Romans 4:2 - what do the commentators think it means?
Mikey Lynch | Wednesday, July 28, 2010 at 7:39AM If in fact Abraham was justified by works he would have something to boast about - but not before God. (Romans 4:2)
That seems to me to be granting that, hypothetically, Abraham was actually perfect in obedience, then there would be ground for boasting before others, but never in the end boasting to God. What's wrong with that? Seems to flow pretty neatly to me...
Commentaries don't like it. And I don't quite understand why.
DJ Moo:
It is more likely that Paul rejects Abraham's claim altogether: all boasting in this context, whether before God or people, must be ruled out. "But not before God", then, rejects the logic stated in the conditional sentence. (Romans, p. 261)
MC Seifrid (please note that we have a DJ and an MC. haha):
The end of 4:2 is not a restrictive phrase, as if Abraham still might boast before humans beings... Paul, rather, introduces here the defining framework in which 'boasting' is to be evaluated: the human relationship to God. (Dict of Use of OT in NT, p. 623)
But my question is: what's the point of the sentence, from this point of view? What is a clear paraphrase? Why bother with the conditional sentence? What's wrong with my reading? Isn't it a bit more natural?
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (6)
Just trying to wrap my head around this... no one's perfect, but if Abraham theoretically was he would have been better than everyone else therefore could boast - except to God because perfect is just living up to what we were created to be....?
Yeah... that's my take on it... but these other commentators rhink something different.
Could it be that even if he was perfect in his works, and technically justified or 'righteousified', he would still not be able to boast before God, because God has determined that no-one will be justified in his sight by the law, because justification comes through faith from start to finish. In other words, righteousness before God has always been through faith, because it is more than just a moral standing; it is also a relational standing. 3:27 says that boasting is excluded by the 'law of faith'; as if God will only ever (and only ever has) accept someone on the basis of faith, not works - it's the way he operates; his 'Law'.
Thanks for your comment James.
I don't think it fits with God's justice generally or Rom 2:7 in partiucular to say that Abraham couldn't have been right with God by works. Perfect works-righteousness would have, of course involved relationship with God, or else it wouldn't be perfect.
But for God to decide on another plan and so actually ignore what is just... don't think that works.
I guess while works-righteousness could be seen as technically possible/just, the reality is that no-one has ever been justified by works (unless maybe you go with the pre-fall 'covenant of works'), so the hypothetical is just that - hypothetical. Paul in Philippians 3 talks about his former life before grace, describing himself as 'blameless' in regard to legalistic righteousness, which I presume to mean that if you tested him against the commandments he could 'tick every box'. Yet he saw this as a righteousness that came 'of [himself] that comes from the law' rather than that which comes 'through faith in Christ' (3:9). So it was an 'alien' righteousness that justified him - that of Christ.
In light of that, I would argue that even if my obedience was perfect, and I followed exactly the letter of the law, I could still not boast before God because the basis for my right standing before Him cannot come from myself or my obedience - it still has to be pure gift from Him, so that in the end I cannot boast, but all glory goes to him for his sovereign work in me.
A few things come up here:
1. We must remember that 4:2 is raising a hypothetical. So it is speaking about what would be the case if someone could.
2. I take it that Rom 4:2 is saying that even if the hypothetical were true *and* one could successfully earn eternal life as a reult *even then* there would be no ground for boasting.
3. Philippians 3 is, in my view, an illegitimate cross-reference. I think his 'blamelessness' is speaking from a human point of view. 'Legalistic righteousness' is not the same as perfect righteousness by works.
4. Your final paragraph just makes no sense to me. It strikes me as fussy and unjust for God to insist that he would only justify by alien righteousness.. and I don't think it makes sense of Romans 1-3.