Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FOUR (Lesson IV)

Bible scholar John Bengel suggests that by using the word “works,” Paul means those who, by their good deeds, perform all that the moral laws given to Moses requires to be right with God. But since this is impossible, their works are in vain. The point here is to show the excellence of faith which God ordained as the only way for the ungodly to be justified, thereby saving them from the sentence of death for their sins. But Bengel also points out that “Justification is an individual act.”¹ This eliminates the Jews’ claim that they are justified because they are descendants of Abraham. The same is true with Christians. No child can pretend to be justified before God just because they were born into a Christian family.

Henry Alford also makes a good point, that if a person’s good works could gain them justification and salvation, it would be another way of saying that God was indebted to them. Instead, it’s the other way around. Knowing that without God’s help they are lost, they then go to Him in faith because they know that once they are redeemed, called, chosen, and glorified as His children, it’s all because of His love, grace, and mercy.² Wesleyan theologian Adam Clarke confirms the same thought: “Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt – Therefore, if Abraham had been justified by works, the blessings he received would have been given to him as a wage for those works, and consequently his believing could have had no part in his justification, and his faith would have been useless.”³ Although Abraham did not understand God’s promises and blessings as being a reward for work, Sarah did. That’s why she told Abraham to go to Hagar and work on getting them the baby that God had promised. But God was not impressed and told both Abraham and Sarah to have faith in His promise to give them the promised child, not to try and earn it.

Scottish Bible scholar Robert Haldane gives us his summary of these two verses: “In the 4th and 5th verses before us, the distinction between receiving a reward for works, and receiving it through faith, is clearly established. In the first case, a man receives what is due to him as his wages; in the second, all comes in the way of favor. Here also faith and works are directly opposed to each other. To preserve the doctrine of these verses from abuse, it is only necessary to recollect that works are denied as having anything to do with justification, but that they are absolutely necessary in the life of the believer. People are prone to magnify one part of the Divine counsel, by disparaging or denying another, which to their wisdom appears to stand in opposition to it. Some speak of faith in such a manner as to disparage works; others are so zealous for works as to disparage faith; while some, in order to honor both, confuse them with each. The Apostle Paul gives every truth its proper value and its proper place. In this Epistle, he establishes the doctrine of justification by faith alone and speaks not of the fruits of faith till the fifth chapter. But these fruits he shows to be the necessary result of that faith which justifies.”⁴

Theologian Charles Hodge makes a point: “These verses are designed, in the first place, to vindicate the applicability of the quotation from Scripture, made in verse 3, by showing that the declaration ‘faith was imputed for righteousness,’ is a denial that works were the ground of Abraham’s acceptance. And, secondly, that to justify by faith, is to justify gratuitously, and, therefore, all passages which speak of gratuitous acceptance are in favor of the doctrine of justification by faith.”⁵ And British pulpiteer Charles Spurgeon expressed it this way: “That is meant for him who hopes to be saved by his works, to whom salvation is of merit. He has worked for the reward. He has earned it. Do not talk about grace in that case. He gets what he earns, what he deserves to have, what he receives is ‘not reckoned of grace, but of debt.””⁶

What Paul is writing here about salvation as a gift from God, not something that can be earned, was not just his idea. It is firmly established on the teachings of Jesus Himself who said: “I assure you, anyone who hears what I say and believes in the One who sent me has eternal life. They will not be judged guilty. They have already left death and have entered into life.”⁷

So there should not be any misunderstanding on the part of these Messianic Jews in Rome about what constitutes authentic justification through faith in Christ. There is only one way, and that way is through Jesus the Messiah. Paul shares with Timothy how his conversion made a new person. He wrote: “In the past, I insulted Christ. As a proud and violent man, I persecuted His people. But God gave me mercy because I did not know what I was doing. I did that before I became a believer. But our Lord gave me a full measure of His grace. And with that grace came the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Here is a true statement that should be accepted without question: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and I am the worst of them.”⁸

So what God gave Habakkuk to write down long ago is just as true today as it was then and also in Paul’s day: “This message cannot help those who refuse to listen to it, but those who do listen will live because they believe it.”⁹ Paul now calls David, a man after God’s own heart, to the witness stand to tell what he understood about being rewarded for faith, not for works.

Early church preacher Chrysostom said this in his homily: “Think how great a thing it is to be persuaded and have complete confidence that God is able not only to set an ungodly man free from punishment but also to make him righteous and count him worthy to receive these immortal honors.… This is what makes a believer glorious—the fact that he enjoys so great a grace and displays such great faith. Note too that the recompense is greater. For the one who works receives his reward, but the one who believes is made righteous. Righteousness is much greater than a reward because it is a recompense which includes many rewards.”¹⁰

Then, a contemporary of Augustine’s remarked: “When an ungodly person is converted, God justifies him by faith alone, not for good works which he does not have. On that basis, he would have been punished for his ungodly works. But note that Paul does not say one who remains in sin is justified by faith but rather the ungodly, i.e., one who has just come to believe.”¹¹ So it is evident, salvation is not a reward but a gift; not something that can be earned, but received; not by works, but by faith; and not to the self-righteous, but to the admitted sinner.

Reformist John Calvin makes this commentary: “This is a very important sentence, in which Paul expresses the substance and nature both of faith and of righteousness. He indeed clearly shows that faith brings us righteousness, not because it is a meritorious act, but because it obtains for us the favor of God. Nor does he declare only that God is the giver of righteousness, but he also arraigns us of unrighteousness, in order that the bounty of God may come to aid our necessity.”¹² Adam Clarke offers his views on this subject: “Now, as Abraham‘s state and mode in which he was justified, are the plan and rule according to which God purposes to save men; and as his state was ungodly, and the mode of his justification was by faith in the goodness and mercy of God; and this is precisely the state of Jews and Gentiles at present; there can be no other mode of justification than by faith in that Christ who is Abraham‘s seed, and in whom, according to the promise, all the nations of the earth are to be blessed.”¹³

Professor F. F. Bruce says this: “Abraham was not ungodly; he was a man of outstanding piety and righteousness. But the principle on which Abraham was justified, being one that excludes the idea of accumulating merit by works of piety and righteousness, is one that is equally available to the ungodly, who have no such works to rely on. So the tax-collector in the parable went home ‘justified’ rather than the Pharisee, not because his merit was greater (it was much less) but because, realizing the futility of self-reliance, he cast himself entirely on God’s grace.¹⁴ But the description of God as the one ‘who justifies the ungodly’ is so paradoxical as to be startling – even shocking.”¹⁵ Dr. Bruce goes on: “No wonder that Paul thought it necessary to maintain that God, in justifying sinners, nevertheless preserves His personal integrity. Once they are justified, indeed, the ungodly should cease to be ungodly, but it is not on the basis of any foreseen amendment of their ways that they are justified. If we fail to appreciate the moral problem involved in God’s forgiving grace, it may be because we have ‘not yet considered how serious a thing is sin.’ The paradox of the justifying of the ungodly is resolved in Romans 5:6, ‘Christ died for the ungodly.’”¹⁶

Octavius Winslow said this in his sermon on Self Communion: “It is not for your worth that you are saved, but for Christ’s worth. It is not on the ground of your personal merit that you are justified but on the ground of Christ’s merit alone. It is not upon the plea of your fitness, your tears, your confessions, your prayers, your duties, that God forgives and accepts you, but simply and exclusively upon the one plea of the Savior’s sacrifice. The BLOOD of Christ pardons, the RIGHTEOUSNESS of Christ justifies you, and this is all that you require, or that God demands. The great work is all done – it is not to be done. It is complete, finished, accepted, sealed. And you, as a lost sinner, without holiness, without strength, without one plea that springs from what you are, have nothing to do. Believe, and you are saved. Believing is not doing, it is not meriting, it is TRUSTING- it is the simple exercise of a faith in Christ which God gives, and which the Holy Spirit produces in the heart; so that your salvation, from beginning to end, is entirely out of yourself, in another.”¹⁷

One Jewish writer gives his thoughts: “Paul is not presenting an argument of ‘Law versus Grace.’ This idea, (that there is such a thing as ‘law versus grace’) is taught throughout much of Christianity. It is a theology that pits God’s Torah against His mercy, which is something completely contrary to the Hebrew Scriptures, that instead reveal that God gave His Torah out of His mercy. What Paul ‘sets against’ each other, in this and in all of his letters (including Galatians and Colossians, which are consistently misunderstood), is the idea of, ‘doing works apart from faith’ in order to ‘earn’ salvation, versus trusting in God’s provision, and then living according to His revealed will – the Torah.”¹⁸

In one of his books, William Blake, English poet, painter, and visual artistry pioneer (1757 – 1827), wrote the following proverb: “The fox condemns the trap, not himself.”¹

How true this is of many today, especially politicians, who blame everyone and everything else for their troubles. They are not sorry for what they did, they’re upset because they got caught. Remember, there is no such thing as an honest mistake, but there is such a thing as being honest when you make a mistake. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

CAN PEOPLE SEE JESUS IN YOU?

Here’s a story I read that I thought you might enjoy.

A few years ago, a team of salesmen went to a regional sales convention in Chicago. They had assured their wives that they would be home in plenty of time for Friday night’s dinner. In their rush, with tickets and briefcases in hand, moving quickly through the airport terminal, one of these salesmen inadvertently bumped into a table which held a display of apples being sold for a charity. Apples flew everywhere. Without stopping or looking back, they all managed to reach the gate in just in time for boarding.

That is, all except one! He paused, took a deep breath, quickly assessed the situation – and experienced a twinge of compassion for the girl whose apple stand had been overturned. He told his buddies to go on without him, waved good-bye, told one of them he would try and catch a later flight. Then, he returned to the area where the apples were still all over the terminal floor.

The man was glad he did. He discovered that the 16-year-old girl running the stand was totally blind! She was softly crying, tears running down her cheeks in frustration, all the while helplessly groping for her spilled produce as the rushing crowd swirled about her, no one stopping and no one caring for her plight. The salesman quickly knelt on the floor with her, gathered up the apples, put them back on the table and helped organize her display.

As he did this, he noticed that many of the apples had become battered and bruised. These he set aside in a basket. When they had finished, he pulled out his wallet and said to the girl, “Here, please take this $40 for the damage we did. Are you okay?” She nodded through her tears. “I hope we didn’t spoil your day too badly,” he said.

As the salesman started to walk away, the bewildered blind girl called out to him, “Mister…” He paused and turned to look back into those blind eyes. She continued, “Are you Jesus?” He stopped in mid-stride, stunned by the question. He assured her that he was not Jesus, then made his way to arrange for a later flight with that question burning in his mind: “Are you Jesus?”

There are things that happen to us in life, often unintentional and some by accident. People watch how we respond, especially when it might be an inconvenience if we take the time to help someone put things back in order. So the next time you see a person in need of help, even if you are in a hurry, if you stop to assist them, will they wonder if it was Jesus in you that made the difference. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FOUR (Lesson III)

British Bible scholar Henry Alford indicates that what Paul said here had sparked a controversy between Protestants on the one hand, and Catholics, Arminians,¹ and Socinians² on the other. The whole question was whether the righteousness Paul speaks of here with regard to Abraham was reckoned (1st) by means of faith, being God’s righteousness imputed to the sinner; or (2nd) on account of faith, so that God made Abraham righteous on account of the merit of his faith. Alford says: “The Apostle has proven that Jews and Gentiles are all under sin: utterly unable by works of their own to attain righteousness. Now faith, in the second sense mentioned above, is strictly and entirely work, and as such would be the efficient cause of man’s justification – which by what has preceded, it cannot be. It will, therefore, follow that it was not the act of believing which was reckoned to him as a righteous act, or on account of which perfect righteousness was credited to his account. Rather, the fact of his trusting God to perform His promise ushered him into the blessing promised.”³ Let me present this in a simpler manner for clearer understanding. Paul will write later, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”⁴ It is not making the confession that will save you, but it is God who will save you in response to your confession made by faith.

As H. A. Ironside put it: “The promise that he [Abraham] should be an heir of the world was not given to him ‘through the law,’ that is, it was not a reward of merit, something he had earned by obedience. It was on the basis of sovereign grace. Hence, his righteousness like ours, if we believe, was a ‘by-faith righteousness.‘ The heirs of the promise are those who accept it in the same faith, otherwise, it would be utterly invalidated. It was an unconditional promise.”⁵ In other words, no amount of praying, confessing, repenting, or pleading with God will result in justification. The old saying, “They prayed through to salvation,” misrepresents justification by faith. Only God can make the decision to justify, and such justification is not based on a person’s works, but the work of Christ. What a person praying, confessing, repenting, and asking for mercy will do, is show God that they are earnest and sincere in their belief that He and He alone is the only One who can save them.

Charles Hodge makes this comment: “The connection of this verse with the preceding is this: Paul had just said that Abraham had no ground of boasting with God; for, what does the scripture say? Does it credit the basis of Abraham’s justification to his works? By no means. It declares he was justified by faith; which Paul immediately shows is equivalent to saying that he was justified gratuitously.”⁶ This is an important point. Faith does not earn justification. Faith is the key that opens the door to God’s gift of being declared free of sin’s punishment. That should give every believer even more reason to thank God and serve Him out of love and loyalty.

Then Frederic Godet provides a scholarly exposition of verse three: “Scripture contains a declaration in which there is revealed the judgment of God respecting the way in which Abraham was justified. This saying is to be found in Genesis 15:6. Called by God out of his tent by night, he is invited to contemplate the heavens, and to count, if he can, the myriads of stars; then he hears the promise: ‘so numerous shall your seed be.’ He is a centenarian and has never had children. But it is God who speaks; that is enough for him: he believed God. Faith consists in holding the divine promise for the reality itself, and then it happens that what the believer has done in regard to the promise of God. God, in turn, does in regard to his faith: He holds it for righteousness itself.”⁷

Charles Ellicott offers this commentary: “The Apostle gives proof of this from Scripture. Abraham was not justified by works, and, therefore, had nothing to boast of in God’s sight. He was justified by faith. His righteousness was not real but imputed. His faith was treated as if it had been equivalent to a righteousness of works. It met with the same acceptance in the sight of God that a righteousness of works would have done. But – the argument goes on – faith carries with it no such idea of merit or debt as works. It is met by a pure act of grace on the part of God. The sense of imputation is not to be gotten rid of. It is distinctly a forensic act. The righteousness attributed to Abraham is not an actual righteousness, but something else that is considered and treated as if it were equivalent to such righteousness. It is so treated by God acting as the judge of mankind.”⁸

Jewish scholar David Stern makes reference to a teaching among the Jews, contained in Midrash Rabbah (Great Commentary), that reads: “In the world-to-come, Israel will sing a new song, as it is said, ‘Sing unto Adonai a new song, for He has done marvelous things.’⁹ By whose merit will they do so? By the merit of Abraham, because he trusted in the Holy One, blessed be he, as it says, And he trusted in Adonai.¹⁰”¹¹ Stern goes on to say: “Paul quotes the same verse [Genesis 15:6] as cited in the Midrash Rabbah. The one ‘deed’ that ‘earned’ Abraham being declared righteous by God was not a deed at all, but the non-act (the heart attitude) of trusting God.”¹²

Verses 4-5 When people work, their pay is not given to them as a gift. They earn the pay they get. But people cannot do any work that will make them right with God. So they must trust in Him. Then He accepts their faith, and that makes them right with Him. He is the one who makes even evil people right.

The Apostle Paul now begins to show the Roman believers that God’s grace is not given as a reward, but as a gift. No one works for a gift, otherwise, it would not be an endowment, but a wage. This was clearly taught by the Rabbis. In their writings we find it written: “Do not be as slaves, who serve their master for the sake of reward. Rather, be as slaves who serve their master, not for the sake of a reward.”¹³ In other words, do not consider what you do for God as a job, but an expression of love. Because God does not pay His servants but rewards them with more than they could ever earn.

This was part of Paul’s message to the people in Antioch in Pisidia. He told them: “Brothers, understand what we are telling you. You can have forgiveness of your sins through this Jesus. The Law of Moses could not free you from your sins. You can only be made right with God if you believe in Jesus.”¹⁴ Paul had the same message for the believers throughout Galatia.¹⁵ And Paul gave the Philippians his personal testimony: “In Christ, I am right with God, but my being right does not come from following the law. It comes from God through faith. God uses my faith in Christ to make me right with Him.”¹⁶

Early church scholar Origen has this comment: “Faith relies on the grace of the justifier. Works rely on the fairness of the employer. When I consider the greatness of Paul’s speech, by which he says that the worker receives what is due to him, I can hardly persuade myself that there is any deed which could claim a wage from God as its due.”¹⁷ The Apostle Paul talks about a crown of righteousness being kept in store for him after he crosses the finish line at the end of life.¹⁸ This is not a participation prize nor a wage, but it is a reward given to him by the very One who gave him the strength, patience, and motivation to go all the way.

Then, fellow scholar Ambrosiaster has this point of view: “No merit is imputed as a reward to the man who is subject to the law—either to the law of works, i.e., of Moses or to the law of nature. For he who is obliged to keep the law is a debtor. A necessity is imposed upon him by the law to keep it whether he wants to or not, so as not to be guilty, as Paul says in another passage: ‘Those who resist will incur judgment.’¹⁹ On the other hand, to believe or not to believe is a matter of choice. No one can be required to accept something which is offered as a gift. But he is invited to receive it. He is not forced but persuaded. He believes what he does not see but hopes for. This is what glorifies God.”²⁰

Then Augustine makes this comment: “Paul was speaking here of the way wages are given. But God gave by grace because he gave to sinners so that by faith they might live justly, that is, do good works. Thus the good works which we do after we have received grace are not to be attributed to us but rather to Him who has justified us by His grace. For if God had wanted to give us our due reward, He would have given us the punishment due to sinners.”²¹

With regard to the subject of how the expectation of reward from God for good works signifies the payment of a debt, John Calvin has this to say: “It is not the one Paul calls a worker, who is given to good works, to which all the children of God ought to emulate, but the person who seeks to merit something by his works… He would not, indeed, have the faithful to be idle; but he only forbids them to be mercenaries, so as to demand anything from God, as though it were justly their due.”²² We cannot earn heaven nor the reward of eternal life that goes with it. Nothing we can say or do can raise us to that level. It is all a merciful gift from God the Father on behalf of Christ His Son who did what was needed to get us there.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FOUR (Lesson II)

Reform theologian Robert Haldane also expresses his thoughts on the good works factor: “The term ‘works’ is here explanatory of the word flesh in the first verse, signifying any works, whether moral or ceremonial. If Abraham were justified on account of his works, as the Jews believed, it must be admitted that he had something to boast about, contrary to what the Apostle had just before declared, that all boasting on such grounds is excluded… No objection that could be offered would appear to the Jews more forcible; it was, therefore, important to advert it. Being, however, entirely groundless, the Apostle at once repels it, and replies to the question previously proposed, respecting circumcision, or any work or privilege, in that prompt and brief manner of which we see an example at the end of the 8th verse of the former chapter. He answers, But not before God. Abraham had no ground of boasting before God, not having been justified either by the observance of the rite of circumcision or by any other work of obedience which he had performed; and this Paul fully proves in the sequel.”¹

Charles Ellicott writes: “We know that he [Abraham] obtained justification. If that justification had been earned by his own works it would then have been something to be proud of; it would be a pride that he might fairly hold both towards people and towards God; for to people he could point to the privileged position that he gained, and in the sight of God he would be able to plead a certain merit of his own. But he has no such merit. His justification was not earned, but it was given to him, not for the sake of works, but for his faith. This is the express statement of Scripture. And hence it follows that though his privileged position in the sight of people remains, he has nothing to boast of before God.”²

Professor F. F. Bruce introduces this chapter as follows: “Paul has already said that this ‘righteousness of God … apart from law’ is attested by the Law and the Prophets. This must now be shown more fully, and Paul undertakes to show it principally from the story of Abraham, with a side-glance at the experience of David. Of all the righteous people in the Old Testament, none could surpass Abraham —‘Abraham, my friend’, as God calls him in Isaiah 41:8. God’s own testimony to Abraham is recorded in Genesis 26:5, ‘Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.’ What about Abraham, then? If it is by works that a person is justified in God’s sight, Abraham would have a better title than most, and he would be entitled to take some credit for it. But that is not God’s way. God’s way is clearly indicated in the record of Genesis 15:6: when the divine promise came to Abraham, in spite of the extreme improbability of its fulfillment by all natural considerations, ‘he believed the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.’ Paul had already made this statement the basis of an ad hominem argument to the churches of Galatia when some of their members were disposed to abandon the principle of faith for that of legal works.”³

Dr. Bruce then makes this point: “Abraham’s acceptance with God was clearly not based on his works, good as they were. Paul’s argument is not merely textual and verbal, dependent on a selection of Genesis 15:6 in preference to other texts from the patriarchal narrative which might have pointed in another direction. For Abraham’s good works and his obedience to the divine commandments were the fruit of his unquestioning faith in God; had he not first believed the promises of God he would never have set out for the promised land or conducted his life there in the light of what he knew of God’s will. No; when God gave Abraham a promise (in the fulfillment of which, incidentally, the whole gospel was bound up), he simply took God at His word, and acted accordingly.”⁴

Jewish theologian David Stern says that by the time Jesus came, it was a widespread doctrine among the Jews that they could benefit and even claim salvation based on the righteous works of their ancestors. They made this claim before Jesus in John 8:33, and some of Paul’s opponents made use of the same idea.⁵ The seed for the Jews belief is found in Deuteronomy 4:37.⁶ But the error made by the Jews is that while God is faithful to His promises to their forefathers, it does not take away their own responsibility to have faith.

Stern then goes on to say: “Even Abraham’s trust is of no avail to his descendants; they must have trust of their own. Romans 9–11 can be viewed as an elaboration of this principle. The present chapter investigates the nature of Abraham’s own ‘merit:’ what is it that he obtained by his own efforts? Didn’t he have ‘works,’ meritorious ‘deeds’ that earned him his salvation? This is what Paul’s hypothetical questioner is asking. In one sense the answer is ‘Yes’ — if trusting can be counted as a ‘work,’ or if trusting in its proper sense implies appropriate good works that stem from it, which is what Paul himself speaks about in Ephesians 2:8–10, and James [says] in 2:14–26.⁷ But, as explained in Chapter 3:20b above, ‘works’ here are understood in contradistinction to ‘faith’ as legalistic observances. If James’ point is that ‘faith without works is dead,’⁸ Paul’s point here is complementary and equally true: works without faith are dead.”⁹

Verse 3: That’s why the Scriptures say, “Abraham believed God, and because of this he was accepted as one who is right with God.”

Paul now refers his readers back to the Torah where it clearly states: “He [Abraham]believed in Adonai, and He credited it to him as righteousness.”¹⁰ It was important that they listen to what the Scriptures had to say. God reminded His people of this back in Isaiah’s day.¹¹ The Apostle James put the same emphasis on believing what was written in Scripture.¹² And the Apostle Peter exhibited the same frame of mind.¹³

Paul pointed this out when he wrote the Galatians: “The Scriptures say the same thing about Abraham. ‘Abraham believed God, and because of this faith he was accepted as one who is right with God.’ So you should know that the true children of Abraham are those who have faith,”¹⁴ and the Apostle James echoed this doctrine: “This shows the full meaning of the Scriptures that say, ‘Abraham believed God, and because of this faith he was accepted as one who is right with God’.”¹⁵

The Jews were accustomed to establishing their teaching on the Scriptures with the words: “Because it is written.” And Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai quotes Scripture as he points out: “For the commandment is a lamp, and the teaching is light, and reproofs of sufferings are the way of life.¹⁶”¹⁷ In fact, in this same Tractate the term “it is written” appears some 192 times as Rabbis support their teaching on the basis of Holy Writ.

Several early church scholars have various thoughts on what Paul says here. Ambrose writes: “I do not demand a reason [for my justification] from Christ. If I am convinced by reason, I deny faith. Abraham believed God. Let us also believe, so that we who are the heirs of his race may likewise be heirs of his faith.”¹⁸ And Chrysostom points out: “The Master proclaimed that Abraham was justified because he outran the weakness of his human nature. He strained with his whole mind toward the power of Him who had made the promise.”¹⁹ And Pelagius adds: “Abraham’s faith was so great that his earlier sins were all forgiven him, and righteousness was counted as credit for every one of them by faith alone. Later he was on fire with such love for God that he piled one good work on top of another. Therefore, he has glory in God’s eyes.”²⁰ What Pelagius does not say is that all of those works were based on faith in God’s promise, not in what Abraham accomplished through obedience based on that faith.

John Calvin sees it this way: “If Abraham was justified because he embraced, by faith, the bountiful mercy of God, it follows, that he had nothing to glory in; for he brought nothing of his own, except a confession of his misery, which is an appeal for mercy. He, indeed, takes it as granted, that the righteousness of faith is the refuge, and, as it were, the asylum of the sinner, who is destitute of works. For if there be any righteousness by the law or by works, it must be in people themselves; but by faith, they derive from another what is wanting in themselves; and hence the righteousness of faith is rightly called imputative.”²¹

Robert Haldane shares this: “Having denied in the foregoing verse that Abraham was justified, or had any ground of boasting, either on account of his circumcision or his obedience, Paul next supports his denial by an appeal to Scripture, which was calculated to carry stronger conviction to the Jews than anything else he could have alleged. His proof is drawn from the historical records of the Old Testament, and thus he places his seal on its complete verbal inspiration, quoting what is there recorded as the decision of God.”²²

What we have read written by scholars in early church history, followed by the insights and confirmation of those who were inspired in the Reformation period, right up until this day about the futility of getting right with God by dutifully participating in rites, rituals, and regulations of the church is just as valid today. To claim union and fellowship with God because of being born in a Christian family, or being alive in Christ because of being baptized as an infant before there was any awareness of right and wrong, sin and evil, or claiming heaven as one’s destination because of all the good works and charity one participates in, is just as baseless and useless today as when the Apostle Paul wrote these words. It is a gift from God by faith alone.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FOUR (Lesson I)

Verses 1-2: So what can we say about Abraham, the father of our people? What did he discover about good works? If Abraham was made right by the things he did, he had a reason to boast about himself. But God would have none of that.

Now Paul calls Abraham as the primary witness to the fact that the believer’s justification for receiving forgiveness of sins and everlasting life is by faith, not by works, ceremonies, or sacraments. That was God’s message to Israel: “Listen to me, those of you who are trying hard to live good lives, those of you who seek the Lord for help: look at the Rock from which you were cut, the Quarry out of which you were taken – look at Abraham is your father, and Sarah, who gave birth to you. Abraham was the only one I called. Then I blessed him, and he started a great family which now has many descendants.”¹ Therefore, if Abraham didn’t boast about his pedigree or good works being the basis for his relationship with God, why should these Christians now make such a claim?

Perhaps Paul heard about the confrontation John the Baptizer had with the Pharisees and Sadducees when he told them: “I know what you are thinking. You want to say, ‘but Abraham is our father!’ That means nothing. I tell you, God could make children for Abraham from these rocks. The ax is now ready to cut you down like trees. Every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”² No doubt, that is why Paul warned the Jews in Antioch of Pisidia not to follow the example of those back in Jerusalem who refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah.³

Early church scholar Ambrosiaster has this to say: “After showing that no one can be justified before God by the works of the law, Paul goes on to say that Abraham could not merit anything according to the flesh either. In saying ‘the flesh,’ Paul meant circumcision because Abraham sought nothing on the basis of his circumcision. For he was already justified before he was circumcised.”⁴ To this, early church preacher Chrysostom adds: “The Jews kept repeating that Abraham, the friend of God, was the first to be circumcised. Paul wants to show that he was justified by faith before he was circumcised.”⁵ Today, by substituting the term “baptism” for “circumcision,” we can argue the same principle for those who style themselves as Christians.

Reformer John Calvin sees it this way: “This is a confirmation by example; and it is a very strong one, since all things are alike with regard to the subject and the person; for he [Abraham] was the father of the faithful, to whom we ought all to be conformed; and there is also but one way and not many ways by which righteousness may be obtained by all. In many other things one example would not be sufficient to make a common rule; but as in the person of Abraham there was exhibited a mirror and pattern of righteousness, which belongs in common to the whole Church, rightly does Paul apply what has been written of him alone to the whole body of the Church, and at the same time he gives a check to the Jews, who had nothing more plausible to glory in than that they were the children of Abraham; they could not have dared to claim for themselves more holiness than what they ascribed to the holy patriarch. Since it is then evident that he was justified freely, his posterity, who claimed a righteousness of their own by the law, ought to have been made silent even through shame.”⁶

John Bengel sees Paul using Abraham as an example to prove that justification is by grace, not by works because in verse 9 the same justification is provided for the Gentiles. For this reason, both Jews and Gentiles can refer to Abraham as the spiritual father of their faith. It would not be possible for the Gentiles to refer to Abraham that way according to the flesh.⁷ Bengel agrees with other scholars who say that to abound in good works might bring honor to Abraham, but it could not exhibit God’s mercy as the reason for their justification.

Henry Alford takes what Paul says here in the opening line as contending with the Jewish members of the congregation, including himself, that as upholders of the law, what could Abraham’s experience teach them. Alford says that Paul’s question does not take away anything pertaining Abraham’s spiritual qualities. In fact, it is a comparison of the two that leads to a revelation that even in Abraham’s case, God would not credit justification to any of the works that Abraham did, but to the faith in which he performed them. Then, to prove that justification by works did not leave Abraham any room to boast, Alford writes: “Whatever men might think of him, or attribute to him (for example, the perfect keeping of the law, as the Jews did), one thing at least is clear, that he has nothing [to present] before (in the presence of ) God.”⁸ So, if it did not work for Abraham, Paul is more or less saying to the Jews that it will not work for them, and we can say that it will not work today.

British theologian Charles Hodge makes this point: “The connection of this verse with the preceding train of reasoning is obvious. Paul had taught that we are justified by faith; as well in confirmation of this doctrine, as to anticipate an objection from the Jew, he refers to the case of Abraham: ‘How was it then with Abraham? How did he obtain justification?’ The point in dispute was, how justification is to be attained. Paul proposes to decide the question by reference to a case about which no one could doubt. All admitted that Abraham was justified. The only question was, How?”⁹ Hodge goes on to point out that Paul makes it clear that Abraham did not earn justification from God by works, but was granted justification through faith.

So, there was no reason for them to claim privilege just because they were descendants of Abraham. Rather, look at what God saw in Abraham and used that as a motivation to walk by faith rather than using the law to seek justification. In fact, this is what Paul told the Philippians: “All I want now is Christ. I want to belong to Him. In Christ, I am right with God, but my being right does not come from following the law. It comes from God through faith. God uses my faith in Christ to make me right with Him.”¹⁰

In other words, Abraham had a lot to brag about concerning his faith, obedience, and trust in God, as did Paul, but not as a bargaining chip to use with God to secure justification for removal of the penalty of sin. This is in line with the message God had for the children of Israel about what they should be proud of.¹¹ And to the Ephesians Paul said: “You are not saved by the things you have done, so there is nothing to boast about. God has made us what we are.”¹² So Paul wanted these Messianic leaders in Rome to know they were not an exception to the rule. Now that Paul laid this groundwork, he will begin to build on it in the following verses.

Early church scholar Origen makes this point: “In this whole passage, it seems that the Apostle wants to show that there are two justifications, one by works and the other by faith. He says that justification by works has its glory in and of itself, but not before God. Justification by faith, on the other hand, has glory before God, who sees our hearts and knows those who believe and those who do not believe. Thus it is right to say that it has glory only before God, who sees the hidden power of faith. But the one who looks for justification by works may expect honor mainly from other persons who see and approve of them. Let no one think that someone who has faith enough to be justified and to have glory before God can at the same time have unrighteousness dwelling in them as well. Faith cannot coexist with unbelief, nor can righteousness with wickedness, just as light and darkness cannot live together.”¹³

And Bishop Cyril gives this commentary: “What can we say to those who insist that Abraham was justified by works because he was ready to sacrifice his son Isaac on the altar? Abraham was already an old man when God promised him that he would have a son and that his descendants would be as countless as the stars in the sky.¹⁴ Abraham piously believed that all things are possible with God and so exercised this faith. God reckoned him to be righteous on this account and gave Abraham a reward worthy of such a godly mind, namely, the forgiveness of his previous sins.… So even if Abraham was also justified by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, this must be regarded as an evident demonstration of a faith which was already very strong.¹⁵”¹⁶

Reformist John Calvin gives this explanation: “If Abraham was justified by works, he might rightly glory: but he had nothing for which he could glory before God; then he was not justified by works. Thus the clause, but not before God, is the minor proposition; and to this must be added the conclusion which I have stated, though it is not expressed by Paul. He calls that glorying when we pretend to have anything of our own to which a reward is supposed to be due at God’s tribunal. Since he takes this away from Abraham, who of us can claim for himself the least particle of merit?”¹⁷

Wesleyan theologian Adam Clarke states: “But not before God – These seem to be the Apostle‘s words, and contain the beginning of his answer to the arguments of the Jew, as if he had said: Allowing that Abraham might glory in being called from heathenish darkness into such marvelous light, and rejoice in the privileges which God had granted to him, yet this glorying was not before God as a reason why those privileges should be granted; the glorying itself being a consequence of these very privileges.”¹⁸

Every Christian should learn what Paul is teaching here. We may be a member of the church, sing in the choir, serve on the usher committee, belong to a prayer group, do part-time missionary work, pay our tithes and offerings, and work in the church office. But none of this can count one penny toward paying for our justification and having a personal relationship with God. In fact, sometimes they can get in the way. We are justified solely through our faith in the work Christ did on the cross and entirely dependent on the grace and mercy of God for having been redeemed, called, and set apart for His glory.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER THREE

The Apostle Paul begins this chapter by asking what advantage was there being a Jewish member of the church in Rome. After all, were they not the first ones to receive God’s Law through Moses. They received circumcision as a sign of God’s covenant and were called His chosen people. But they ended up breaking the Law anyway. However, God did not break His promise to Abraham. God is always true to His word, He does not lie like humans do.

As a result, Paul said, the Jews missed their opportunity to be the first into the Kingdom of Heaven. In fact, God was looking for anyone who could work their way into the Kingdom, but He found none among the Gentiles, and then the Jews turned out to be no better, even though they had the Law. In fact, their sins were of the same sort as those of the Gentiles. Everything their Creator gave them with which they could praise and honor Him, they used for immoral purposes. Their mouths were like an open grave; their feet ran in search of sinful activities; their eyes turned toward idols instead of toward God.

So, says Paul, by this we can see that no one could get right with God on their own, not even by trying to follow the Law. In fact, each failure in keeping the Law only pointed out what hopeless and helpless sinners mankind had become. That’s why God had to find a better way, and that was by sending His only Son to become a human being and die so that they could be redeemed from sin’s bondage.

But it wasn’t easy. You see, God still demanded punishment for all the sins mankind committed; He still needed a sacrifice to atone for those sins so that the blood of the sacrifice could cover them and that God would no longer remember them. And that necessary sacrifice turned out to be His Son. So Jesus willingly took the punishment of mankind on His shoulders and suffered the penalty of God for those sins. It ended up killing Him. But God in His kindness, raised His Son back to life so that everyone who believes in Christ’s sacrifice may also have a new life.

But this new life is not to be lived selfishly for one’s own pleasure or gratification. Since our salvation is not based on our own works, we have nothing to boast about when we claim to be saved. All praise and honor belong to God. And the best way to show that praise and honor is to live our lives for His glory. So in the end, Paul answers his own question about whether the Jew had an advantage when it came to salvation. The answer, of course, is an emphatic, “No!” We are all the same, and, therefore, we all need the same salvation. And this one-of-a-kind salvation, can only come through faith in Jesus Christ, God’s sacrifice on the cross for our sins.

I praise God and thank Him every day for all of you who take the time to read His Word. He sees the hunger in your heart to know more about His plan for mankind. I’ve asked Him to bless you in your life and in your work for Him. I hope that you will continue your desire to grow in Christ and in God’s Word, as we move to the next chapter in the Book of Romans. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

I once read this quote from an unknown author: “Never deprive someone of hope – it may be all they have.” The Bible says that faith is the basis for having hope.¹ So if hope is already gone, there is no chance for faith to develop. Most Christians are hoping that Jesus will return soon. But if we lose that hope then our faith in God’s promise to send Him back will fade away. That’s why the Apostle Paul said: “We are saved by hope. And hope means looking forward to getting something we don’t yet have – for a person who already has something doesn’t need to hope that they will get it.”² So don’t take anyone’s hope away. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

Jewish scholar David Stern tells this story in his commentary on Romans, and I want to share it with you: 

Once upon a time, there was a king who was strong, brave and possessed of all other good qualities. He ruled his country justly, loved his people and was loved by them. Because of this, there was no crime in his kingdom — until one day it was discovered that a thief was loose in the land.

Knowing that wrongful behavior would multiply unless he took a strong stand against it, the king decreed that when caught the thief would receive twenty lashes. But the thefts continued. He raised the punishment to forty lashes in the hope of deterring further crime, but to no avail. Finally, he announced that the criminal would be punished with sixty lashes, knowing that no one in the country could survive sixty lashes except himself. At last the thief was caught, and it turned out to be — the king’s mother.

The king was faced with a dilemma. He loved his mother more than anyone in the world, but justice demanded that the punishment be carried out. Moreover, were his subjects to see that it was possible to commit a crime and not be punished for it, social order would eventually be completely undermined. At the same time, he knew that if he were to subject his own mother to a punishment that would kill her, the people’s love would turn to revulsion and hate toward a man so lacking in compassion and ordinary affection, and he would be unable to govern at all. The whole nation wondered what he would do.

The day arrived for administering the prescribed punishment. The king mounted a platform in the capital’s central square, and the royal flogger took his place. Then the king’s elderly mother was brought forward, fragile and trembling. On seeing her son the king, she burst into tears. “I’m… so sorry… for what I did!” she wailed, between sobs. Then, recovering, the stooping, white-haired figure made her way toward the flogging harness. The people gasped as the flogger raised his muscled arm with the leather whip.

Just as it was about to crack down on the exposed back of the woman who had given him birth, the king cried “Stop!” The arm poised in mid-air, the whip fell limp. The king rose from his seat, removed his robe, walked to the harness, put his arms around his mother, and, with his broad frame covering her frail body and his bared back exposed to the flogger, he commanded, “Execute the sentence on me!” The sixty painful stripes then fell on the back of the king.

“He was wounded for our transgressions,

bruised for our iniquities;

his suffering was for our well-being,

and by his stripes, we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray;

we have turned, each one to his own way;

and Adonai has laid on Him

the iniquity of us all.”¹

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson XXIII)

Verse 31: So, do we destroy the law by following the way of faith? Not at all! In fact, faith causes us to be what the law actually wants.

Paul must have perceived that those receiving this missive already decided that he was advocating that the law scrolls be torn up and thrown away. But he had no such intention. Jesus was the one who gave him the Gospel directly. And this same Jesus had said: “Don’t think that I have come to destroy the Law of Moses or the teaching of the Prophets. I have come not to destroy their teachings but to give full meaning to them. I assure you that nothing will disappear from the Law until heaven and earth are gone. The Law will not lose even the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter until it has all been accomplished.”¹

So Paul was trying to get the believing Jews to see that the whole purpose of the Law of Moses was for them to live in harmony with God’s will and purpose fo their lives. But try as they may, it was not possible because their sinful nature always influenced them into breaking the Law. Therefore, only by having their sinful nature put under subjection by their new spiritual nature could this be possible. And, the only way their spiritual nature could come alive and survive was through the power of Jesus the Messiah. As such, the impact of the Law of Grace would then be sufficient, as long as it is followed by faith, trust, and love for the One who brought it into effect.

Several early church writers give their expositions on what Paul declares here. For instance, Augustine says: “Do we then make void freedom of choice through grace? God forbid! Rather, we establish freedom of choice. As the law is not made void by faith, so freedom of choice is not made void but established by grace. Freedom of choice is necessary to the fulfillment of the Law. But by the Law comes the knowledge of sin; by faith comes the obtaining of grace against sin; by grace comes the healing of the soul from sin’s sickness; by the healing of the soul comes freedom of choice; by freedom of choice comes the love of righteousness; by the love of righteousness comes the working of the Law. Thus, as the Law is not made void but established by faith since faith obtains the grace whereby the Law may be fulfilled, so freedom of choice is not made void but established by grace, since grace heals the will whereby righteousness may freely be loved.”²

Then Pelagius asks: “Is the law which enjoins us to be circumcised unnecessary? Not at all! On the contrary, we enable it to stand firm when we show that what it said is true. Namely, that (spiritual) law would follow after (physical) law, (spiritual) testament after (physical) testament, (spiritual) circumcision after (physical) circumcision.”³ And to this, we add Patriarch Cyril’s words: “On account of His humanity Emmanuel is called a prophet, who following Moses is the mediator between God and humanity. The Law was a shadow, but even so, it presented an image of the truth. Furthermore, the truth hardly destroys its images; rather it makes them clearer.”⁴

John Calvin draws a distinction between the moral laws and the ceremonial laws of Moses. He writes: “For the moral law is in reality confirmed and established through faith in Christ, inasmuch as it was given for this end — to lead man to Christ by showing him his iniquity; and without this it cannot be fulfilled, and in vain will it require what ought to be done; nor can it do anything but irritate lust more and more, and thus finally increase man’s condemnation. But where there is a coming to Christ, there is first found in Him the perfect righteousness of the Law, which becomes ours by imputation, and then there is sanctification, by which our hearts are prepared to keep the Law; it is indeed imperfectly done, but there is an aiming at the work. Similar is the case with ceremonies, which indeed cease and vanish away when Christ comes, but they are in reality confirmed by Him; for when they are viewed in themselves they are vain and shadowy images, and then only do they attain anything real and solid when their end is regarded. In this then consists their chief confirmation, when they have obtained their accomplishment in Christ.”⁵

John Bengel sees a similarity here between Paul’s declaration and our Lord’s declaration of upholding the law. He goes on to say that while we are supposed to uphold what law testifies to (See Romans 3:20-21), we thereby show how the demands of law are satisfied through Christ.⁶ And Bible scholar Robert Haldane echoes what Bengel reveals: “From the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which the Apostle had been declaring, it might be supposed that God’s law was made void. This consequence might be drawn from the conclusion that a man is justified by faith without any respect to his obedience to the law. This the Apostle denies, and, on the contrary, asserts that by his doctrine law is established. The article is here wanting before [the word] law, indicating that the reference is not to the legal dispensation, or to the books of Moses, as in the last clause of verse 21, but to the general law of God, whether written or unwritten.”⁷

Adam Clarke then explains: “This verse states the third result of this method of salvation; instead of invalidating, it establishes the law. In every sense this declaration is true. If the law means the Old Testament generally, then it is true; for the gospel method of justification contradicts not one of its statements, is inconsistent with not one of its doctrines, and invalidates not one of its promises, but is harmonious with all, and confirms the whole. If it means the Mosaic institutions specifically, these were shadows of which Christ is the substance. Such laws are abolished, not by being pronounced spurious or invalid, but by having met its purpose, and answered its design in the Gospel. What it taught and promised, the Gospel also teaches and promises, only in clearer and fuller measure. If it means the moral law, which no doubt was prominently intended, still it is not invalidated, but established. No moral obligation is weakened, no penal sanction disregarded. The precepts are enforced by new and stronger motives, and the penalty is answered in Him who bore our sins in His own body on the tree.”⁸

Albert Barnes sees an anticipation here on Paul’s part: “This is indeed a beautiful and just view of the moral influence of the Gospel, and especially of the Doctrine of Justification by faith alone. It may be questioned, however, whether the Apostle in this place refers chiefly, or even at all, to the sanctifying tendency of his doctrine. This he does very fully in Romans 6; and therefore, if another and consistent sense can be found, we need not resort to the supposition that he now anticipates what he intended to discuss more fully in a later part of his epistle. In what other way, then, does the Apostle‘s doctrine establish law? How does he vindicate himself from the charge of making it void? In the preceding chapter he had pointed out the true ground of pardon in the ‘righteousness of God.’ He had explained that none could be justified, but they who had by faith received it. ‘Do we then,’ he asks in conclusion, ‘make void the Law by maintaining: No sinner can be accepted who does not receive a righteousness commensurate with all its demands?.’ ‘Yea, we establish law,’ is the obvious answer. Jesus has died to satisfy its claims and lives to honor its precepts. Thus, He has brought in ‘righteousness,’ which, being imputed to them that believe, forms such a ground of pardon and acceptance, as the Law cannot challenge.”⁹

Charles Spurgeon states: “There is no one who so much loves the law of God, and delights in it after the inward man, as the one who is justified by faith. There is nothing that so honors the law as ‘the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ.’”¹⁰ F. F. Bruce tells us: “If Paul had expressed himself in Hebrew, he would have used the verb qiyyēm. This is the verb used in the rabbinical assertion that Abraham ‘fulfilled the law’. Paul may have some such assertion in mind when he goes on to argue that Abraham did indeed fulfill or ‘uphold’ the law, but that, according to the testimony of Scripture, he upheld it through receiving God’s gift of righteousness by faith.”¹¹

As we have seen, Paul did not start his defense of God’s righteousness by faith by merely writing down extemporaneous thoughts as they came to mind. As a devout Pharisee, and a student of the Torah, Mishnah, and Talmud, he understood God’s intent of giving the Law and how it had been corrupted over time when intertwined with human ideas. So he wants to set the record straight. And we can say, that up to this point he has done a terrific job.

Jewish scholar David Stern tells this story which is a fitting end to this chapter. He writes: 

Once upon a time, there was a king who was strong, brave and possessed of all other good qualities. He ruled his country justly, loved his people and was loved by them. Because of this, there was no crime in his kingdom — until one day it was discovered that a thief was loose in the land.

Knowing that wrongful behavior would multiply unless he took a strong stand against it, the king decreed that when caught the thief would receive twenty lashes. But the thefts continued. He raised the punishment to forty lashes in the hope of deterring further crime, but to no avail. Finally, he announced that the criminal would be punished with sixty lashes, knowing that no one in the country could survive sixty lashes except himself. At last the thief was caught, and it turned out to be — the king’s mother.

The king was faced with a dilemma. He loved his mother more than anyone in the world, but justice demanded that the punishment be carried out. Moreover, were his subjects to see that it was possible to commit a crime and not be punished for it, social order would eventually be completely undermined. At the same time, he knew that if he were to subject his own mother to a punishment that would kill her, the people’s love would turn to revulsion and hate toward a man so lacking in compassion and ordinary affection, and he would be unable to govern at all. The whole nation wondered what he would do.

The day arrived for administering the prescribed punishment. The king mounted a platform in the capital’s central square, and the royal flogger took his place. Then the king’s elderly mother was brought forward, fragile and trembling. On seeing her son the king, she burst into tears. “I’m… so sorry… for what I did!” she wailed, between sobs. Then, recovering, the stooping, white-haired figure made her way toward the flogging harness. The people gasped as the flogger raised his muscled arm with the leather whip.

Just as it was about to crack down on the exposed back of the woman who had given him birth, the king cried “Stop!” The arm poised in mid-air, the whip fell limp. The king rose from his seat, removed his robe, walked to the harness, embraced his mother, and, with his broad frame covering his mother and his bared back exposed to the flogger, commanded him, “Execute the sentence!” The sixty stripes fell on the back of the king.

“He was wounded for our transgressions,

bruised for our iniquities;

his suffering was for our well-being,

and by his stripes we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray;

we have turned, each one to his own way;

and Adonai has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53: 5– 6)¹²