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. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. What then shall we say? Do we find Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 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? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.

I was struck today by how precisely Paul’s argument is structured in Romans 4.3-5:

• “Abraham believed God, and [a] it was [b] counted to him [c] as righteousness.”
• Now to the one who works, [a] his wages are [b] not counted  [c] as a gift but as his due.
• And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, [a] his faith is [b] counted [c] as righteousness

This mystifies me because Paul should [?!] have paralleled faith against works, not faith against the wages one earns, or fails to earn, by works.

I suppose I had better crack open a commentary now…

But also note that this argument depends on a common acknowledgment that righteousness must be a gift. Paul is working “backwards” from the acknowledged fact that righteousness must be a gift to an inference that therefore it must come through faith and not through works.

If Paul’s opponents deny that righteousness is a gift then he has nothing to say to them in these verses.

Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

And then here is further defense against Roman Catholics:

But since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith alone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy for Christ’s sake, provided only they by faith apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3:26. We, therefore, will add testimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely, not because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because it receives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ’s sake He wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him, or because He knows that Christ of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1:30.

What I like about these statements is that they respect the wording in Romans 4.4-5.

To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

So writes Paul in Galatians, chapter 3. But he is arguing against circumcision which did not come 430 years later. It was given to Abraham. So in Romans 4, Paul doesn’t spend as much time contrasting Abraham to Moses as he does contrasting Abra[ha]m in Genesis 15 to Abraham in Genesis 17:

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 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. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. 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 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.

In that last sentence, Paul jumps the 430 years. But the rest of it is all about the shift that occurred within the time frame of Abraham’s own life.

Here is Romans 5.20 in the ESV: “Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more…”

Looks just fine, doesn’t it? English translations typically use a contrasting conjunction (“but”) when the Greek word could just as easily mean “and.”

But why did God send the law for the purpose of increasing the trespass? Might it not have been done to make grace abound? Didn’t Israel’s sin culminate in the crucifixion of Jesus? In which case, “their trespass means riches for the world, and … their failure means riches for the nations” (from Romans 11).

And if we look at how this passage leads into the question/accusation in 6.1, the contrast looks even shakier.

Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?

Typically, people treat the question in Romans 6.1 as dealing with everything Paul has said in chapters 1-5. But wouldn’t it make more sense, since Paul brings up the question at this precise point in his letter, to consider that the question follows from the last thing Paul wrote before the question? In which case, I propose we eliminate the contrast and make it simplter:

Now the law came in to increase the trespass, and where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?

So God sent the law to increase the trespass so that Jesus would be presented as a propitiation through Israel’s culminating sin and the wrath that should have fallen on the planet is received by him instead. God “condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8.3) and thus made grace abound. So since God used sin to produce grace, Paul’s opponents mock him by asking “Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?”

“Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?” (Romans 2.3)

“So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?” (Romans 2.26; footnote acknowledges “counted”)

“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3.28).

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 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? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 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. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well (Romans 4.3-11).

“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” (Romans 4.22-24).

“sin is not counted where there is no law” (Romans 5.13).

“So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6.11).

“For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Romans 8.18).

“This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring” (Romans 9.8).

“I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean” (Romans 14.14).

Same word every time.

“Reckon” would work just fine.

Here [Romans 3.27] Paul says that while the “law of works” cannot eliminate boasting, the “law of faith” can and does. He then says in 8:1-2,

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.”

Again, law is pitted against law. Paul says that the believer is not under condemnation because the “law of the Spirit of life” has set him free from the “law of sin and death.” James uses different categories but seems to have a similar distinction in mind:

“The one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing…. If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty” (1:25; 2:8-12).

Like Paul, James here describes two laws with two distinct functions. One he calls “the perfect law,” “the law of liberty,” and “the royal law.” The other he refers to as “the whole law” or simply “the law.” Of this latter James insists that even the slightest breach of its commands constitutes a breaking of all, and that the believer’s failure to love his neighbor renders him susceptible to this law, a law which will show him no mercy on the day of judgment.

Concerning the “royal law” and “law of liberty,” James teaches that this law is fulfilled by loving our neighbor, and it is this that he considers being a “doer of the Word, not a hearer only” (1:22). By fulfilling the royal law, he says, we “do well,” and moreover, demonstrating mercy and love of neighbor is what ensures that we will not be judged according to the strictness of “the whole law,” but rather will be judged under the law of liberty.

source

I’ll add a few other data points.

In the midst of his argument that Faith without works is dead, James makes the statement, “You believe that God is one; you do well” (2.19a). If we see in this statement a reference to the Shema, Israel’s confession of monotheism, then James is not too far from Paul’s claim: “For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision” (Romans 2.25). And like James, Paul also contrasts mere hearers to doers: “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (Romans 2.13). And Paul too, like James believes that love fulfills the law:

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law (Romans 13.8-10).

One other consideration that strikes me as relevant is James’ term “the royal law,” which seems to be a reference to Jesus the Messiah’s rule of life. This reminds me of what Paul says in Galatians 6.2: “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” In the context, I think the “burdens” are mainly the ill effects of the sins of others that you suffer because you are one with them as Christians.

What I don’t see in James is a contrast between two laws. The “whole law” is identical to “the royal law” and the “perfect law,” the “law of liberty.” It is all one. Nor does James say that “the whole law” is extra strict and that the “slightest breach” of its commands results in condemnation. Rather, what he says is that if you choose to live as a double-minded hypocrite and only follow some commands while claiming to be exempt from others, you will be condemned.

Here is James 2.1-13:

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called? If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

We see here the issue is partiality throughout and the law does not shift. The failure to keep the law at one point is not a “slightest breach” that we commit and must be forgiven of every day (as we find in the Lord’s Prayer) but rather a policy of discrimination that violates the law of Christ and is perverse holding on our professed faith in Christ.

I’ve been listening to Romans 4 in audio and it suddenly occurred to me that the common translation of Romans 4.1 must be wrong. I’m not going to be stubborn if someone can prove otherwise, but as much as one can tell from listening or reading Romans 4, the first statement in the first verse makes no sense at all.

What does Paul say in Romans 4? He refers to “our father Abraham” (v. 12) and to “Abraham, who is the father of us all” (v. 16).

Is Paul writing exclusively to Jews? No. The Church in Rome is predominately though not exclusively Gentile. But Abraham is, by faith, the covenant ancestor of both Jews and Gentiles:

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 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. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised…

That is why it depends on 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 is not of the law but] who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”

I’ve been selective because I thought it would be awkward to simply post all of Romans 4, but read it at your leisure and you will see it is all about how Abraham is our forefather because we share his faith so that we are in one covenant with him and we inherit his promises just as we are his promised inheritance.

What Paul emphatically denies is that only Jews are the heirs of Abraham and exclusively the members of the covenant: “Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?” And later:

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 ones of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

The promise would have to be void if only Jews were included because the promise was explicitly that Abraham would be the father of many nations, not only one.

So how on earth could this argument begin with a casual reference to Abraham as “our father according to the flesh”?

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? (NASB)

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? (ESV)

That makes no kind of sense at all! It contradicts the whole point. How could Paul say that Abraham is “our father”–both of Jews and Gentiles–according to the flesh?

There is another translation that has been offered by Richard Hays.

What then shall we say? Do we find that Abraham is our forefather according to the flesh?

I haven’t found the paper so I can’t give any opinion on the Greek. But unless someone can show me that his translation is impossible, it has to be right. It works. The other does the opposite of work–it works against everything Paul says. Not only does it lead into Romans 4 but it leads out of the previous paragraph:

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

What then shall we say? Do we find that Abraham is our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

I’d love to know if anyone has seen an argument against Hays’ proposal.

Here are a couple of related posts I have found on the translation of Romans 4.1:

• Romans 4.1 in the Common English Bible
• Richard Hays’ translation of Romans 4.1

From Romans 8:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

I’ll grant that Paul does not explicitly say the words, “The mind that is set on the Spirit does submit to God’s law and does please God,” but I defy anyone to argue that Paul is not implying that very thing in what he states in the paragraph quoted above.

Romans 13:

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

So does the fact that we sin every day (at the very least, according to the Lord’s prayer) seem to discourage Paul from saying that we fulfill the law?

And is not faith itself an obedience that leads to further obedience? Is “the mind set on the spirit” anything other than the mind that confesses Jesus is Lord and believes that he was raised from the dead?

Then what right do we have to claim that Romans 2 is about a sinless, perfect obedience?

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Are not the doers of the law believers? Yes that is exactly what Paul says they are:

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

What Paul never says is that Israel has failed because no one was able to keep the Law without sinning.