What does this verse mean?

[OPC'n]

Romans 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

We are saved by Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone and we are not to look to our faith which only is a receiver but to Christ. Why does this verse say that the Jews are saved by faith and the Gentiles through faith? Is this verse talking more about the Jews and Gentiles before Christ when they were required to get circumcised and the Jews and Gentiles after Christ's resurrection? Abraham was justified by faith and we are justified through faith. A sort of looking ahead to the cross and looking back to the cross?

 

[CharlieJ]

Sarah,

I would see this as "stylistic variation." The prepositions ek and dia, both in the genitive, point to the same meaning. Paul is not trying to introduce a distinction here, since that would run counter to the point of his argument, that "God is one" and his way of salvation is likewise one.

In English, "by" and "through" have a great deal of overlap. Depending on the circumstance, they could be used synonymously or differentially. Here, they are used synonymously, varied to show that the Greek words are in fact different.

Contrast this to Eph. 2:8. "For by grace" is in the dative, whereas "through faith" is in the genitive. By using two different cases, Paul makes clear he is differentiating ideas. The dative here expresses the "ground" or "cause", whereas the genitive expresses the "means."

That was a really good question, though, and a mark of a sharp mind that you considered the possible implications of the change of prepositions. Keep at it!

 

[OPC'n]

Charlie thanks for the answer but you are talking over my head. I don't understand "The prepositions ek and dia, both in the genitive," or "For by grace" is in the dative, whereas "through faith" is in the genitive" for example. Can you clarify?

 

[Prufrock]

Several older commentators tried to note Paul being fairly "sarcastic" here, as in: "Okay, you want a difference between the Jews and Gentiles? Fine: the Jews are justified by faith and the Gentiles through faith. Is that a good enough difference for you?" (See Calvin for this interpretation)

Just as many found the difference to lie chiefly in the use of the article not being present in the first case, but present in the second case (see some examples below)

Just as many again found no substantial difference at all (for example, Gill).

Alford finds not a contrasting difference, but different meanings to express how one and the same were justified:
"Too much stress need not be laid upon the difference of the two prepositions. The omission of the article in ek pist. and its expression in dia tes pist. are natural enough: the former expresses the ground of justification, generally taken, ek pist.; the latter the means whereby man lays hold on justification, dia tes pist., by his faith. The former is the objective ground, the latter the subjective medium."

A different view from Vaughan:
The two terms are equivalent and convertible, but they differ in form. The one is (1.) faith, the act of believing; the other is (2.) the faith, the object of belief, that is, the gospel. For an illustration of the distinction, see Gal. iii. 22-26.

Moo dismisses all such interpretations and finds simply a stylistic variation (and I don't have it in front of me, but I believe this was Cranfield's judgment as well? [Correct me if I'm wrong, someone]). So Meyer:
"The interchange of pisteos and tes pisteos 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."

Olshausen again differs from all the above:
"[They] do not stand parallel to one another as designations of source and cause....Ek pisteos has a special reference to the Jews, who supposed that they were partakers of divine grace, not as believers, but simply as children of Abraham after the flesh."
Both Bengel and Godet follow similar trains of thought in their expositions.

Bottom line, there are almost as many interpretations of the difference in expression as there are able commentators to interpret it, and I don't think any could be argued as "more in keeping with orthodoxy" than the others, though some are indeed more exegetically sound.

-----Added 1/20/2009 at 10:38:54 EST-----

What is important to note is that both expressions are true for both Jews and Gentiles. There is no substantial or important difference between saying "through faith" and "by faith." Paul uses both expressions repeatedly. The question is simply one of why did he express them differently together in this one case? I'm inclined to put absolutely no contrast in Paul's mind here, but he was simply varying the expression (although I do find Calvin's interpretation quite nice).

 

[OPC'n]

Then why do we make such a fuss over making sure that we say through faith? I mean I understand the reason behind why we do...so as not to put our confidence in our faith. Did this usage of ours start many years after the NT was written due to some misunderstanding of what faith does, and the NT readers at that time didn't have that misunderstanding and so it really didn't matter if the NT used "by" or "through"? I'm just wondering why we make such a distinction when Scripture doesn't.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

From Vincent's Word Studies in the NT:

Rom 3:30 By (ek) faith - through (dia) faith
“Some make the two prepositions equivalent. The difference may be explained from the fact that the real Jew has already a germinating faith from the completion of which justification arises as fruit from a tree. So Wordsworth: “The Jews are justified out of (εκ) the faith which their father Abraham had, and which they are supposed to have in him. The Gentiles must enter that door and pass through it in order to be justified.”

Vincent seems to suggest that when the Jew, who believed in Jehovah, placed his faith in Christ he did not have to use a different faith than the faith he had in Jehovah. He is justified ‘ek’ (out of) the faith that he already possessed, a la the faith of Abraham. The reason that he can be justified ‘ek’ (out of) faith is because Jesus was their Jehovah manifest in the flesh, therefore the proper object of faith had not changed.

The Gentile cannot by justified ‘ek’ faith, he must by justified ‘dia’ faith. The Gentile had to be justified THROUGH the faith that the Jew was justified BY. The pagan gentile's faith had been in pagan gods, so he could not be justified “out of” that faith, but rather, through the true faith of Israel.

 

[Prufrock]

Then why do we make such a fuss over making sure that we say through faith?

Sorry, Sarah: I guess I can't really answer that question, simply because (pardon my ignorance) I am unaware of anyone who consciously avoids the expression "by faith" in preference for "through faith." Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any major English divine who abstained from the expression "justified by faith." I can't quote the early reformers, since per fidem could be translated as either in English. But in English, I think we'd even only have to look at the titles of some major works, such as Owen's "The Doctrine of Justification BY Faith." I don't think anyone is going to call him out on being unorthodox there.
Edit Also check out WCF 11.1 "By faith" is in the English confession. So I can understand someone stressing the meaning through if they are intending to stress highly the instrumental nature of faith with respect to justification and they find that the word through is best able to accomplish this; but I can't see someone abstaining from the word "by."

 

[TimV]

Then why do we make such a fuss over making sure that we say through faith?

I'm not sure we do. Luther made his mega point by saying the just shall live by faith.

As to your question, Paul did the rolled up shirt sleeves work, but perhaps you could work backwards, and say since the verse says

Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one

isn't the point that since God is one that there is no difference?

Good question, though.

 

[OPC'n]

Thanks Gomerus, that's kind of what I was thinking but my pea size brain couldn't fully articulate it for me. So thanks for clearing that up for me.

Prufrock,
our church does emphasis using "through" for reasons I stated. If my memory doesn't fail me, I believe Spurgeon does the same emphasis on "through" in his book "All of Grace". Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Prufrock]

The Gentile cannot by justified ‘ek’ faith, he must by justified ‘dia’ faith.

I'm sorry, but Vincent's statement seems wholly incoherent. All that has to be produced to show that is incorrect is one verse. Takes Galatians 3:8 -- "And the scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles ek pisteos preached the gospel..." The gentiles, just as the Jews are justified ek pisteos.

-----Added 1/20/2009 at 11:20:16 EST-----

Spurgeon, All of Grace (Chapter 1):

I know by a full assurance that I am justified by faith which is in Christ Jesus, and treated as if I had been perfectly just, and made an heir of God and a joint heir with Christ; and yet by nature I must take my place among the most sinful.

Emphasizing the word through to demonstrate the instrumental nature does not exclude the use of the word "by" as equally valid. They really mean the same thing. I'm not trying to wrangle with you. I've just never read any theologian who said "by" was inappropriate or didn't say "by faith", and, if it is inappropriate or even simply not the best choice of words, then all of our greatest theologians and our confession are at fault.

Edit
By the way, I'm glad to see how important it is to you to stress that faith is an instrument.

 

[OPC'n]

The Gentile cannot by justified ‘ek’ faith, he must by justified ‘dia’ faith.

I'm sorry, but Vincent's statement seems wholly incoherent. All that has to be produced to show that is incorrect is one verse. Takes Galatians 3:8 -- "And the scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles ek pisteos preached the gospel..." The gentiles, just as the Jews are justified ek pisteos.

Could he be getting at Romans 1:16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith." and Romans 3:1 "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God."? I know...right now I'm sounding Dispensational which I'm not but....

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

The Gentile cannot by justified ‘ek’ faith, he must by justified ‘dia’ faith.

I'm sorry, but Vincent's statement seems wholly incoherent. All that has to be produced to show that is incorrect is one verse. Takes Galatians 3:8 -- "And the scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles ek pisteos preached the gospel..." The gentiles, just as the Jews are justified ek pisteos.

. . .

I agree that Vincent's suggestion is somewhat novel. He is trying to read something into Paul's distinction in the prepositions. However, I don't believe he is intimating that this is a grammatical rule. I merely added the info for reference. Peace.

As an aside, Machen speaks of the instrumentality of faith in this way:

"Faith is not regarded in the New Testament as itself a meritorious work or a meritorious condition of the soul; but it is regarded as a means which is used by the grace of God: the New Testament never says a man is saved on account of his faith, but always that he is saved through his faith or by means of his faith; faith is merely the means which the Holy Spirit uses to apply to the individual soul the benefits of Christ's death." (What is Faith?, Banner of Truth, p. 180.)

 

[Prufrock]

No need to declare Peace, Jim. Thanks for the reference. I've often found Vincent helpful.

And a hearty, "Amen," to the Machen quote.

 

[CharlieJ]

Sarah, sorry for not giving a fuller explanation. Greek (like Russian and German) uses different "cases" for determining the meaning of a word in a given sentence.

English rarely does this, but it happens. For example, "I" "me" and "my/mine" refer to the same person. They are, technically speaking, the same pronoun. The differences show us what use they have in the sentence. "I" is a subject or predicate nominative, "me" is an object, and "my/mine" is possession.

In Greek, (almost) all nouns do this. However, each case is capable of a range of meanings. So, in the Koine period, prepositions were introduced into the language. Those prepositions take their noun object in a certain case, and (supposedly) supply more specific information about which meaning of the case to prefer.

So.... in Romans 3:30, despite two different pronouns, they both take their object in the genitive case. Therefore, synonymy is to be preferred.

In Eph. 2:8 "by grace" is in the dative case, whereas "through faith" is in the genitive (same exact phrase as in Rom 3:30). By using two different cases, Paul highlights their different functions. Grace functions as the "ground" or "basis" of salvation (a meaning of the dative case), whereas faith functions as the "means" of salvation (a meaning of the genitive case.)

Also, if one were to do a word search, one would find "ek" and "dia" with a genitive object often used interchangeably (Gal. 3:24, 26; 5:5; Rom 1:12).

We do the same thing in English. Many times "by" and "through" are interchangeable. Sometimes they are not (drive "by" or "through" the house?).