Some of us grew up around churches that had a set of rules which, if violated, meant we could be hell-bound ? so they said. The list contained things like drinking, dancing, wearing makeup, swearing, immodest dress and other such things. (Some of you may need comforting now!)
However, there were a few problems. First, the list seemed to vary a bit from church to church. Second, it was not quite clear whether we went to heaven by keeping the list or whether it only served as a signpost marking the way to hell. Questions about the list were not exactly solicited. :)
Even more puzzling — what did all of that have to do with faith in Jesus?
(ESV) Romans 4:13-14 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. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Since Christians hold ideas that are nowhere recorded in Scripture — such as the three Magi or purgatory — it is no surprise that the Jews of Pauls day did as well. One such bogus idea was that Abraham had obeyed the Law of Moses perfectly before it had been given. [In the following discussion the Hebrew word t?rah is sometimes used to refer to the Law of Moses.]
The Jews did not believe this idea on a whim; it allowed them to claim that one could be Abrahams child only by taking on oneself the yoke of torah. So, the claim about Abraham keeping the torah before there was one was a convenient way of tying together the patriarch who had received the promises from God and the law given through Moses over 430 years later. Yet, in Galatians, Paul argues: The law that came four hundred thirty years later does not cancel a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to invalidate the promise (Gal. 3:17, NET).
Of course, the idea that Abraham could obey the law before there was a law has always been ridiculous. For example, Lev. 17:4 requires that a sacrifice be brought to the Tent of Meeting and given to the priest for sacrifice on that spot. But in Abrahams time there was no Tent of Meeting, and the Aaronic priesthood had not yet been established. So, how did that work? This simply shows that you should never be surprised at the creativity of theologians when they float free of the Bible; in that case they are like scientists speaking authoritatively about non-scientific matters. :)
In a way Paul cuts through all these specious theological assumptions by returning to what God originally promised Abraham (Rom. 4:13). The Greek sentence throws the phrase not through the law near the beginning of the sentence to stress the incongruity of the idea that the law had anything to do with the promise. Instead, Paul says the promise came through the righteousness of faith (4:13b).
Now that Paul has expressed his thesis that faith was the basis of the promise to Abraham rather than the law (4:13), he next explains why this is so. Grant Osborne expands the logic of Romans 4:14 by saying: If it were possible to be righteous and thus gain an eternal inheritance on the basis of personal achievement, then faith would be unnecessary. If works and obedience were sufficient, the need for Gods promise would be removed.
The final clause of 4:14 — faith is null and the promise is void (ESV) — has two Greek verbs in the perfect tense. This probably emphasizes the state of affairs that would exist if law-keeping were actually the way of attaining righteousness before God, the premise that Paul denies. Basing righteousness on law-keeping simply throws faith and promise into the trash!
The final clause of 4:14 makes for an interesting study in English translations. NET probably has the most literal translation in relation to the meaning of the Greek verbs:
(NET) faith is empty and the promise is nullified (Rom. 4:14)
We can compare the NETs translation to two other important English translations:
(ESV) faith is null and the promise is void (Rom. 4:14)
(NLT) faith is not necessary and the promise is pointless (Rom. 4:14)
Since the ESV and NLT have strongly different translation philosophies, it is surprising to find them using a similar approach to this clause. Null and . . . void has a nice idiomatic ring in English, uncommon for ESV. NLTs not necessary and . . . pointless uses words that are very powerful from a pragmatic, American viewpoint. Both ESV and NLT run away from the semantic range of the Greek verbs, but they do a superb job of conveying the futility of basing righteousness on the law.
If the law does not bring righteousness, then what does it do? In 4:15 Paul explains what the law does — produces wrath — as opposed to what it cannot do — secure the inheritance. He will develop these ideas more fully in Romans 5:12-14 and 7:7-13. C.K. Barrett captures the essence of Pauls point when he says, Law, though good in itself (7:12, 14) is so closely bound up with sin and wrath that it is unthinkable that it should be the basis of the promise. Faith carries no such baggage.
The clause where there is no law there is no transgression (4:15) does not mean where there is no law there is no sin. On the contrary, the law makes sin all the more grave. Thomas Schreiner says, Transgression of the law involves greater responsibility since the infraction is conscious and therefore involves rebellion against a known standard.
Faith and the law
The primacy of faith in Jesus Christ does not mean that the rules mentioned in the introduction of this lesson are totally without value. In a way more approximate and less authoritative than the Law of Moses, those rules at the start of this lesson were meant to motivate godly behavior, however imperfectly. The confusion sewn about keeping the rules as a way of salvation is less forgivable.
1. There is more to being a good citizen of the U.S. than keeping the laws of your state and the United States. By analogy, what does it take to be a good Christian? 2. Read Ephesians 2:810. How do these verses help clarify the relationship between faith and works? In what way can Ephesians 2:8 be said to constitute a promise to those who put their faith in Jesus?
The tension between grace and law is ancient. What God promises in an unqualified way will come to pass without regard to what we do. What we do truly matters, but we cannot overturn the promises of God. That is cause for rejoicing!
Copyright 2012 Barry Applewhite, Plano, Texas. All rights reserved worldwide. Derived from materials created for Christ Fellowship, McKinney, Texas. Used by permission.
 C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark Limited, 1975) 227.
 Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1996) 273.
 Grant R. Osborne, Romans, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004) 114.
 Moo, Romans, 275, footnote 25.
 Moo, Romans, 276.
 C.K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper & Row, 1957) 95.
 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998) 230.