Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 3:30
Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
30. seeing it is one God ] This ver. may be lit. rendered thus: If indeed God is one, who will (= and He will) justify the circumcision in consequence of faith, and the uncircumcision by means of its faith. “ If indeed ” is an argumentative formula, assuming its hypothesis to be true. Q. d., “God is one; hence it is but likely that His action on this great principle will be one also.” “ Will justify: ” this future, like many others in this argument, refers to what is and will be the Divine method through the Gospel age. “ The circumcision in consequence of faith, and the uncircumcision by means of, &c.” It is hardly possible that a distinction is to be insisted on here, as the point of the passage is similarity, equality, oneness, in regard of justification. The fulness of thought and language delights, as it were, to dwell on justifying faith in one case as God’s reason why pardon is applied to the believer, in the other as the believer’s way of accepting the pardon. The whole passage proves that Jewish and Gentile faith is one and the same in kind and effect.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 30. Seeing it is one God] . This has been rendered, Seeing God is one. It however makes little difference in the sense: the apostle’s meaning most evidently is, it is one and the same God who made both Jews and Gentiles, who shall justify-pardon, the circumcision-the believing Jews, by faith; and the uncircumcision-the believing Gentiles, by the same faith; as there is but one Saviour and one atonement provided for the whole.
It is fanciful to suppose that the apostle has one meaning when he says, , BY faith, and a different meaning when he says, , THROUGH faith. Both the prepositions are to be understood in precisely the same sense; only the addition of the article , in the last case, extends and more pointedly ascertains the meaning. It is one and the same God who shall justify the believing Jews by faith; and the believing Gentiles , by THAT SAME faith.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
That it may not be thought that God is variable in the action of justifying sinners, but that it might be known that he is one, i.e. unchangeable, he shows, that both the circumcised Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles are justified by the same God in Christ, and by the same way and manner, viz. by and through faith, with no more difference than there is betwixt these two phrases, (by faith and through faith), which cannot be distinguished the one from the other.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
30. it is oneGod who shall justify“has unchangeably fixed that Heshall justify.”
the circumcision by“of”
faith, and the uncircumcisionthrough faithprobably this is but a varied statement of thesame truth for greater emphasis (see Ro3:22); though BENGELthinks that the justification of the Jews, as the born heirs of thepromise, may be here purposely said to be “of faith,”while that of the Gentiles, previously “strangers to thecovenants of promise,” may be said to be “throughfaith,” as thus admitted into a new family.
Objection:
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Seeing it is one God,…. God is one in nature and essence, though there are three persons in the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; whence it appears, that he that is the God of the Jews, is also the God of the Gentiles, or there would be more gods than one; and that these are justified in one and the same manner, or God must be divided; for God, as he is one in nature, so he is one in will, in his promises, and in the methods of his grace:
which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. The objects of justification are “the circumcision”, the circumcised Jews, and “the uncircumcision”, the uncircumcised Gentiles; the circumcision of the one does not forward, and the uncircumcision of the other does not hinder, nor neither of them effect the grace of justification: the justifier of them is one and the same, who is God; and the matter of their justification is the same, which is the righteousness of Christ; and the manner of it, or the means of their comfortable apprehension of it, is the same; for those phrases, “by faith”, and “through faith”, mean one and the same thing; see Php 3:9.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
If so be that God is one ( ). Correct text rather than . It means “if on the whole.” “By a species of rhetorical politeness it is used of that about which there is no doubt” (Thayer. Cf. 1Cor 8:5; 1Cor 15:15; Rom 8:9.
By faith ( ). “Out of faith,” springing out of.
Through faith ( ). “By means of the faith” (just mentioned). denotes source, intermediate agency or attendant circumstance.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Seeing it is one God,” (eiper eis ho theos) “Since there exists (is) the one God;” This is the foundation of the Christian faith, Heb 11:6; 1Co 8:6; Act 17:24-25; Eph 4:6.
2) “Which shall justify the circumcision by faith,” (hos dikaosei peritomen ek pisteos) “Who will justify circumcision (ones) by (out of) faith;- Paul insisted that justification before God is to be conceived as being received in precisely the same way by both Jews and Gentiles, as Peter contended after his vision, and before the Jerusalem council, Act 15:7-11; Act 13:38-39; Act 13:46.
3) “And uncircumcision through faith,” (kai akrobustian dia tes pisteos) “And uncircumcision (ones) through the faith;” Abraham heard and believed the Gospel first as a Gentile, an heathen, while yet uncircumcised, and before Moses Law was given; He was saved then and became a pattern to all who should be saved thereafter, whether Jew or Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised, Rom 4:1-6; Gal 3:8-9; Gal 3:11.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
30. Who shall justify, (127) etc. In saying that some are justified by faith, and some through faith, he seems to have indulged himself in varying his language, while he expresses the same thing, and for this end, — that he might, by the way, touch on the folly of the Jews, who imagined a difference between themselves and the Gentiles, though on the subject of justification there was no difference whatever; for since men became partakers of this grace by faith only, and since faith in all is the same, it is absurd to make a distinction in what is so much alike. I am hence led to think that there is something ironical in the words, as though be said, — “If any wishes to have a difference made between the Gentile and the Jew, let him take this, — that the one obtains righteousness by faith, and the other through faith.”
But it may be, that some will prefer this distinction, — that the Jews were justified by faith, because they were born the heirs of grace, as the right of adoption was transmitted to them from the Fathers, — and that the Gentiles were justified through faith, because the covenant to them was adventitious.
(127) The future is used for the present — “who justifies,” after the manner of the Hebrew language, though some consider that the day of judgment is referred to; but he seems to speak of a present act, or as [ Grotius ] says, of a continued act, which the Hebrews expressed by the future tense. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(30) Seeing it is . . .With a slight change of reading, if at least; if, as we are sure is the case.
The argument is strictly logical. If there is to be any distinction between Jew and Gentile, this can only be upon the assumption either that there are more gods than one by whom they will be justified, or that they will be justified by some different law, in some different way. But neither of these is the case. Therefore it follows that there is no distinction.
Shall justify.The future signifies, throughout the Christian dispensationwherever the Christian system extends.
By faith.Through faith. In the one case faith is regarded as the instrument, in the other as the means; but the two expressions come to be almost convertible. In like manner there is no essential difference indicated by the fact that the first noun has not the article, while the second has it. The former is more abstractthe quality of faith in man; the latter more concretefaith as embodied in the gospel. The two prepositions, by and through, are in English nearly convertible, or differ from each other no more than instrument and means.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
30. One God And he not a local or national god, but a universal God.
The circumcision The Jew.
By faith through faith God justifies the Jew from a faith contained in and deduced from true Judaism; he justifies the Gentile through the instrumentality of a faith now first presented and imparted.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘If so be that God is one, and he will reckon the circumcision as in the right by faith (out of faith), and the uncircumcision through faith.’
And the grounds for his confident answer is that God is one. This was indeed what the Jew boasted about constantly, ‘YHWH our God, YHWH is one’ (Deu 6:4). Well, says Paul, if He is One then He is God over all and will deal with all on the same terms. He will reckon the circumcision to be in the right by faith, and the uncircumcision to be right through faith. All will be dealt with in the same way.
This fact that God is God of both Jew and Gentile will be emphasised in the next passage where Paul calls on the example of Abraham, ‘the father of many nations’. He is thus here preparing the way for that thesis.
It may be asked whether we should distinguish ‘out of faith’ from ‘through faith’. If there is a distinction it probably lies in the idea that the Jews were reckoned as right ‘by faith’, and the Gentiles ‘through the same type of faith’. But the distinction is probably not intended to be seen as important.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 3:30. Seeing it is one God, &c. So that it is one God, the same eternal and unchangeable Jehovah, who will justify, &c. Mr. Locke would render it, seeing God is one; and suppose it an allusion to the prediction, Zec 14:9 that the Lord shall be One, and his name One,fulfilled by the publication of the Gospel: but the allusion appears far-fetched. The Apostle, having asserted that God is the God of the Gentiles, as well as of the Jews, goes on to observe that there is but one God, whose tender mercies are over all his works; and with whom there is no acceptance of persons. See chap. Rom 2:11.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 3:30 is to be divided from the previous one merely by a comma. Regarding , whereas (in the N. T. only here) introducing something undoubted, see Hermann, a [929] Viger. p. 786; Hartung, Partikell . I. p. 342 f.; Baeumlein, p. 204
The unity of God implies that He is God, not merely of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles; for otherwise another special Deity must rule over the Gentiles, which would do away with monotheism.
] who shall (therefore) justify . This exposition contains that which necessarily follows from the unity of God, in so far as it conditions for both parties one mode of justification (which however must be , Rom 3:28 ). For Jews as well as for Gentiles He must have destined the way of righteousness by faith as the way of salvation. The future is neither put for (Grotius, and many others), nor to be referred with Beza and Fritzsche to the time of the final judgment, nor to be taken as the future of inference (Rckert, Mehring, Hofmann), but is to be understood as in Rom 3:20 of every case of justification to be accomplished . Erasmus rightly says, “Respexit enim ad eos, qui adhuc essent in Judaismo seu paganismo.”
The exchange of and is to be viewed as accidental, without real difference, but also without the purpose of avoiding misconception (Mehring). Comp Gal 2:16 ; Gal 3:8 ; Eph 2:8 . Unsuitable, especially for the important closing thought, is the view of Calvin, followed by Jatho, that there is an irony in the difference: “Si quis vult habere differentiam gentilis a Judaeo, hanc habeat, quod ille per fidem, hic vero ex fide justitiam consequitur.” Theodore of Mopsuestia, Wetstein, Bengel, Hofmann, and others explain it by various other gratuitous suggestions; [931] van Hengel is doubtful.
The interchange of and . ( from faith through the faith ), in which the qualitative expression advances to the concrete with the article , is also without special design, as similar accidental interchanges often occur in parallel clauses (Winer, p. 110 [E. T. 149]).
[929] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[931] Bengel: “Judaei pridem in fide fuerant; gentiles fidem ab illis recens nacti erant.” Comp. Origen. Similarly Matthias: in the case of the circumcised faith appears as the ground , in that of the uncircumcised as the means of justification; . signifies: because they believe, . .: if they believe. In the case of the circumcised faith is presupposed as covenant-faithfulness. Comp. also Bisping. According to Hofmann, Paul is supposed to have said in the case of the circumcised in consequence of faith , because these wish to become righteous in consequence of legal works; but in the case of the uncircumcised by means of faith, because with the latter no other possible way of becoming righteous was conceivable. In the former instance faith is the preceding condition; in the latter the faith existing for the purpose of justification (therefore accompanied by the article) is the means, by which God, who works it, helps to righteousness. This amounts to a subjective invention of subtleties which are equally incapable of proof as of refutation, but which are all the more groundless, seeing that Paul is fond of such interchanges of prepositions in setting forth the same relation (comp. ver. 25 f., and on 2Co 3:11 , and Eph 1:7 ). How frequent are similar interchanges also in classic authors! Moreover, in our passage the stress is by no means on the prepositions (Hofmann), but on and . And as to the variation of the prepositions, Augustine has properly observed ( de Spir. et lit. 29) that this interchange serves non ad aliquam differentiam , but ad varietatem locutionis . Comp. on (here said of Jews ) also of Gentiles , Gal 3:8 ; Rom 9:30 , and generally Rom 1:17 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Ver. 30. And uncircumcision ] All by one way, lest he should seem not to be one, but alius et alius.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
30. ] if at least (if we are to hold to what is manifest as a result of our former argument) God is One, who shall justify the circumcision (= the Jews, after the analogy of ch. Rom 2:26 ) by ( , as the preliminary condition, the state out of which the justification arises) faith, and the uncircumcision (the Gentiles) through (by means of) their faith . Too much stress must not be laid on the difference of the two prepositions (see Rom 3:22 and note). The omission of the art. in . and its expression in . are natural enough: the former expresses the ground of justification, generally taken, , by faith : the latter the means whereby the man lays hold on justification, , by his faith : the former is the objective ground, the latter the subjective medium. Jowett’s rendering of , ‘ the circumcision that is of faith ,’ though ingenious, is hardly philologically allowable, nor would it correspond to the other member of the sentence, which he rightly renders ‘ and the uncircumcision through their faith .’ To understand (as Mr. Green, Gr. p.300) as referring to just mentioned ‘ by the instrumentality of the identical faith which operates in the case of the circumcised ,’ is to contradict the fact: the faith was not, strictly speaking, identical in this sense, or the two cases never need have been distinguished. See Rom 3:1-2 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Seeing = Since. Greek. epeiper. Only here.
it is one God = God is One, i.e. for both Jew and Gentile.
Which shall = Who will.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
30. ] if at least (if we are to hold to what is manifest as a result of our former argument) God is One, who shall justify the circumcision (= the Jews, after the analogy of ch. Rom 2:26) by (, as the preliminary condition,-the state out of which the justification arises) faith, and the uncircumcision (the Gentiles) through (by means of) their faith. Too much stress must not be laid on the difference of the two prepositions (see Rom 3:22 and note). The omission of the art. in . and its expression in . are natural enough: the former expresses the ground of justification, generally taken, , by faith: the latter the means whereby the man lays hold on justification, , by his faith: the former is the objective ground, the latter the subjective medium. Jowetts rendering of , the circumcision that is of faith, though ingenious, is hardly philologically allowable, nor would it correspond to the other member of the sentence, which he rightly renders and the uncircumcision through their faith. To understand (as Mr. Green, Gr. p.300) as referring to just mentioned by the instrumentality of the identical faith which operates in the case of the circumcised, is to contradict the fact: the faith was not, strictly speaking, identical in this sense, or the two cases never need have been distinguished. See Rom 3:1-2.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 3:30. ,[41] seeing that indeed) The inference is: if justification be by the law, then the Gentiles, who are without the law, cannot be justified; and yet they also rejoice in God, as a justifier, ch. Rom 4:16.-) , , one, namely God; the relative who depends on one, as its antecedent.-, shall justify) The future, as we find it in many other passages, ch. Rom 1:17, Rom 3:20, v. 19, 27; 2Co 3:8, therefore, we have in express terms, , that was to come, ch. Rom 5:14; , will be, ch. Rom 4:24. Paul speaks as if he were looking forward out of the Old Testament [from the Old Testament stand-point] into the New. It is to this that those expressions refer, ex. gr., foreseeing, Gal 3:8; the promise, ib. 14; the hope, ib. Rom 5:5. So John is said to be about to come, Mat 11:14; Mat 17:11; the wrath to come, Mat 3:7, where we have the discourse of the forerunner, which presupposes the threatenings.[42]- , of or out of [by, Engl. Vers.]-through) The Jews had been long ago in the faith; the Gentiles had lately obtained faith from them. So through is used, Rom 3:22; Eph 2:8; of or out of [by, ] in a number of passages. It is well [right] by all means to compare the same difference in the particles in ch. Rom 2:27; and difference in the thing signified [i.e., the different footing of the Jew and Gentile] ch. Rom 11:17, etc.- ) He does not say, , on account of faith, but through faith.
[41] So G; quoniam quidem unus, fg Vulg. Iren. 186, 259. But ABC Orig. 4,228a, read ; si quidem unus, in g.-ED.
[42] i.e., the wrath to come is taken for granted from the Old Testament; Johns part is to warn them to flee from it.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 3:30
Rom 3:30
if so be that God is one, and he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith.-The one and the same God will justify both Jews and Gentiles by the same rule of faith in Christ Jesus. [A righteous judge could not render contradictory decisions when all are alike guilty, and certainly he could not decide in such a way that his judgment to save some would necessarily exclude others. The unity of God makes salvation by faith exclusive of every other means. “By faith and “through faith are practically the same. (Comp. 1:17; 3:20).]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Rom 3:28, Rom 4:11, Rom 4:12, Rom 10:12, Rom 10:13, Gal 2:14-16, Gal 3:8, Gal 3:20, Gal 3:28, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15, Phi 3:3, Col 2:10, Col 2:11
Reciprocal: Gen 17:10 – Every Num 15:29 – one law Num 19:10 – it shall be Deu 23:8 – enter into Isa 54:5 – The God Jer 32:27 – God Mat 20:12 – equal Act 10:35 – in Act 11:18 – hath Act 15:9 – put Act 28:28 – sent Rom 2:9 – of the Jew Rom 2:13 – justified Rom 3:26 – and Rom 4:9 – Cometh Rom 5:1 – being Rom 5:11 – but we Rom 9:24 – not of the Jews 1Co 7:19 – Circumcision Gal 2:16 – but Eph 4:5 – one faith 1Ti 2:4 – will 1Ti 2:5 – one God Jam 2:19 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD
If so be that God is one.
Rom 3:30 (R.V.)
In these words the Revised Version has restored to us a text, an argument, and even a principle which had been concealed. Salvation, St. Paul urges, must be the same for all, because all have the same God to deal with, if so be that God is one.
I. He appeals, therefore, to the character of God, assuming that God is known, in the only possible sense, and as we know each other. For, in a sense, we are every one of us unknown, unknowable. In a sense we all recognise this, and are agnostics with respect to our nearest and dearest. Let some new emergency arise, some demand upon the heart and brain, and the response of each will surprise and delight the other. And yet our knowledge is real as far as it goes; our faith in friendship and loyalty is not unjustified. I know not exactly how my friend will act, but I have faith that he will act worthily, and in character. So it is with God; and the pretension that we cannot be asked to have any relations with Him because He far transcends our knowledge, would, if carried into our relations with each other, be fatal to all our hearts.
II. Observe, further, this argument on behalf of a Christian grace, of brotherly kindness between Jew and Gentile, is founded upon a dogma, the dogma of the unity of Godhead. There are folks who say hard things of dogmatic religion. They only want the fine emotions, the exquisite temper, the meekness and gentleness of Jesus.
III. St. Paul had other views.To produce a united and a loving Church, he appealed to dogmatic facts, to the unity of God, and the consequent equality of man. Jew and Gentile, he argued, shall alike be justified by faith, if so be that God is one. What he relied upon to overcome their jealousies and rivalries was the truth that God will treat us all alike, being the one God of all men, of all races.
Bishop G. A. Chadwick.
Illustration
The Apostle is thinking of God; could he think of the God of the whole earth justifying one and refusing to justify another? To be uncertain, variable, wavering, this is the sad result in man of the mixture, division, and inconsistency within him. St. Paul, in this very epistle, attributes it to the fact that in a real and important sense man is not one but two; that his flesh lusteth against the spirit, and his spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other. In God there can be no such contradiction: Thou art the same, and thy years shall not end. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
:30
Rom 3:30. Circumcision and uncir-cumcision means the Jews and the Gentile. The first faith does not have the definite article before it, and it denotes the simple act of faith shown by the Jew individually when he performed the rites of the law of Moses. Even those services had to be accompanied with faith or the Jew would not receive the favor of God in that age. (Read the entire 11th chapter of Hebrews, especially verse 6.) The second faith is preceded by the, which makes it mean the Gospel which is often termed “the faith.” And the benefits thus received by both the Jew under the law, and the Gentile under the Gospel, are bestowed by the one God.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 3:30. Seeing that God is one, he who shall, etc. (A slight change of reading gives the sentence a lively argumentative form; the word used being that translated if so be that in chap. Rom 8:9.) The argument is pressed further to the undoubted fact that God is one. The unity of God implies that He is God, not merely of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles; for otherwise another special Deity must rule over the Gentiles, which would do away with monotheism (Meyer). But the unity of Gods being involves the uniformity of His method of justification. If God is one, there can be no contradictory revelations from God; hence Christianity, based equally with Judaism upon monotheism, cannot admit of being one among several religions equally true.
The circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith; lit., the faith. The change from by faith to through the faith, may not have been designed to express any distinction, as Paul frequently uses the two phrases, by faith and through faith, as if they were equivalent. Some distinguish the former, as giving the general ground of justification (as opposed to that of works); the latter, the particular means, through his faith (as opposed to want of faith). To make the former imply a different position on the part of the Jew, is to oppose the whole current of Pauls thought.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 30. The Alex. read : if truly. This reading might suffice if the apostle were merely repeating the principle of the unity of God as the basis of the preceding assertion: if indeed God is one. But he goes further; this principle of the unity of God serves him as a point of departure from which to draw important inferences expressed in a weighty proposition: who will justify. To warrant him in doing so, it is not enough that he has asserted the unity of God as an admitted supposition: if indeed. He must have laid it down as an indubitable fact which could serve as a basis for argument. We must therefore prefer the reading of the other two families: , seeing that.Monotheism has as its natural corollary the expectation of one only means of justification for the whole human race. No doubt this dogma is compatible with a temporary particularism, of a pedagogic nature; but as soon as the decisive question arises, that of final salvation or condemnation, the unity must appear. A dualism on this point would imply a duality in God’s essence: who (in consequence of His unity) will justify. The future: will justify, has been variously explained. Some think that it expresses logical consequence (Rck. Hofm.); others, that it refers to the day of judgment (Beza, Fritzs.); a third party refer it to all the particular cases of justification which have taken or shall take place in history. The last sense seems the most natural: the whole new development of history, which is now opening, appears to the apostle as the consequence of the fundamental dogma of Judaism.
Meyer alleges that the difference of the two prepositions and , from and by (which we have sought to render in our translation), is purely accidental. Is it also accidental that the article , the, which was wanting in the first proposition before the word , faith, is added in the second? Experience has convinced us that Paul’s style is not at the mercy of chance, even in its most secondary elements. On the other hand, must we, with Calvin, find the difference a pure irony: If any one insists on a difference between Jews and Gentiles, well and good! I shall make over one to him; the first obtains righteousness from faith, the second by faith. No; it would be much better to abandon the attempt to give a meaning to this slight difference, than to make the apostle a poor wit. The following, as it seems to me, is the shade of meaning which the apostle meant to express. With regard to the Jew, who laid claim to a righteousness of works, he contrasts category with category by using the preposition , from, out of, which denotes origin and nature: a righteousness of faith. Hence, too, he omits the article, which would have described the conciete fact, rather than the quality. But when he comes to speak of the Gentiles, who had been destitute till then of every means of reaching any righteousness whatever, he chooses the preposition , by: by means of, which points to faith simply as the way by which they reach the unexpected end; and he adds the article because faith presents itself to his mind, in this relation, as the well-known means, besides which the Gentile does not dream of any other.
The harmony between the Mosaic law and justification by faith has been demonstrated from two points of view1. That of the universal humiliation (the exclusion of all boasting), which results from the former and constitutes the basis of the latter (Rom 3:27-28). 2. That of the unity of God, which is the basis of Israelitish Mosaism and prophetism, as well as that of evangelical universalism (Rom 3:29-30). Thereafter nothing more natural than the conclusion drawn in Rom 3:31.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
if so be that God is one, and he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. [Therefore, as the conclusion of the whole argument, we reckon that every man, be he Jew or Gentile, is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. If only those who kept the law of Moses could be justified, then only could Jews be justified, for they alone possessed this law, and it is addressed only to them. But this state of affairs would belle the character of God. Does he not create, feed and govern the Gentiles? and is he not then the God of the Gentiles? Or are there two Gods: one for the Jew and one for the Gentile? The question is absurd; there is but one God, and he is God both of the Jews and Gentiles, and as each race is alike wholly dependent upon him, he must deal impartially by each; and this he does, for he saves both Jew and Gentile in tile same manner; i. e., by faith. It may be well to note, in this connection, that Luther added the word “alone” to this verse, thus: “We reckon, therefore, that a man is justified by faith alone.” In combating the error of Rome (that men are justified by works), Luther fell into another error, for repentance is as much a means of justification as faith, and there is no merit in either of them. The meritorious cause of our justification is the atoning blood of Christ, and by faith, repentance, baptism, etc., we appropriate the blood of Christ. These acts, on our part, do not make us worthy of justification, but they are the conditions fixed by Christ, on compliance with which lie invests us with the benefits of his blood; i. e., justifies us.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
30. Since there is one God who will justify the circumcision and the uncircumcision through faith. We need not wonder at the amount of apparently substantial repetition in this argument proclaiming Gods great law of pardon to all the world indiscriminately, whether Pagan, Papist, Moslem, Jew, Gentile, or Protestant. It is simply by faith alone, without works wrought by yourself, a preacher, a church member, or anything else.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
3:30 Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify {g} the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
(g) The circumcised.