Romans 4:2

For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not toward God.

By works ... is an unfortunate rendition, because the expression seems to take sides in an old controversy, appearing to be antithetical to salvation "by faith only" as advocated by the commentators; and the implicit denial of it here is construed as support of their theory. Nothing like that is here. "Works" simply means the law of Moses, "works of law," the alternate reading (English Revised Version (1885) margin), having no other possible meaning here. James of course said that Abraham was justified by works; but he did not say that he was justified by the works of the law of Moses. James, in making Abraham's justification "by works" (James 2:21), clearly excluded the works of the law of Moses and identified the class of works he had in mind by naming the offering up of Isaac, which was anterior to the law of Moses. Paul was here emphasizing the fact that Abraham was not justified by the law of Moses, a truth that should have been obvious, because the law had not even been given at that time.

Despite Paul's intention in this verse, it has been made the vehicle for some of the wildest theories ever advocated in the history of Christianity, among them being the proposition that Abraham was justified by faith alone without any works whatever. That no inspired writer contradicts another inspired writer is axiomatic. Therefore, Paul's denial in this place that Abraham was justified by works must not be construed as meaning that Abraham was saved without any works whatever, because the holy scriptures affirm that such indeed was not the case. James has this:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar (James 2:21)?

This declaration of James could not possibly be contradictory of Romans 4:2, unless it stated that Abraham was justified by the works of the law of Moses, which, of course, it does not do. Further, James identified the class of works involved in the justification of Abraham as works of faith, not works of Moses' law. For a discussion of various scriptural classification of works, see under Romans 2:6 the article, FAITH AND WORKS.

By works ... in Romans 4:2 means "by works of Moses' law," and so understood is a reasonable, even obvious, declaration that Abraham was not saved by the works of a system not even then in existence. This simple meaning has been distorted by reading "works" in the sense of the stereotyped opposite of "faith only," neither of those concepts being in the Bible, and then by the outlandish, illogical deduction to the effect that in denying one thing, Paul affirmed another! This is the equivalent of saying, "Saturday is NOT Sunday, therefore Friday IS Sunday."

Paul's suggestion here that "if" Abraham had been justified by works of law, he would have had a ground of boasting toward people is a tribute to the majesty and accuracy of Moses' law. By that, Paul had no reference at all to any boasting toward God, for even a perfect fulfillment of Moses' law would have been no grounds for any such boasting as that.

One cannot fail to be astounded at the millions of words people have poured forth on these verses, alleging and affirming in the most positive and extravagant language that people are "saved by faith alone." From whole libraries of teaching to this effect, here is presented a concise statement by Greathouse, for the purpose of showing the logic (?) of such writings. He said:

We have already seen that a "man is justified without the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:28). It is by faith alone ("sola fide") because it is by grace alone ("sola gratia").[1]

It apparently never entered that author's mind that if justification is by faith "alone," it is not simultaneously by grace also; and if it is by grace "alone" it cannot be by faith also. Faith and grace are not identical; and if one is saved by either of them "alone," the other is excluded. Such is the denotation of the word "alone." What mysterious affliction has seized the minds of so many learned men that they cannot understand the simple answers, that they are blinded to the consequences of adding to God's word such a delimitative as "only" or "alone"; and why is this great Protestant heresy so dear to its advocates as to leave them powerless to grapple with the question objectively and unable to distinguish dream from reality? The theory of salvation by faith alone throws the entire corpus of revelation into a jumble of uncertainty and communicates its devastating implications to every major doctrine of the word of God, as witnessed by these further words of Martin Luther:

Everything is outside us and in Christ ... for God does not want to save us by our own but by an extraneous righteousness which does not originate in ourselves but comes to us from beyond ourselves, which does not arise on our earth but comes from heaven.[2]

Martin Luther's words are profoundly true except for the final words which imply that salvation comes to us, and even that is true, in a sense, but untrue in another. This wonderful righteousness from without and beyond us is indeed from heaven; but it is nevertheless on earth in the sense that the spiritual body of Christ is on earth. All of that righteousness which justifies is "in Christ," being from heaven in the sense that Christ was sent from heaven, but being of earth also, because here, on this very planet, is where Jesus Christ wrought that righteousness, and the mortal beings who make up his spiritual body are of this earth. That spiritual body was planned in heaven; and the great righteousness "in Christ" indeed came from heaven in the sense of its origin and may be said to come to people in the sense of being available to them; but, in the last analysis, the salvation from above does not come to us, we go to it. Christ said, "Come unto me," and not "Just believe, and I will bring it to you"!

[1] William M. Greathouse, Beacon's Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 100.

[2] Ibid.