 This leads many commentators to see in Rom. 3:25 a typological relationship
between Christ and the mercy-seat of the ark of the covenant. Cranfield rejects this view
primarily on the basis that (1) most such uses of the term in the LXX are articular and (2) are
made obvious contextually.56 Thus, the lack of the article here and no explicit connection to
“mercy-seat” anywhere in the immediate context is believed to work against the typological
interpretation.57
Despite Cranfield’s argument, it seems that any wholesale rejection of Paul’s (at least
tacit) intention of “mercy-seat” cannot be indubitably maintained. Among other things,
“Paul’s letters furnish abundant proof that he expected his Gentile readers to be fully
conversant with the OT.”58 Surely, we cannot declare with certainty that neither Paul nor his
readers would have attached such a rare word to its most prominent use in the OT.
Nevertheless, the word does not merely mean “mercy-seat.”59 It is used first to describe the
ark’s mercy-seat (Ex. 25:16) and only in later occurrences acts substantivally.
So, the translation and meaning of the term have yet to be determined. Dodd has
famously argued (and subsequently had his argument dismantled) that “God’s wrath should
be eliminated from the word.”60 This has been proven wrong in various ways, not least by the
fact that the wrath of God forms such a vital part of Paul’s preceding argument and is
precisely the opening “problem” of the epistle which is being rectified in the passage at hand.
Thus, ridding man of his sins (expiation) is not the sole intention of the apostle here; he

52
BDAG, s. v.
53
Cranfield concedes that publicity is present but believes that the following verse “indicates Paul’s concern with
something even more important than men’s being made aware of God’s righteousness, namely, God’s being
righteous.” This creates a dichotomy that simply does not seem to exist in the text. Paul indeed expresses God’s
concern to be δικαιον και δικαιουντα, but only insofar as it is τον ἐκ πιστεως Ἰησου. Thus, God’s being righteous
and men’s knowledge of this need not be treated separately in the context. Cranfield, 209.
54
Moo, 231.
55
Cranfield, 214.
56
Ibid., 215.
57
Note, however, the use of αἱμα that follows. If Jesus is the “mercy-seat” of the New Covenant, the fact that God
brought this to be ἐν τῳ αὐτου αἱματι sure seems to lend contextual validity to such a view (cf. Lev. 17:11).
58
Moo, 233.
59
Moo cites Deissmann on this point. Ibid., 233.
60
Ibid., 234.
 9

certainly expects Christ’s work as ἱλαστηριον to appease God’s wrath toward sin
(propitiation).61
Based on this cursory evaluation of the data, the translation “propitiatory sacrifice” is
favored here, as “sacrifice” emphasizes the following clauses (especially ἐν τῳ αὐτου αἱματι)
and “propitiatory” rightly represents both the satisfaction of God’s wrath and the removal of
sin which are necessary for the kind of redemption Paul intends to describe.62
δια της πιστεως ἐν τῳ αὐτου αἱματι. See δια πιστεως in v. 22. The meaning is further
developed here to encompass ἱλαστηριον. So, if we bring both ideas together as Paul intends,
we arrive at the concept, “the status of righteousness before God is available, through men
exercising faith in Christ, by God’s offering of Jesus as a propitiatory sacrifice.” The phrase
ἐν τῳ αὐτου αἱματι refers to ἱλαστηριον rather than πιστεως, further defining the nature of
ἱλαστηριον. Hence the translation’s inclusion of “sacrifice.” His blood is “the means by
which God’s wrath is propitiated.”63
εἰς ἐνδειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αὐτου. Though maintaining the previous interpretation of
δικαιοσυνη here would allow for neatness within Paul’s semantics, it is better to understand
this to refer to that righteous attribute of God’s character which risks being undermined by
his παρεσιν and ἀνοχῃ mentioned below.64 This is made plain by the uses of ἐνδειξιν, νυν
καιρῳ, and the resultant clause εἰς το εἰναι αὐτον. The sense of ἐνδειξιν is to display or
demonstrate His just character which still exists despite His patience towards sinners.65
δια την παρεσιν των προγεγονοτων ἁμαρτηματων. Paul here gives the cause which
precipitates the ἐνδειξιν της δικαιοσυνης—God has thus far let previously committed sins go
unpunished.66 Yet, He has managed to this point to avoid compromise of His righteous
character in the forgiveness of sins by purposing this work of ἱλαστηριον from eternity.67 He
presently vindicates His just character by way of offering Christ as ἱλαστηριον.
26. ἐν τῃ ἀνοχῃ του θεου. Any meaningful survey of the OT will show that God’s forbearance
has repeatedly allowed for the delay of righteous punishment for men’s wickedness. See
commentary above on δωρεαν τῃ αὐτου χαριτι for the related idea of God’s unmerited favor
which He freely exercises towards men.
προς την ἐνδειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αὐτου. So far removed from the original assertion of
ἐνδειξιν της δικαιοσυνης, Paul reiterates the idea for clarity in the following clauses.
ἐν τῳ νυν καιρῳ. This should not be considered in contrast to the first use of ἐνδειξιν above;
both cases indicate the same demonstration. Paul adds this phrase in recognition of the

61
Ibid., 235.
62
After a compelling argument in which he arrives at similar conclusions, Moo opts for “sacrifice of atonement.” I
propose that including some form of “propitiation” better relates the term to the overarching issue of God’s wrath in
1:18-3:20 and leaves no room for misunderstanding ἱλαστηριον as anything less than satisfying that wrath by
providing an answer to man’s sinfulness in the face of God’s holiness. Ibid., 236.
63
Ibid., 237.
64
Cranfield, 211.
65
Cf. commentary above on προεθετο.
66
See Heb. 10:1-4, 11-14, 18 for a more thorough NT address of God’s treatment of sin under the Old Covenant.
67
Cranfield, 212; cf. Acts 2:23.
 10

contrast between God’s past παρεσιν and His present act of ἱλαστηριον. He also calls readers
back to the νυνι δε with which he began the passage.
εἰς το εἰναι αὐτον. Here lies the “ultimate object of God’s purposing Christ as
ἱλαστηριον.”68 Cranfield points out Paul’s use of εἰναι here, noting the fact that, while
appearance has been in view thus far (προεθετο, ἐνδειξιν), here Paul (and by extension, God
Himself) is concerned with reality.69 The ἱλαστηριον, then, is not merely required to show
God’s righteousness, but it is necessary for Him to truly possess His righteous character.

δικαιον και δικαιουντα τον ἐκ πιστεως Ἰησου. This και is best taken in an adverbial sense,
which would allow for a concessive meaning of δικαιουντα.70 God maintains His righteous
character “even in justifying.” On πιστεως Ἰησου, see discussion on πιστεως in v. 22 and v.
25. Here, Paul rounds out these earlier uses of πιστις by explaining just how God is able to
import the righteous status of v. 21 to those who exercise faith in Christ. “Christ, in his
propitiatory sacrifice, provides full satisfaction of the demands of God’s impartial, invariable
justice.”71
27. Που οὐν ἡ καυχησις; ἐξεκλεισθη. This begins Paul’s exposition of the preceding 6 verses,
where he primarily works to refine πιστις Ἰησου Χριστου as it pertains to the law and to
God’s (up to this point in history) distinct dealings with Jew and Gentile.
Up to this point in the passage, man has only figured as the object of God’s work of
redemption in Christ. The closest to an active role taken by man is to believe in Jesus, but
even that has not been explicitly described as an activity of which humans are the subject.
Faith has been used to denote something that man possesses, but the emphasis so far has been
on the object of that faith, namely, Christ. The natural result of such presentation, then, is that
any boasting to which man might otherwise think himself entitled is unwarranted.
δια ποιου νομου; των ἐργων; οὐχι, ἀλλα δια νομου πιστεως. Since νομου ἐργων and
νομου πιστεως are here contrasted, it is natural to understand that πιστις throughout the
preceding verses is something which never can be described under the umbrella of ἐργον.
Hence the exclusion of boasting.
A more difficult interpretive issue here is Paul’s meaning of νομου πιστεως. Cranfield
takes the view that Moo rejects—that Paul is speaking of two different perspectives with
which one perceives the Mosaic law.72 This would mean that faith constitutes an attitude
toward the law, with the alternative dismissing one’s attitude to focus entirely on one’s
behavior in keeping the works of the law. Nevertheless, Moo presents the preferable view
that Paul intends to speak to two different “laws,” even if doing so metaphorically.73 In the
present passage alone, Paul has already worked to establish the proper relationship between
law and faith (χωρις νομου) and will repeat the same idea in v. 28. Such a relationship shows

68
Ibid., 213.
69
Ibid.
70
Ibid., 213; Moo, 242.
71
Moo, 242.
72
Cranfield, 220.
73
See Moo, 247-250 for his full argument on the subject.
 11

that he understands law and faith to be separate realities, with faith “[enabling the law] to be
truly fulfilled.”74
So νομου πιστεως is not here used as a technical term but a metaphorical one. Rather than
affirming the basis upon which so many Jews thought it acceptable to boast, Paul sets forth a
new foundation, a “law” or principle of faith, upon which there is no basis for boasting, since
all that goes into faith is accomplished by God Himself.75
28. λογιζομεθα γαρ δικαιουσθαι πιστει ἀνθρωπον χωρις ἐργων νομου. The concept here is
theologically profound, yet simple to understand, especially in light of what Paul has already
said on the subject. See χωρις νομου in v. 21 with reference to χωρις ἐργων νομου, πιστεως
in v. 22, 25, and 26 as it pertains to πιστει here, and especially δικ-root words throughout 21-
26 for the meaning of δικαιουσθαι. The 1st person plural subject of λογιζομεθα is best
understood as Paul’s referring to truth that is assumed by both him and his recipients.76 So,
Paul states with precision and clarity what he has been alluding and what forms the heart of
Rom. 3:27-31—that a man is granted a righteous standing before God by faith alone apart
from works of the law.
29. ἠ Ἰουδαιων ὁ θεος μονον; οὐχι και ἐθνων; ναι και ἐθνων. The ἠ here introduces the result
if the alternative were true. If man is justified by works of the law, then only Jews can be the
recipients of δικαιοσυνη θεου, as they are the ones required to keep the law in covenant
relationship with God.77 However, God’s plan has clearly always included Gentiles, a fact
which this question-and-answer highlights nicely.
30. εἰπερ εἱς ὁ θεος. The use of εἱς ὁ θεος is intended to recall the Shema, perhaps the most
essential teaching of Judaism.78 It is used here to prove the above argument—if there is one
God, the same must be God of Jew and Gentile.
ὁς δικαιωσει περιτομην ἐκ πιστεως και ἀκροβυστιαν δια της πιστεως. For δικαιωσει, see
related words above. Paul maintains the normal meaning he regularly intends when using
δικαιοω as an action of God towards man—declaring him to have a righteous status before
God. Neither Cranfield nor Moo see any major significance in the change of preposition from
ἐκ regarding περιτομην and δια concerning ἀκροβυστιαν.79 While πιστις is the means by
which God will secure justification (and that πιστις in Christ on account of His work of
ἱλαστηριον), the focus here is on God’s act of justification itself and its scope.
31. νομον οὐν καταργουμεν δια της πιστεως;. Paul anticipates a logical response to the
preceding assertion—if faith is the basis upon which God grants justification, what then is
the fate of the law? Is it nullified?
μη γενοιτο, ἀλλα νομον ἱστανομεν. The difficulty in verse 31 comes in determining exactly
how Paul wants readers to understand the relation of πιστις and νομος in light of his use of
ἱστανομεν here. Cranfield’s view almost necessitates a reversal of terms, as he claims that

74
Ibid., 246.
75
Ibid., 250.
76
Cranfield, 220-221.
77
Moo, 251.
78
Cranfield, 222.
79
Ibid.; Moo, 252.
 12

Paul’s “teaching about faith is confirmed by the law.”80 This idea is simply absent from a
grammatical standpoint. The most recent use of πιστις came in a prepositional phrase, νομος
is used as a direct object, and “we” is the implied subject of the verb. Schreiner takes this to
mean that believers will appropriately practice works of the law,81 while Moo avoids such
specificity by proposing that the law’s general fulfillment through man’s faith in Christ is in
view.82
Indeed, coming to a firm conclusion on the matter is no easy task. Given the preceding
emphasis on faith and the exclusion of boasting rights, I lean towards Moo’s interpretation.
This is not to say that keeping the commandments of the law is perpetually outside of Paul’s
scope; rather, it is not his desire here to delve into the Christian’s complete relation to the OT
law. After all, the apostle has taken pains to this points to show all that has been
accomplished by faith without works of the law. It seems unlikely that he would now
conclude that “we do works of the law by faith.” Instead, the passage should be read, “[our
faith in Christ] is that through which we uphold the law."
c. Conclusion
Boice has popularly likened the concept of “righteousness” to money.83 In short, human
righteousness can be compared to Monopoly money; these bills are valid and contain value in the
game. But if one were to attempt to deposit his game winnings into a bank account, the bank
teller would not hesitate to reject the play money and turn him away. This symbolizes the kind of
“righteousness” in which man can partake apart from the gospel. This is the kind of
“righteousness” that characterizes the strivings of Romans 1:18-3:20. But the δικαιοσυνη θεου of
3:21 is on an entirely different level than that which can be earned by ἐργων νομου. Indeed, it is
that δικαιοσυνη which is only enjoyed through the generosity of God, made possible by the
sacrifice of Jesus, and received by faith.
V. Application
One would be remiss to ignore just how central the concept of “righteousness” is to this passage
and the epistle itself. Some form of the term occurs, whether verbally or substantivally, nine
times in as many verses. Whatever other applications might be found (no grounds for boasting,
unity of Jew and Gentile, keeping the law, etc.), one must consider above all the primary idea of
the passage, which is the revelation of the righteousness of God.
This revelation is truly the heart of the gospel message. Whereas Romans 1:18-3:20 provide
the pre-evangel diagnosis of humankind, νυνι δε in v. 21 signals a shift; Paul goes on to show
that God has effected a reversal of the situation by vindicating His righteous character in the
finished work of His Son, thus mediating to man the righteous standing which has escaped him
since the fall. The key application, then, is to recognize the free gift of redemption in Christ and
to proclaim that reality to a world still enslaved to the sin which dominates 1:18-3:20.

80
Cranfield, 224.
81
Schreiner, 216.
82
Moo, 255.
83
James Montgomery Boice, The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel, 76.
 13

Appendix 1: Textual Problem

 v. 22: εἰς παντας // ἐπι παντας // εἰς παντας και ἐπι παντας
There are three variant readings in v. 25. See chart below for the distribution of evidence
across the major text types.
Readings Byzantine Alexandrian Western Others
εἰς παντας - p ‫ *א‬A B C P Ψ
40
- 263 424 436 459 1506 1881 2200
6 81 104 1739 l60 l593 l598 l599 l617 syrpal arm
copsa, bo Clement Origenlat5/6 Apollinaris
Didymus Ciryl Augustine
ἐπι παντας - - vgww, st Ambrosiaster Pelagius
εἰς παντας και Byz [K L] syrp, h ‫ א‬33 1175
2
D F G itar, b, d, f, g, 256 365 424* 1241 1319 1573 1852
ἐπι παντας Chrysostom mon, (o)
vgcl 1912 1962 2127 2464 Lect geo slav
Origenlat1/6 Didymusdub Chromatius

Upon initial review, option two can almost certainly be discarded, and option three seems
preferable over option one given its wider geographical distribution. In fact, Hoehner cites
this distribution as his main reason for accepting the third reading, εἰς παντας και ἐπι
παντας.84 However, it is important to note that Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )א‬only witnesses to this
reading in the form of a correction to the original, εἰς παντας. This leaves the vast majority of
witnesses to this variant occurring in post-9th century manuscripts, with the exception of D
(part of the dubious Western text), some early translations, and church fathers. With the
stronger Alexandrian witness and the likelihood of conflating options one and two, I take
option one (εἰς παντας) to reflect the original reading of the text.85
Appendix 2: Word Studies
 v. 23: ὑστερουνται [ὑστερεω]
Paul uses this word to describe the result of sin which is presently experienced by mankind.
Whatever it denotes, it defines the relationship between παντες and της δοξης του θεου.
Possible Meanings86
1. To miss out on something through one’s own fault
2. To be in short supply
3. To be in need
4. To be lower in status
5. To experience deficiency in something advantageous or desirable87

84
Harold W. Hoehner, “Lecture 6 – Romans 3:21-31,” Lecture, The Epistle to the Romans from Institute of
Theological Studies.
85
See Cranfield, 203; Moo, 218; John D. Harvey, Romans, EGGNT, 91.
86
BDAG, s. v.
87
This is where BDAG place this verse’s use.
 14

Pauline Appearances (8 Including Rom 3:23)

Throughout his 8 uses of the term ὑστερεω, Paul restricts himself to the final two options. So,
he never intends to denote “missing out” or being “needy,” rather opting for ὑστερεω when
presenting things as having comparatively lower status (BDAG option 4, see 2 Cor. 11:5;
12:11) or when speaking of a lack of something desired (BDAG option 5, see 1 Cor. 1:7; 8:8,
2 Cor. 11:9; 12:24, Phil 4:12).
Overall NT Appearances (16 Including Pauline)
The Gospels and Hebrews add another eight occurrences of this term to that of the Pauline
corpus, reflecting a wider exploration of the semantic range. Nevertheless, the same essential
core meaning is present in each use: deficiency; lack; need.
Conclusion
Given that δοξης του θεου should be considered “something advantageous or desirable” and
that the sense of deficiency in ὑστερεω is magnified by the ablative use of the genitive, I
concur with BDAG’s placement of this use.
 v. 25: ἱλαστηριον [ἱλαστηριον, -ου, το]
Possible Meanings88
1. Means of expiation
2. Place of propitiation
Pauline Appearances
This is the only appearance of ἱλαστηριον in Pauline literature. Paul does not use this word or
any of its cognates except here.
Overall NT Appearances
The author of Hebrews uses the term ἱλαστηριον to explicitly refer to the mercy-seat of the
ark of the covenant. However, it is articular in Heb. 9:5, and the context clearly indicates that
the term is meant to refer to the mercy-seat.89
Conclusion
With regard to the potential reference to the mercy-seat in Romans 3:25, no firm conclusions
can be drawn. 90 Nevertheless, even when used substantivally to signify the ark’s cover, the
term itself was chosen because it carried theologically significant meaning related to the
function of the mercy-seat. For reasons cited in the commentary, and especially the emphasis
on the wrath of God in the preceding chapters of this epistle, I take ἱλαστηριον to be denoting
here the second option in BDAG—a place of propitiation.

88
BDAG, s. v. BDAG presents both options without coming to a conclusion on which best describes the use here.
89
Cranfield, 214.
90
See discussion of ἱλαστηριον in commentary for related details.