romans chapter 4
This chapter's primary function is to give an example of justification, not by works, but by faith. Abraham serves as Paul's main example.
For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” (4:3).
Let's briefly consider Abraham's situation. Abraham believed that God was going to do something that was currently impossible, namely bring about descendants through Abraham when he had no children. Abraham believed that God was able to do this, even though he saw no fruit of it, and it was impossible to achieve through human effort. Similarly, through faith, we trust that God is going to justify us, that is, to render a judgment of not guilty, on the basis of the Messiah's atoning death, and not on our own merit. We cannot save ourselves and so must trust God's promises, even though we can't see evidence of it through our own human sight.
Paul expands on justification by faith here:
Paul expands on justification by faith here:
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin” (5-8).
Concerning verse five, “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly,” a person, taking this verse out of context, might say, “See! It says here, 'to the one who does not work,' which means I don't have to obey the law.” However, if this were true, it would go against everything Paul has said in the previous chapters. Paul has made it clear in the preceding chapters that obedience to the law is valuable and good (3:1-8) and that he does not overthrow but rather upholds the law (3:31). Paul's point is not to grant permission to disobey the law, but rather to stress that one cannot and should not attempt to work (obey the law) for justification because justification is by faith.
Further, in David's quote, we see that one is blessed “whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.” Is Paul then saying that it is okay to do these lawless deeds and sins? The fact that he labels “lawless deeds” as “sin” shows us that it is not okay to break the law, for Paul would never encourage a person to sin (which he states emphatically later in Romans 6:1-2). Rather, he is simply giving an example of God granting righteousness not on the basis of works. He forgives us, though we sin. He does not count our law-breaking against us. So then, is this permission to break the law? Are we here granted freedom from obeying the law? Absolutely not!
Next, Paul shows how Abraham's justification was granted before he was circumcised (9-12), again to stress that Abraham did not work or earn his justification by obeying the law (specifically by being circumcised). Rather he was first justified by faith, then was circumcised. This is wholly consistent with Paul's argument that justification is by faith. As Moo states,
Further, in David's quote, we see that one is blessed “whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.” Is Paul then saying that it is okay to do these lawless deeds and sins? The fact that he labels “lawless deeds” as “sin” shows us that it is not okay to break the law, for Paul would never encourage a person to sin (which he states emphatically later in Romans 6:1-2). Rather, he is simply giving an example of God granting righteousness not on the basis of works. He forgives us, though we sin. He does not count our law-breaking against us. So then, is this permission to break the law? Are we here granted freedom from obeying the law? Absolutely not!
Next, Paul shows how Abraham's justification was granted before he was circumcised (9-12), again to stress that Abraham did not work or earn his justification by obeying the law (specifically by being circumcised). Rather he was first justified by faith, then was circumcised. This is wholly consistent with Paul's argument that justification is by faith. As Moo states,
Circumcision, therefore, has no independent value. It cannot effect one's entrance into the people of God; nor does it even “mark” a person as belonging to God's people apart from a prior justifying act (269).
In other words, circumcision is an exterior sign of an inward faith. The exterior sign of circumcision is worthless if it is not accompanied by an inner commitment and total reliance upon God. Paul does not claim circumcision is wrong, but rather that it cannot justify and is void of value if not paired with faith in God's promises.
We then arrive at these verses:
We then arrive at these verses:
For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression (13-15).
One might say, based on these verses, “The adherents of the law are not heirs.” However, the context is about righteousness by faith versus righteousness by works (the law). Thus, “adherence to the law” means “adherence to the law for the purpose of justification.” Moo confirms this, saying the phrase means “those who are basing their hope for the inheritance on the law” (275). Paul argues that this will not work; you cannot be an heir by obeying the law. Rather it is through faith.
But one might respond with, “But the law brings wrath! Its purpose is negative!” Yes, the law brings wrath, to those who disobey it, and remember in 3:23, all have disobeyed it, Jew and Gentile alike. The law brings wrath because we disobey it. That is why we need a justification apart from law, by faith. Again, does this mean we should disobey the law? Is Paul somehow granting permission to do so? To say this is the same as saying, “It is okay to sin because God will forgive me. My justification is by faith.” This is simply absurd and represents the same heretical thinking as gnostic Christianity, which was not only rejected by the church, but also by Paul himself in the previous chapter, stating that those who claim this deserve the just condemnation of God (3:8).
What does Paul mean when he says, “... where there is no law there is no transgression” (15)? Doesn't this, once again, show Paul's negative view of the law? In short, Paul is showing that the law reveals our sin. Without the law, there is no standard of righteousness to show us where we fall short. Note that this does not say, “... where there is no law there is no sin.” Rather, the word is transgression, a specific type of sin. Transgression is sin that is the breaking of a command of God. Without a command of God (the law), you cannot have transgression. You can have sin (doing that which is against what God would have you do), but you cannot have transgression because there is nothing to transgress. Paul will further develop this idea in chapter five.
But one might respond with, “But the law brings wrath! Its purpose is negative!” Yes, the law brings wrath, to those who disobey it, and remember in 3:23, all have disobeyed it, Jew and Gentile alike. The law brings wrath because we disobey it. That is why we need a justification apart from law, by faith. Again, does this mean we should disobey the law? Is Paul somehow granting permission to do so? To say this is the same as saying, “It is okay to sin because God will forgive me. My justification is by faith.” This is simply absurd and represents the same heretical thinking as gnostic Christianity, which was not only rejected by the church, but also by Paul himself in the previous chapter, stating that those who claim this deserve the just condemnation of God (3:8).
What does Paul mean when he says, “... where there is no law there is no transgression” (15)? Doesn't this, once again, show Paul's negative view of the law? In short, Paul is showing that the law reveals our sin. Without the law, there is no standard of righteousness to show us where we fall short. Note that this does not say, “... where there is no law there is no sin.” Rather, the word is transgression, a specific type of sin. Transgression is sin that is the breaking of a command of God. Without a command of God (the law), you cannot have transgression. You can have sin (doing that which is against what God would have you do), but you cannot have transgression because there is nothing to transgress. Paul will further develop this idea in chapter five.