In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”

But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

It seems to me that there is a deliberate comparison and maybe contrast in the transition from Romans 4-5.  Abraham had faith that God would do what he promised and as a result we know that our sufferings will produce glory.

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

via Passage: Romans 11.17-24 (ESV Bible Online).

When I looked at what Schreiner wrote about this passage, I wasn’t surprised that he dealt with the warning better than N. T. Wright did.

I was also pleasantly surprised that the compared the boasting being warned against here with the boasting Paul refutes and condemns in Romans 1-4.  He is right to do so, but it felt like I was reading a different book by a different author.

In his comments on Romans 1-4, Schreiner seems quite intent of proving that the “boasting” is more about bragging in one’s moral accomplishments rather than one graciously-given standing with God.

As I mentioned, it is hard to consider Abraham an ungodly man in the ethical or spiritual sense.  There would need to be some evidence that Paul was using “ungodly” as a description of any fallen human being whether an unbeliever or not.  But Paul appeals to David in close proximity:

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.”

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?

But Psalm 32 refers to the godly in a way that would go against Paul’s point if he were using the term in this way:

Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.
Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no deceit.

For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away
through my groaning all day long.
For day and night your hand was heavy upon me;
my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah

I acknowledged my sin to you,
and I did not cover my iniquity;
I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,”
and you forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah

Therefore let everyone who is godly
offer prayer to you at a time when you may be found;
surely in the rush of great waters,
they shall not reach him.

But what if Abraham means by “ungodly” the Gentiles?  This would make sense of where Paul is going (v. 10: “How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.”).  And it would avoid a conflict with Psalm 32 as well as his own description of Abraham’s behavior.

It would also answer what I think is John Murray’s strained attempt to distance Abraham from Phinehas:

• Genesis 15.6: “And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.”
• Psalm 106.30-31: “Then Phinehas stood up and intervened, and the plague was stayed. And that was counted to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever.”

If Paul is making the reference he will emphasize about Paul being a Gentile when “counted righteous” then the distance is immediately clear.  Phinehas was a circumcized believer who, in his zeal for the covenant, slew a Gentile and a compromised Jew for unlawful intercourse.  Phinhas was a Jewish covenantal hero.  And Paul is pointing out that Abraham had the same status as Phinehas, and presumably greater status as the called forefather of Israel, simply by believing, even though an uncircumcised Gentile.

(If one contemplates this comparison, I think it will become clear that God responded to Phinehas action precisely because it demonstrated faith in the presence of corporate unbelief.)

I think this way of thinking makes Psalm 106 work with Paul’s argument rather than being a complication that has to be dealt with.

But what of the move from justification of Gentile Abraham to the justification of David.  Paul has already provided an understanding for this move in Romans 2:

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.

So justifying uncircumcised Abraham and sinful David are both related.  Paul has already also quoted Psalm 51.4 in Romans 3:

Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment.

So David has by killing Uriah and seducing Bathsheba put himself outside the people of God (note the uncleanness concerns in the psalm) but God can bring him back in.  And Paul’s whole argument has been that Israel is corporately apostate and thus no different than the nations.  Rather, Israel with the whole world is weak and ungodly (in the full sense of that word), and it was precisely at that moment that Christ died for us (“For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.”).

Later, however, he is going to point out (Romans 11) that God can graft Israel back in again.  Bringing up David’s sin and repentance is a good way of making a case before explicitly making the argument.

Romans 4.5 says that, “to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.”  This is said in the context of Abraham being justified by faith.  And the problem is that there is no record of Abraham being a godless person in the narrative of Genesis nor in Abraham’s summary of it in Romans 4.  So how does Abraham exemplify the justification of the ungodly.

John Murray ways that Paul did not view Abraham as “ungodly.”  In his commentary on Romans he writes about the word “ungodly”:

Verse 5 is a general statement of the method of grace and is not intended to describe Abraham specifically.  We have here, rather, the governing principle of grace; it is exemplified in the case of Abraham becaue he believed in accordance with the principle.

I actually think Abraham is “ungodly” in a manner of speaking, so that Paul is using more of Abraham in his argument than John Murray allows for.  But that can wait for another post.

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.

via Passage: Romans 3.27 ESV Bible Online.

If you read the commentaries it is pretty obvious many think that what Paul really  meant to say is perfectly clear is you simply drop out the bold face type.

Now I have seen debates over whether nomos could mean something other than Torah or even “law” in any behavior code sense and simply mean a “principle.”

(Though if Paul had dropped all of the bold-face passages except the middle underlined one, then Torah or “moral law” would work just fine for many readers.)

But we really need another discussion.  If Paul could so easily have written what he really meant to say so much more simply, then why did he complicate his argument with “law”?

Why confuse people?  Why even bring it up?

Paul asks, “Then what becomes of our boasting?” (Romans 3.27)

What is Paul talking about?  What is being boasted of?

The first mention Paul makes of boasting (using the same word, anyway) is asking the Jews who “boast in God” (Romans 2.17)  if they have any reason to do so.

Boasting, by the way, is not always unjustified.  Paul later boasts (!) that we “boast in hope of the glory of God” (Romans 5.2), “boast in our sufferings” (Romans 5.3), and we “boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5.11).  Paul thinks this is wonderful.

What is the boasting that is “excluded” by a “Torah of faith”? (Romans 3.27 [Note for further thought: is this related to “the obedience of faith” of Romans 1.6; 16.26]).

The only way to answer to the question is to look at how boasting arises in 1.18-3.18.

And what is plain in that part of the letter is that Paul does not accuse Jews universally of 1. being sinful when they think they are sinless or 2. being too sinful to quite make the number of moral good works they need in order to have earned standing before God (according to a false theology to which they allegedly held).

That is not remotely in view.  Read it for yourself.  Ask yourself, when you listen to a reformed preacher trying to persuade his listeners, that they are tainted with sin and that no sin can be forgiven apart from the grace of God and the blood of Jesus Christ, does he sound anything like Paul?

To give just one example, Consider Paul’s quotation of Psalm 14 and Palm 53.

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good.

The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.

They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.

Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread
and do not call upon the Lord?

There they are in great terror,
for God is with the generation of the righteous.
You would shame the plans of the poor,
but the Lord is his refuge.

Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!
When the Lord restores the fortunes of his people,
let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad.

And Palm 53 is quite the same.  This is not a text seeking to prove to anyone who would supposedly deny it, that all human beings have sinned.  No responsible exegete would use this Psalm to argue this point.  Especially when there are passages in the OT that work perfectly well to prove that point (see Part I “Initial Considerations”).

So what is Paul telling the Jews they should stop boasting about?

The problem is that many times Paul says that once this now that and we think we know it is once we were unbelievers and now we believe.  But it doesn’t really work.  Somehow Paul is even including believers who were (though believing) once this and now they aren’t.  Once death reigned but now Jesus does, since he died and rose again.

Read Romans 6 and ask how Zacharias, Elizabeth, and Cornelius fit in.

Paul writes:

For if it is those 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. That is why it is of faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the one of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

If the one or ones “of the law” completely changes meaning in that passage (Romans 4.14-16), then the agenda of the commentator (which may be a perfectly wonderful agenda, and Biblical too, in the wider sense) is misunderstanding the text.

see also