Romans 3:30

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Romans 3:30

While listening to the Book of Romans, this verse stuck out to me. The two prepositions "by" and "through" are not exactly the same - and when I checked the underlying Greek, there were different prepositions used then as well ("by" -- ek and "through" -- dia). I recognize that the difference between them can be subtle, but since Paul used different prepositions in the same sentence, my natural response is that he is trying to compare two (not entirely similar) things. Not that justification by faith is not true in both situations (for the circumcision and also for the uncircumcision) but the hint is that he might be trying to emphasize something different in each situation. At least that would be my reason for using two different prepositions like this in English. Since everything Paul said was done with precision, I am going to find it very difficult to believe that he is really just saying that both Israelite and Gentile are justified by faith.

I don't know if it's a factor here, but I don't know Greek much beyond what a concordance could tell me. The few commentaries I looked at said there was absolutely no difference between the two phrases (though one cited Bengel as thinking there was some difference to be had). So I am interested in any reasoned expansion on the differences in the prepositions as used here.
 

OZOS

Well-known member
Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Romans 3:30

While listening to the Book of Romans, this verse stuck out to me. The two prepositions "by" and "through" are not exactly the same - and when I checked the underlying Greek, there were different prepositions used then as well ("by" -- ek and "through" -- dia). I recognize that the difference between them can be subtle, but since Paul used different prepositions in the same sentence, my natural response is that he is trying to compare two (not entirely similar) things. Not that justification by faith is not true in both situations (for the circumcision and also for the uncircumcision) but the hint is that he might be trying to emphasize something different in each situation. At least that would be my reason for using two different prepositions like this in English. Since everything Paul said was done with precision, I am going to find it very difficult to believe that he is really just saying that both Israelite and Gentile are justified by faith.

I don't know if it's a factor here, but I don't know Greek much beyond what a concordance could tell me. The few commentaries I looked at said there was absolutely no difference between the two phrases (though one cited Bengel as thinking there was some difference to be had). So I am interested in any reasoned expansion on the differences in the prepositions as used here.
Good question, here is how I understand it.

"Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law."

The final verse here explains that the Law establishes the fact that no man can be justified by the works of the Law, because no one can keep it. Therefore, a man is justified by faith. The Jews, must be justified by the law of faith, not by the works of the Law. The Gentiles, who never had the Law, are justified through faith alone. So, I see Paul making a comparison of those who were turning from one to the other (circumcision), and those who were coming to Christ apart from the Law (uncircumcision).
 
Last edited:

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
OZOs said: "The Jews were justified by one holy spirit and the Gentiles were justified by the other holy spirit" - Jerry Shugart"

I never said that. and you know it! You are so desperate to discredit me that you have reverted to making thing up!

You say that you never sin but making up lies about other people is a sin--it's called bearing false witness.
 

Bradley D

Well-known member
Circumcision or uncircumcision I believe the verse is pointing towards what really is important. Faith.

"By faith ...through faith - There is no difference in the meaning of these expressions. Both denote that faith is the instrumental cause of justification, or acceptance with God." (Barnes' Notes on the Bible).
 

OZOS

Well-known member
"By faith ...through faith - There is no difference in the meaning of these expressions. Both denote that faith is the instrumental cause of justification, or acceptance with God." (Barnes' Notes on the Bible).
While it is true that even Paul uses "by faith" in the context to show how all men are justified, his point is to also express the difference between Jews and Gentiles, in that the former turned from the Law to faith, and the latter came solely by way of faith, apart from the Law. This is a very important distinction, because Paul is laying a foundation that men are saved by grace, through faith, and not by the works of the Law. To ignore the distinction and claim there is no difference, is to miss the importance of Paul's narrative.
 
Top