Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Romans 3:21-25, 28

This post includes Fr. MacEvilly’s brief summary analysis of  Romans 3 followed by his commentary on the Sunday reading. I’ve also included his paraphrases of the verses he is commenting on. These are in purple text.

A Summary Analysis of Romans Chapter 3~Having convicted the Jews, in the preceding chapter, of grievous violations of the Law of Moses, the Apostle commences this with pointing out some external advantages which they possessed over the Gentiles (verses 1, 2). He next refutes certain objections against the veracity and justice of God, springing out of the subject (verses 2-9). He proves from the testimony of Sacred Scripture that both Jew and Gentile were under sin. And these testimonies from Sacred Scripture he shows to have special reference to the Jews (9-21). He next lays down the great theme of the Epistle, viz.: Justification by Faith, opposed to the works of the law of nature, or the Law of Moses (22). He shows the congruity of such a means of justification (23), and its gratuitous-ness (24, 25). Hence, all boasting is excluded (27, 2S). Finally, he shows the congruity, on the part of God, of adopting such a means of justification, as being so universal, and accommodated equally both to Jew and Gentile.

Rom 3:21  But now, without the law, the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.

But in these latter times, the true justice by which we are rendered really just in God’s sight, and to which testimony has been rendered by the law and the prophets, is made manifest as proceeding from a source quite distinct from, and independent of, the helps of the law.

The justice of God. Real and true justification bv which we are really justified before God; and hence called the justice of God, because emanating from him alone, “is made manifest without the law”, because, by the preaching of the Gospel, it was abundantly confirmed and externally testified by miracles, that this justice has been bestowed on those who never received the law, e.g., Cornelius the centurion and others. “Being witnessed bv the law and the prophets.”  “By the law,” (Genesis 49:1o); “the prophets,” (Hab 2:4; Isa 55.) Hence, it is no novel doctrine.

Rom 3:22  Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction.

That justice, I say, comes from the faith of Christ, and is abundantly conferred on all who believe in him, as they ought: for, there is no distinction between those who received the law and those who did not.

Even, i.e., I say, “the justice of God,” comes from a source quite distinct from that which the Gentiles and Jews imagined, viz., from the “faith of Jesus Christ,” “unto all and upon all.”  Some say, these words express more strongly the universality and sublimity of this gift: others, that they only express the same thing, and are repeated for the sake of emphasis. “Upon all,” is not found in the Vatican nor in the other chief manuscripts. “That believe in him.”  Of course, he leaves it to be understood, that their faith is accompanied with the other conditions requisite for justification. “In hims,” is not in the Greek, which simply is τους πιστευοντας (“That believe”).

Rom 3:23  For all have sinned and do need the glory of God.

For all have sinned, and have nothing wherein to glory before God: or, are destitute of justifying grace, the seed of future glory, which comes from God alone and is not merited by works. (And hence, the congruity of his adopting a means of justification, wholly independent of any merit on the part of man).

For all (Jew and Gentile, as has been already shown), have sinned, and do need the glory of God.  “Do need,” in Greek, υστερουνται, are behind, or, come too late for. By “the glory of God,” some understand, the justifying grace of God, which will redound to his glory, and which is the seed of future glory in us, and comes from God alone, not merited by works. The other exposition in the Paraphrase is also very probable, and means, they have no glory; or, nothing wherein to glory before God, and hence, the necessity of establishing a system of justification wholly unconnected with man’s merits (for he has none), and entirely dependent on God, and consequently redounding to his glory alone. And such is the system of justification through faith. Against this latter exposition it militates, and is in favour of the former, that the Greek for “glory” is δοξης.

Rom 3:24  Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

But they are justified gratuitously, without any previous merits on their part, by his grace, through the redemption which Christ Jesus purchased for us, having paid for it the price of his most precious blood.

Being justified.  After having sinned (as in preceding verse) they were justified “freely,” i.e., gratuitously; because  none of the things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification itself. (Council of Trent, SS. 6, ch. 8.)  “By his grace.” This is the formal cause of justification, and must, consequently, be essentially gratuitous; otherwise it would be no grace.  “Through the redemption.” The meritorious cause of this justification is the redemption through Christ. The Greek word for “redemption,”  απολυτρωσεως, implies, the payment given in ransoming. We are said to be justified by faith, inasmuch as it is, the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification. Council of Trent, ibidem.

Rom 3:25  Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins

Whom God proposed as a real victim of propitiation-of which we are made partakers by faith in his blood or death for us-in order to manifest his justice or the infinite hatred he has for sin, which justice would appear to be in abeyance, owing to his having apparently remitted in the past ages, sins for which no adequate ransom appeared to be given, or reparation made.

Whom God hath set forth,  i.e., publicly exhibited on the cross, and gave to us “to be a propitiation.”  The corresponding Greek word-ιλαστηριον- may signify either a “propitiation,” or a “propitiator.” It more probably is taken in the former signification here, to denote a victim of propitiation “through faith in his blood”. The words, “in his blood,” are connected by many with the word “propitiation,” thus: Whom Cod hath set forth to be a propitiation, which propitiation is effected by the shedding of his blood, and is to be applied to us through faith; others connect the words as in the Paraphrase.  “To the shewing of his justice,” i.e., in order to manifest his Attribute of eternal justice, Avbereby beholds sin in infinite hatred. This he manifests and vindicates by requiring a victim an effusion of blood, of infinite value, before he remits sin. This “justice,” for the manifestation of which God had publicly exhibited his Son as a victim of propitiation, would also appear to extend to that justice whereby we are made just, which was exercised in the remission of sins in former ages, since it was only by the infusion of grace and justice that these sins were remitted. In the first signification of “justice,” to which it would appear allusion is principally made in this verse, the words, “for the remission of former sins,” are thus connected (as in Paraphrase), which justice of God hating sin would appear to be in abeyance, owing to his having remitted sins in former ages, &c. (vide Paraphrase). The word “remission” may also signify, as appears from the Greek word-παρεσιν-moral languor and spiritual debility, which sin introduced into the world, and to cure which the great Physician came down from Heaven; or, rather, it signifies God’s having omitted to punish, and having passed over the sins of former ages. This exposition accords best with the following verse, “through the forbearance,” or patience, “of God.”

Rom 3:28  For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

We come, then, to the conclusion, that a man , whether he be Jew or Gentile, is justified by faith, without any reference to the works of the Mosaic Law, performed by the sole aid and helps of that law.

For, (in Greek, ουν-, therefore. The Alexandrian MS. supports the Vulgate γαρ,) “we account,” the meaning of which, as appears from the Greek word λογιζομεθα, is, we infer, by reasoning from the foregoing,  “a man” (every man, be he Jew or Gentile), “to be justified by faith,” because faith is the root and foundation of all justification. (Council of Trent, SS. G, ch. 8.) “Without the works of the law,” i.e., without the performance of the works which the law of Moses prescribes, by the sole aid and lights administered by the law itself. Although the words of the Apostle here, addressing the Jewish converts, have expressly reference only to the works of the Mosaic Law, still, his scope is to deny that any works, whether of the Mosaic or Natural Law, give us a claim to the grace of justification. Hence, addressing the converts from Paganism, he asserts the same. (Eph 2:8-9).

OBJECTION. Therefore, good works are not necessary for justification.

RESPONSE. The inference is quite false, provided the Apostle does not in this verse speak of the works which Catholics hold to be necessary for obtaining and preserving first, and for meriting second, justification. And, moreover, if it he clear from other passages of Sacred Scripture that good works enter into man’s justification. Now, such is the case. First, “the works of the law,” of which the Apostle here speaks, are quite different from the works which Catholics maintain, to he necessary for justification, viz., those done in faith, and by the aid of divine grace. For, the Apostle is speaking of works upon which would be based a system of justification opposed to the gratuitous justification by faith. He opposes these works to faith. He makes the first the basis of the justification maintained by the converted Jews and Gentiles; the second, the basis of the justification propounded by himself. If he were treating of the works done in faith, there would be no such opposition, nor could the gratuitousness of justification be excluded by such works; for, Catholics, while maintaining that these works have a share in justification, still hold that these works preceding justification, although good, although performed by the aid of divine grace, give no claim to strict merit, and leave justification itself quite gratuitous Moreover, the state of the controversy would admit of no reference to works done under the influence of faith and grace; for, the question at issue regarded the claim which these works gave towards obtaining faith and justification. Faith, then, in the minds of the converted Romans, was supposed to be given in reward for these works; hence, there must be question of works preceding faith. The Apostle, then, refers to the works performed by the sole aid of the law of Moses, and the law of nature, without grace and faith, and he comes to the conclusion, that these works have no share in justification. Secondly, we have numberless passages in Sacred Scripture, in which the necessity of good works is asserted. St. Paul himself tells us (chap. 2 of this Epistle), “that only the DOERS of the law will be justified;” and the saving faith of the Galatians must be “a faith that worketh by charity,” (Gal 5:6); and we are told (1 Cor 13) that faith strong enough to remove mountains, unless accompanied by charity, is worth nothing. St. James (chap. 2), is so clear on this subject as to render comment unnecessary. And we are informed by St. Augustine (Libro de Fide, &c., xiv.), that one of the principal objects of St. James, in writing his Epistle, was, to refute the error regarding the sufficiency of faith, exclusive of good works, for justification; an error which, even in his days was broached and grounded on the false interpretation of the words of the Apostle in this Epistle. The reason why the Apostle dwells on the necessity of faith, passing over the other dispositions for justification, is, because it is the ingredient of justification which most clearly showed its absolute gratuitousness the point he had chiefly to prove. And if he were, in this Epistle, to point out all the conditions necessary for justification good works among the rest he would be only rendering his doctrine less forcible and more obscure; for, his adversaries might artfully endeavour to confound these good works, required by him, with those put forward by themselves, which latter description of works is altogether excluded by him in this Epistle.