Comments on Romans 4:13-16

Timotheos,

I am sorry for my long delay to post my comments in response. I have been delayed on account of the busy schedule that comes with the beginning of the new academic year. Now that I have settled in to my schedule, I can take several minutes to offer a response.

Your translation and mine are so close to one another.

¹³ For the promise to Abraham and his seed that he would be heir of the world does not come through the Law but through the righteousness of faithfulness. ¹⁴ For if the heirs are of the Law, then this faithfulness is made void and the promise is nullified. ¹⁵ For the Law brings to completion wrath. But where there is no Law, neither is there transgression. ¹⁶ On account of this the promised inheritance is from faithfulness, in order that it might be according to grace, for the purpose that the promise might be confirmed to all the seed, not to those who are of the Law alone but also to those who are of Abraham’s faith, who is the father of us all, ¹⁷ just as it is written “I appointed you to be the father of many nations” in the sight of him whom he believed, namely God who gives life to the dead and calls non-existing things into existence.

Paul contrasts two things. He says that the promise that God made to Abraham does not come "through the Law" (ou dia nomou) but that it comes through "the righteousness of faith(fulness)" (alla dia dikaiosunēs pisteōs). As we have been noticing throughout our previous considerations of Paul’s phrases, we have to make an interpretive decision concerning this contrast. Is Paul’s contrast between these two: “through the Law of Moses” and “through the righteousness that comes by faith, i.e., human faith”? Or does Paul contrast something else? How we understand the expression alla dia dikaiosunēs pisteōs depends heavily upon how we have handled similar expressions prior to this mention in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Timotheos, I think that you are correct to understand the expression as referring to “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” as the agency through which the promise God made to Abraham comes.

Paul is continuing with a theme that he argues in Romans 2 and 3, namely, that the Law cannot be the vehicle through which God revealed his righteousness because he did not design the Law for this purpose, given humanity's sinfulness. Yes, the Law promised life (Lev 18:5), but it could not deliver the life that it promised because the Law could not secure the obedience it commanded, as the history of Israel makes plain. Therefore, Jews who boast in the Law have misplaced their boast and trust, for their failure to do what the Law required is proof that they dwell under the Law's indictment. So, the Law’s function was, as Paul summarizes in Romans 3:19, to silence every human’s objection against God’s justice and to hold the whole world accountable to God. Hence, as Paul succinctly expresses the matter now, “the Law brings to completion wrath.” This expression (ho nomos orgēn katergazetai) makes the case that God designed the Law to disclose an aspect of his righteousness, but not his righteousness as he reveals himself in the gospel as we have already seen in 3:23-26, God, the Righteous One who declares righteous those who believe. The verb Paul uses, katergazō, is one that makes his point more emphatically than if he had used ergazō or poieō. His verb underscores the Law’s purpose, “to bring wrath to its accomplishment or completion.” The Law, therefore, exposes human sinfulness and actually exacerbates humanity's plight (5:20-21) so that when God revealed his righteousness to keep his promises made to the patriarchs long ago, his righteousness is magnified all the more in the cross of Christ.

Thus, the Law serves God’s promise made to Abraham and reaffirmed to the patriarchs. The Law has no power to nullify (katērgētai) God’s promise because God did not give the Law as the vehicle through which he would fulfill his promise, i.e., give the inheritance. The Law has no power to empty faithfulness (hē pistis) of its effectiveness (4:15) because the Law's function reveals the righteousness of God's wrath not the righteousness of God's fulfillment of the promise, Paul's thesis throughout his Letter to the Romans. So, the heirs of the promise are not identified by belonging to the Law (hoi ek nomou klēronomoi, 4:14). Instead, the promise’s source is faithfulness (ek pisteōs, 4:16) in order that it might be in keeping with grace (kata xarin). And God made it this way that the promise might be confirmed (eis to einai bebaian, 4:16; cf. 15:8) to all Abraham’s seed, not to those who are of the Law alone (ou tō ek tou nomou monon) but also to those who are of Abraham’s faith (tō ek pistetōs Abraam), who is the father of us all (hos estin patēr pantōn hēmōn).

In this passage, then, Paul is speaking of the core of the thesis that he is arguing. This is evident from his conclusion to his argument which he expresses in 15:8, when he speaks of Christ as having become a Servant of the Circumcision on behalf of God’s truthfulness “to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs” (eis to bebaiōsai tas epaggelias tōn paterōn). So, how is it that Abraham is the father of us all? How is it that Jesus Christ confirmed God’s promise to Abraham? To the extent that the Law testified to God’s righteousness 3:21-22), the Law did so by bringing God’s wrath to completion. God designed the Law for that purpose, not for the purpose of confirming his promised inheritance. God designed the gospel for this purpose--to confirm the promise. So, the gospel, not the Law, conveys the fulfillment of the promise when God poured out his completed wrath upon his own Son (3:23-26). From this confirmation of the promise, then, both Jews and Gentiles are blessed.