| |  |
PARALLEL HISTORY BIBLE - Romans 3:28
CHAPTERS: Romans 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 
VERSES: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
TEXT: BIB | AUDIO: MISLR - MISC - DAVIS - FOCHT | VIDEO: GEN - BIB - COMM
ENGLISH - HISTORY - INTERNATIONAL - FACEBOOK - GR FORUMS - GODRULES ON YOUTUBE
HELPS: KJS - KJV - ASV - DBY - DOU - WBS - YLT - HEB - BBE - WEB - NAS - SEV - TSK - CRK - WES - MHC - GILL - JFB
|
LXX- Greek Septuagint - Romans 3:28 λογιζομεθα 3049 5736 ουν 3767 πιστει 4102 δικαιουσθαι 1344 5745 ανθρωπον 444 χωρις 5565 εργων 2041 νομου 3551
Douay Rheims Bible For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.
King James Bible - Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
World English Bible We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
Early Church Father Links Npnf-102 iv.XVII.12 Pg 4, Npnf-105 xi.xlviii Pg 4, Npnf-105 xix.iv.xviii Pg 3, Npnf-107 iii.xxvi Pg 27, Npnf-108 ii.LXVIII Pg 226, Npnf-111 vii.ix Pg 37, Npnf-206 vi.ix.II Pg 48
World Wide Bible Resources
Romans 3:28
Early Christian Commentary - (A.D. 100 - A.D. 325) Anf-02 vi.iv.ii.vii Pg 10.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.iv.iii Pg 6.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.i.vii Pg 6.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.v.i Pg 25.1
Anf-03 iv.ix.iii Pg 3
See Gen. xii.–xv. compared with xvii. and Rom. iv. nor yet did he observe the Sabbath. For he had “accepted”1163 1163
Anf-03 v.iv.vi.xiii Pg 32
Tertullian, by the word “enjoins” (monet), seems to have read the passage in Rom. v. 1 in the hortatory sense with ἔχωμεν, “let us have peace with God.” If so, his authority must be added to that exceedingly strong ms. authority which Dean Alford (Greek Test. in loc.) regrets to find overpowering the received reading of ἔχομεν, “we have,” etc. We subjoin Alford’s critical note in support of the ἔχωμεν, which (with Lachmann) he yet admits into his more recent text: “AB (originally) CDKLfh (originally) m 17 latt (including F-lat); of the versions the older Syriac (Peschito) (and Copt;of the fathers, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Damascene, Thephylact, Œcumenius, Rufinus, Pelagius, Orosius, Augustine, Cassiodorus,” before whom I would insert Tertullian, and the Codex Sinaiticus, in its original state; although, like its great rival in authority, the Codex Vaticanus, it afterwards received the reading ἔχομεν. These second readings of these mss., and the later Syriac (Philoxenian), with Epiphanius, Didymus, and Sedulius, are the almost only authorities quoted for the received text. [Dr. H. over-estimates the “rival” Codices.] With what God? Him whose enemies we have never, in any dispensation,5815 5815 Nusquam. been? Or Him against whom we have rebelled, both in relation to His written law and His law of nature? Now, as peace is only possible towards Him with whom there once was war, we shall be both justified by Him, and to Him also will belong the Christ, in whom we are justified by faith, and through whom alone God’s5816 5816 Ejus. enemies can ever be reduced to peace. “Moreover,” says he, “the law entered, that the offence might abound.”5817 5817
Anf-01 ix.iv.xxi Pg 12
Rom. viii. 3. to condemn sin, and to cast it, as now a condemned thing, away beyond the flesh, but that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father’s law, in order that he may see God, and granting him power to receive the Father; [being]3693 3693 The punctuation and exact meaning are very uncertain. the Word of God who dwelt in man, and became the Son of man, that He might accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man, according to the good pleasure of the Father.
Anf-03 v.iv.vi.xiii Pg 48
Compare the first part of ver. 4 with vers. 5 and 6 and viii. 2; 3. But, behold, he bears testimony to the law, and excuses it on the ground of sin: “What shall we say, therefore? Is the law sin? God forbid.”5831 5831
Anf-03 v.iv.vi.xiv Pg 3
Rom. viii. 3. it must not therefore be said that the flesh which He seemed to have was but a phantom. For he in a previous verse ascribed sin to the flesh, and made it out to be “the law of sin dwelling in his members,” and “warring against the law of the mind.”5838 5838
Anf-03 v.iv.vi.xiv Pg 9
This vindication of these terms of the apostle from Docetism is important. The word which our A.V. has translated sinful is a stronger term in the original. It is not the adjective ἁμαρτωλοῦ, but the substantive ἁμαρτίας, amounting to “flesh of sin,” i.e. (as Dean Alford interprets it) “the flesh whose attribute and character is sin.” “The words ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, De Wette observes, appear almost to border on Docetism, but in reality contain a perfectly true and consistent sentiment; σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας; is flesh, or human nature, possessed with sin.…The likeness, predicated in Rom. viii. 3, must be referred not only to σάρξ, but also to the epithet τῆς ἁμαρτίας” (Greek Testament, in loc.). if he meant the “likeness” to be so predicated of the substance as to deny the verity thereof; in that case he would only have used the word “flesh,” and omitted the “sinful.” But inasmuch as he has put the two together, and said “sinful flesh,” (or “flesh of sin,”)5844 5844 Carnis peccati. he has both affirmed the substance, that is, the flesh and referred the likeness to the fault of the substance, that is, to its sin. But even suppose5845 5845 Puta nunc. that the likeness was predicated of the substance, the truth of the said substance will not be thereby denied. Why then call the true substance like? Because it is indeed true, only not of a seed of like condition5846 5846 Statu. with our own; but true still, as being of a nature5847 5847 Censu: perhaps “birth.” This word, which originally means the censor’s registration, is by our author often used for origo and natura, because in the registers were inserted the birthdays and the parents’ names (Oehler). not really unlike ours.5848 5848 It is better that we should give the original of this sentence. Its structure is characteristically difficult, although the general sense, as Oehler suggests, is clear enough: “Quia vera quidem, sed non ex semine de statu simili (similis, Latinius and Junius and Semler), sed vera de censu non vero dissimili (dissimilis, the older reading and Semler’s).” We add the note of Fr. Junius: “The meaning is, that Christ’s flesh is true indeed, in what they call the identity of its substance, although not of its origin (ortus) and qualities—not of its original, because not of a (father’s) seed, as in the case of ourselves; not of qualities, because these have not in Him the like condition which they have in us.” And again, in contrary things there is no likeness. Thus the likeness of flesh would not be called spirit, because flesh is not susceptible of any likeness to spirit; but it would be called phantom, if it seemed to be that which it really was not. It is, however, called likeness, since it is what it seems to be. Now it is (what it seems to be), because it is on a par with the other thing (with which it is compared).5849 5849 Dum alterius par est. But a phantom, which is merely such and nothing else,5850 5850 Qua hoc tantum est. is not a likeness. The apostle, however, himself here comes to our aid; for, while explaining in what sense he would not have us “live in the flesh,” although in the flesh—even by not living in the works of the flesh5851 5851
Anf-03 v.vii.xvi Pg 10
“Tertullian, referring to St. Paul, says of Christ: ‘Evacuavit peccatum in carne;’ alluding, as I suppose, to Romans viii. 3. But the corresponding Greek in the printed editions is κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί (‘He condemned sin in the flesh’). Had Tertullian a different reading in his Greek mss., or did he confound Romans viii. 3 with Romans vi. 6, ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶμα τὴς ἁμαρτίας (‘that the body of sin might be destroyed’)? Jerome translates the Greek καταργέω by ‘evacuo,’ c. xvi. See Adv. Marcionem, ver. 14. Dr. Neander has pointed out two passages in which Tertullian has ‘damnavit or damnaverit delinquentiam in carne.’ See de Res. Carnis. 46; de Pudicitiâ. 17.”—Bp. Kaye. Now in another sentence he says that Christ was “in the likeness of sinful flesh,”7175 7175
Anf-03 v.vii.xvi Pg 10
“Tertullian, referring to St. Paul, says of Christ: ‘Evacuavit peccatum in carne;’ alluding, as I suppose, to Romans viii. 3. But the corresponding Greek in the printed editions is κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί (‘He condemned sin in the flesh’). Had Tertullian a different reading in his Greek mss., or did he confound Romans viii. 3 with Romans vi. 6, ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶμα τὴς ἁμαρτίας (‘that the body of sin might be destroyed’)? Jerome translates the Greek καταργέω by ‘evacuo,’ c. xvi. See Adv. Marcionem, ver. 14. Dr. Neander has pointed out two passages in which Tertullian has ‘damnavit or damnaverit delinquentiam in carne.’ See de Res. Carnis. 46; de Pudicitiâ. 17.”—Bp. Kaye. Now in another sentence he says that Christ was “in the likeness of sinful flesh,”7175 7175
Anf-03 v.vii.xvi Pg 11
Also in Rom. viii. 3. not, however, as if He had taken on Him “the likeness of the flesh,” in the sense of a semblance of body instead of its reality; but he means us to understand likeness to the flesh which sinned,7176 7176 Peccatricis carnis. because the flesh of Christ, which committed no sin itself, resembled that which had sinned,—resembled it in its nature, but not in the corruption it received from Adam; whence we also affirm that there was in Christ the same flesh as that whose nature in man is sinful. In the flesh, therefore, we say that sin has been abolished, because in Christ that same flesh is maintained without sin, which in man was not maintained without sin. Now, it would not contribute to the purpose of Christ’s abolishing sin in the flesh, if He did not abolish it in that flesh in which was the nature of sin, nor (would it conduce) to His glory. For surely it would have been no strange thing if He had removed the stain of sin in some better flesh, and one which should possess a different, even a sinless, nature! Then, you say, if He took our flesh, Christ’s was a sinful one. Do not, however, fetter with mystery a sense which is quite intelligible. For in putting on our flesh, He made it His own; in making it His own, He made it sinless. A word of caution, however, must be addressed to all who refuse to believe that our flesh was in Christ on the ground that it came not of the seed of a human father,7177 7177 Viri. let them remember that Adam himself received this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father. As earth was converted into this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father, so also was it quite possible for the Son of God to take to Himself7178 7178 Transire in: “to pass into.” the substance of the selfsame flesh, without a human father’s agency.7179 7179 Sine coagulo.
Anf-03 v.viii.xvi Pg 6
Rom. viii. 3. lest it should be supposed to be free from all responsibility by the mere fact of its seeming to be impelled by the soul. So, again, when he is ascribing certain praiseworthy actions to the flesh, he says, “Therefore glorify and exalt God in your body,”7378 7378
Anf-03 v.viii.xlvi Pg 11
Rom. viii. 3. —not the flesh in sin, for the house is not to be condemned with its inhabitant. He said, indeed, that “sin dwelleth in our body.”7598 7598
Anf-01 viii.iv.xci Pg 5
[A clumsy exposition of St. John iii. 14.] For the Spirit of prophecy by Moses did not teach us to believe in the serpent, since it shows us that he was cursed by God from the beginning; and in Isaiah tells us that he shall be put to death as an enemy by the mighty sword, which is Christ.
Anf-01 v.vii.ii Pg 8
Num. xxi. 9; John iii. 14.
Anf-01 ix.vi.iii Pg 30
John xii. 32, John iii. 14. and vivifies the dead.
Anf-01 vi.ii.xii Pg 12
Comp. Num. xxi. 6–9; John iii. 14–18. that He might convince them, that on account of their transgression they were given over to the straits of death. Moreover Moses, when he commanded, “Ye shall not have any graven or molten [image] for your God,”1616 1616
Anf-03 v.iv.iii.xxii Pg 7
See John iii. 14. Thus, too, the golden Cherubim and Seraphim were purely an ornament in the figured fashion2968 2968 Exemplum. of the ark; adapted to ornamentation for reasons totally remote from all condition of idolatry, on account of which the making a likeness is prohibited; and they are evidently not at variance with2969 2969 Refragari. this law of prohibition, because they are not found in that form2970 2970 Statu. of similitude, in reference to which the prohibition is given. We have spoken2971 2971 In chap. xviii. towards the end. [p. 311, supra.] of the rational institution of the sacrifices, as calling off their homage from idols to God; and if He afterwards rejected this homage, saying, “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?”2972 2972
Anf-03 v.xi.ii Pg 6
John iii. 14. Him they introduce to bless their eucharistic (elements).8358 8358 Eucharistia (neut. pl.) = εὐχαριστεῖα (Fr. Junius in Oehler): perhaps “the place in which they celebrate the eucharist.” Now the whole parade and doctrine of this error flowed from the following source. They say that from the supreme primary Æon whom men speak of8359 8359 These words are intended to give the force of the “illo” of the original. there emanated several other inferior Æons. To all these, however, there opposed himself an Æon who name is Ialdabaoth.8360 8360 Roberston (Ch. Hist. i. p. 39, note 2, ed. 2. 1858) seems to take this word to mean “Son of Darkness or Chaos.” He had been conceived by the permixture of a second Æon with inferior Æons; and afterwards, when he8361 8361 “Seque” Oehler reads here, which appears bad enough Latin, unless his “se” after “extendisse” is an error. had been desirous of forcing his way into the higher regions, had been disabled by the permixture of the gravity of matter with himself to arrive at the higher regions; had been left in the midst, and had extended himself to his full dimensions, and thus had made the sky.8362 8362 Or, “heaven.” Ialdabaoth, however, had descended lower, and had made him seven sons, and had shut from their view the upper regions by self-distension, in order that, since (these) angels could not know what was above,8363 8363 Or, “what the upper regions were.” they might think him the sole God. These inferior Virtues and angels, therefore, had made man; and, because he had been originated by weaker and mediocre powers, he lay crawling, worm-like. That Æon, however, out of which Ialdaboath had proceeded, moved to the heart with envy, had injected into man as he lay a certain spark; excited whereby, he was through prudence to grow wise, and be able to understand the things above. So, again, the Ialdaboath aforesaid, turning indignant, had emitted out of himself the Virtue and similitude of the serpent; and this had been the Virtue in paradise—that is, this had been the serpent—whom Eve had believed as if he had been God the Son.8364 8364 Filio Deo. He8365 8365 Or, “she;” but perhaps the text is preferable. plucked, say they, from the fruit of the tree, and thus conferred on mankind the knowledge of things good and evil.8366 8366
Anf-01 vi.ii.xii Pg 12
Comp. Num. xxi. 6–9; John iii. 14–18. that He might convince them, that on account of their transgression they were given over to the straits of death. Moreover Moses, when he commanded, “Ye shall not have any graven or molten [image] for your God,”1616 1616
Anf-01 ix.vii.xxviii Pg 9
John iii. 18–21. that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through faith. On the other hand, He says, “He that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God;” that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord. “For this is the condemnation, that light is come into this world, and men have loved darkness rather than light. For every one who doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that he has wrought them in God.”
Anf-02 vi.iv.iv.xxi Pg 56.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.ii.xv Pg 24.1
Anf-03 v.ix.xxi Pg 14
John iii. 17, 18. Moreover, when John (the Baptist) was asked what he happened to know of Jesus, he said: “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.”8021 8021
Anf-02 vi.iii.i.vi Pg 7.1
Anf-03 v.viii.xxxvii Pg 4
John v. 24. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh,7527 7527
Anf-02 vi.iii.i.vi Pg 13.1
Anf-03 v.viii.xxxiv Pg 7
Ver. 40. —He asserts the full extent of the resurrection. For He assigns to each several nature that reward which is suited to its services: both to the flesh, for by it the Son was “seen;” and to the soul, for by it He was “believed on.” Then, you will say, to them was this promise given by whom Christ was “seen.” Well, be it so; only let the same hope flow on from them to us! For if to them who saw, and therefore believed, such fruit then accrued to the operations of the flesh and the soul, how much more to us! For more “blessed,” says Christ, “are they who have not seen, and yet have believed;”7511 7511
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Chapter 3VERSE (28) - :20-22,26; 4:5; 5:1; 8:3 Joh 3:14-18; 5:24; 6:40 Ac 13:38,39 1Co 6:11
|
|
PARALLEL VERSE BIBLE
|
