Ver. 27. ποῦ οὖν; where, since this is the case, is boasting? ἐξεκλείσθη: for the use of the tense, cf. ἐβλήθη and ἐξηράνθη in John xv. 6; it is equivalent to, “is peremptorily, or once for, all, shut out”. διὰ ποίου νόµου; By what kind of law? In other words, How is the “law,” the divinely appointed spiritual order, or constitution, which excludes boasting, to be characterised ? Is it by ‘ the works ” which it prescribes, and which those who live under it per-
614
, A 34 Ν ” Π πίστει δικαιοῦσθαι ἄνθρωπον, xwpis ἔργων νόµου.
ὁ Θεὸς µόνον 1 pi Tim. ii. 4 ff. 7
πίστεως.
ἀλλὰ νόµον ἱστῶμεν .ὃ
αµονον NACFKL 17; µονων B (W. and H. πιατρ.).
20. ἢ Ιουδαίων
J 5. 4 nw A - ; οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ἐθνῶν ; vai, καὶ ἐθνῶν: 30. ἐπείπερ” εἷς ὁ ’ Θεὸς, ὃς δικαιώσε: περιτομὴν ἐκ πίστεως, καὶ ἀκροβυστίαν διὰ τῆς
{ > “ 8 ‘ a ή x 31. vopov οὖν καταργούµεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως; μὴ γένοιτο =
Se om. NABCDFK.
2 For επειπερ ΔΝ ΑΒΟ ΓΣ read ειπερ, and so most editors; but Weiss regards επειπερ (which is not found elsewhere in the N.T.) as the true reading.
5 For ιστωµεν, N'ABCD?F, etc., read ιστανοµεν.
form? No: its character is given when we call it a constitution or law of “faith ’’. Népos in these brief ques-
tions is evidently used in a wide sense to denote the religious order or system under which men live, regarded as established by God, and having His authority; the O.T. religion and the N.T. religion, unlike, and in some ways opposed, as they are, are alike vépos— divine institutes.
Ver. 28. λογιζόμεθα yap: see critical note. In λογιζόμεθα there is no idea of an uncertain conclusion: it rather sug- gests the confident self-consciousness of the reasoner. ἄνθρωπον is not “ any human being,” as if beings of another sort could be justified otherwise: it is like the German “‘man”’or “‘one”. Cf. LACOL. αν. τσ. στ πα οἱ σας MEO. The sharp distinction drawn between faith and works of law, as characterising two different religious systems, shows that faith must not itself be interpreted as a work of law. In principle it is a renunciation of all such confidence as legal obedience inspires.
Ver. 29 f. ἢ ᾿Ιουδαίων ὃ Beds µόνον; The only way to evade the conclusion of ver. 28 would be to suppose—as is here presented by way of alternative—that God is a God of Jews only. But the supposition is impossible: there is only one God, and therefore He must be God of all, of Gentiles and Jews alike. This is assumed as an axiom by the Apostle. εἴπερ is the best attested reading, but the argument seems to require that it should ‘‘ approximate to the sense of ἐπείπερ” (Simcox, Language of the N.T., p. 171), which is a variant: “ if, as is the fact’’.* It is simplest to read ver. 30 as explaining and confirming what precedes: He is God of the Gentiles also, if as is the fact God is
one; and (consequently) He will justify the circumcision on the ground of faith and the uncircumcision by means of faith. δικαιώσει is probably logical, rather than temporal, whether the re- ference be made to the last judgment, or to each case, as it arises, in which God justifies. Lightfoot insists on draw- ing a distinction between ἐκ πίστεως and διὰ τῆς πίστεως in this passage. ‘‘ The difference,” he says, ‘“ will perhaps best be seen by substituting their opposites, οὐ δικαιώσει περιτομὴν ἐκ νόµου, οὐδὲ ἀκροβυστίαν διὰ τοῦ νόµον: when, in the case of the Jews, the falsity of their starting-point, in the case of the Gentiles, the needlessness of a2 new instrumentality, would be insisted on.” (Notes on Epistles of St. Paul, p. 274.) But a comparison of ii. 26, v. 1, ix. 30, Gal. iii. 8 (Weiss), shows that Paul does not construe the prepositions so rigorously: and in point of fact, what he does insist upon here is that justifica- tion is to be conceived in precisely the same way for Jew and Gentile. The ἐκ πίστεως and διὰ τῆς πίστεως serve πο purpose but to vary the expression.