Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.
15. the law worketh wrath: for ] “For” indicates that this statement confirms that just made, namely, that inheritance by law must bar the fulfilment of the promise. “The faith” in question was said to be “reckoned for righteousness” to the believer; “the promise” in question was that that believer, as such, should “inherit the world.” But if once the Law, with its only possible terms, interposes between the sinner and justification, he is hopelessly cut off (1) from a valid “righteousness,” and (2) therefore from the “heirship” attached to it. Justification and inheritance are equally out of his reach; because inevitably, as applied to fallen man, the Law (just because holy and absolute) “works wrath;” produces what in the nature of things calls down the Judge’s pure but inexorable wrath; for it produces “transgression” by the fact of its application to man as he is. Note that “ transgression,” not “ sin,” is St Paul’s word here. “Sin” is wherever the Fall is; “transgression” is a narrower word; the “overstepping” of a definite condition.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Because the law – All law. It is the tendency of law.
Worketh wrath – Produces or causes wrath. While man is fallen, and a sinner, its tendency, so far from justifying him, and producing peace, is just the reverse. It condemns, denounces wrath, and produces suffering. The word wrath here is to be taken in the sense of punishment. Rom 2:8. And the meaning is, that the Law of God, demanding perfect purity, and denouncing every sin condemns the sinner, and consigns him to punishment. As the apostle had proved Rom. 1; 2; 3 that all were sinners, so it followed that if any attempted to be justified by the Law, they would be involved only in condemnation and wrath.
For where no law is … – This is a general principle; a maxim of common justice and of common sense. Law is a rule of conduct. If no such rule is given and known, there can be no crime. Law expresses what may be done, and what may not be done. If there is no command to pursue a certain course, no injunction to forbid certain conduct, actions will be innocent. The connection in which this declaration is made here, seems to imply that as the Jews had a multitude of clear laws, and as the Gentiles had the laws of nature, there could be no hope of escape from the charge of their violation. Since human nature was depraved, and people were prone to sin, the more just and reasonable the laws, the less hope was there of being justified by the Law, and the more certainty was there that the Law would produce wrath and condemnation.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 15. Because the law worketh wrath] For law , any law, or rule of duty. No law makes provision for the exercise of mercy, for it worketh wrath, , punishment, for the disobedient. Law necessarily subjects the transgressor to punishment; for where no law is – where no rule of duty is enacted and acknowledged, there is no transgression; and where there is no transgression there can be no punishment, for there is no law to enforce it. But the Jews have a law, which they have broken; and now they are exposed to the penal sanctions of that law; and, if the promises of pardon without the works of the law, do not extend to them, they must be finally miserable, because they have all broken the law, and the law exacts punishment. This was a home stroke, and the argument is unanswerable.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The law worketh wrath; i.e. the wrath of God: and this it doth not of itself, but occasionally, in respect of our disobedience. This is a confirmation of what was said in the foregoing verse, that the inheritance is not by the law, and the works thereof; he proves it from the effect and work of the law, such as it hath in all men since the fall; it worketh wrath; it is so far from entitling men to the promised blessing, that it exposeth men to the curse and wrath of God, Gal 3:10.
For where no law is, there is no transgression: q.d. And that it worketh wrath is evident, because it discovers and occasions transgressions, between which and Gods wrath there is an inseparable connection. This assertion is simply true of things indifferent, as were all ceremonial observations before the law required them, for then before the law it was no sin to omit them: but of things which are evil in their own nature, it must be understood respectively, and after a sort; that is, there was no such great transgression before the law was given, as afterwards. The reasons are; Because we are naturally bent to do that which is forbidden us; and so by the reproofs of the law, the stubbornness of mans heart is increased. As also, because by the law comes the clear knowledge of mans duty; and so the servant that knows his masters will, and doth it not, is worthy of the more stripes.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
15. Because the law workethwrathhas nothing to give to those who break is butcondemnation and vengeance.
for where there is no law,there is no transgressionIt is just the law that makestransgression, in the case of those who break it; nor can the oneexist without the other.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Because the law worketh wrath,…. Not the wrath of man, though that is sometimes stirred up through the prohibitions of the law, to which the carnal mind of man is enmity, but the wrath of God the law is so far from justifying sinners, that it curses and condemns them; and when it comes into the heart and is let into the conscience of a sinner, it fills with terrible apprehensions of the wrath of God, and a fearful looking for of his judgment and fiery indignation:
for where no law is, there is no transgression;
r; a sort of a proverbial expression: had the law of Moses not been given, there was the law of nature which sin is a transgression of; but the law of Moses was added for the better discovery and detection of sin, which would not have been so manifest without it, and which may be the apostle’s sense; that where there is no law, there is no knowledge of any transgression; and so the Ethiopic version reads the words, “if the law had not come, there would have been none who would have known sin”; but the law is come, and there is a law by which is the knowledge of sin, and therefore no man can be justified by it; since that convinces him of sin, and fills him with a sense of divine wrath on account of it.
r Caphtor, fol. 10. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Worketh wrath ( ). Because of disobedience to it.
Neither is there transgression ( ). There is no responsibility for the violation of a non-existent law.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Because the law worketh wrath,” (ho gar nomos orgen katergazetai) “For the law works wrath;” The law was given because of transgression or sin, to define sin and pronounce a penalty for it; this law pointed to the need of a Redeemer, and was to last till he came, serving as a schoolmaster to point to Christ, Gal 3:19-25.
2) “For where no law is,” (hou de ouk estin nomos) “And where law does not exist” it was wrong to murder, steal, lie, commit adultery, and curse before the law of Moses was given, but such as committed those sins were not punished by penalties such as were later administered under Moses’ Law; for no specific law had been given to tell how bad these sins were and what the punishment should be. Rom 5:13.
3) “There is no transgression,” (oude parabasis) “Neither does transgression exist;” or there is no conscious or serious transgression. At such a time, when no identifiable law has been given or enacted, there-can exist no transgression. One can not transgress or break either (a) a law that doesn’t exist, or (b) a law that he is not under. One may break a moral or ethical principle, in a territory where he is not a citizen, where he is not under the law, but he must be under the law to be subject to the penalty. Laws must first, set forth a principle of right and wrong, and second, set forth a penalty for breaking that principle. If both elements do not clearly exist, no law exists, but resolutions or recommendations. Rom 3:20; Rom 5:13; Rom 5:20; 2Co 3:7-11; Gal 3:10; Gal 3:19.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
15. For the law causeth wrath, etc. This is a confirmation of the last verse, derived from the contrary effect of the law; for as the law generates nothing but vengeance, it cannot bring grace. It can indeed show to the good and the perfect the way of life: but as it prescribes to the sinful and corrupt what they ought to do, and supplies them with no power for doing, it exhibits them as guilty before the tribunal of God. For such is the viciousness of our nature, that the more we are taught what is right and just, the more openly is our iniquity discovered, and especially our contumacy, and thus a heavier judgment is incurred.
By wrath, understand God’s judgment, which meaning it has everywhere. They who explain it of the wrath of the sinner, excited by the law, inasmuch as he hates and execrates the Lawgiver, whom he finds to be opposed to his lusts, say what is ingenious, but not suitable to this passage; for Paul meant no other thing, than that condemnation only is what is brought on us all by the law, as it is evident from the common use of the expression, and also from the reason which he immediately adds.
Where there is no law, etc. This is the proof, by which he confirms what he had said; for it would have been difficult to see how God’s wrath is kindled against us through the law, unless it had been made more apparent. And the reason is, that as the knowledge of God’s justice is discovered by the law, the less excuse we have, and hence the more grievously we offend against God; for they who despise the known will of God, justly deserve to sustain a heavier punishment, than those who offend through ignorance.
But the Apostle speaks not of the mere transgression of what is right, from which no man is exempt; but he calls that a transgression, when man, having been taught what pleases and displeases God, knowingly and willfully passes over the boundaries fixed by God’s word; or, in other words, transgression here is not a mere act of sin, but a willful determination to violate what is right. (141) The particle, οὖ, where, which I take as an adverb, some consider to be a relative, of which; but the former reading is the most suitable, and the most commonly received. Whichever reading you may follow, the meaning will be the same, — that he who is not instructed by the written law, when he sins, is not guilty of so great a transgression, as he is who knowingly breaks and transgresses the law of God.
(141) It is better to take this sentence, “Where there is no law, there is no transgression,” according to its obvious meaning; as it comports better with the former clause. The reasoning seems to be this, — “The promise is by faith, and not by the law; for the law brings wrath or condemnation: but where there is no law, there is no transgression to occasion wrath.” The same idea is essentially conveyed in verse Rom 4:16, where it is said, that the promise is sure, because it is through faith and by grace. Had it been by the law, there would have been transgression and wrath, and hence the loss of the promise.
This verse is connected with the Rom 4:13 rather than with the 14. It contains another reason, besides what Rom 4:14 gives, in confirmation of what is said in Rom 4:13. Hence [ Macknight ] renders γὰρ, in this verse, “farther,” which renders the connection more evident. “Where no law is, there is no transgression, and therefore no wrath or punishment; but where law is, there is transgression, wrath, and punishment.” — [ Pareus ]
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(15) But in reality the Law is unable to admit them to this. It has an entirely contrary functionnamely, to call down punishment upon the offences that it reveals. The Law and faith, therefore, mutually exclude each other, and faith is left to be the sole arbiter of salvation.
Where no law is.Transgression is ex vi termini the transgression or breach of law, and therefore has no existence in that age of unconscious morality which precedes the introduction of law.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
15. Law worketh wrath That is, where all are breakers of the law.
Wrath The legal requirement of penalty. Justice, by its own essential nature, does rightfully require of guilt, the suffering of expiation; that justice existing in the divine mind demands penalty. That holy justice as so existing in the divine mind and government is called wrath. It is a holy but, to the sinner, a terrible divine attribute.
No law no transgression For beasts and machines (and for man if he is a machine) there is no holy moral law, and so for them no transgression. So for man the absence of law, just so far as it can be supposed to exist, is the absence of transgression. So, by contrariety, for sinful man the presence of law is the presence of transgression, and the presence of law and transgression is the terrible presence of wrath.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Rom 4:15. Where no law is, &c. “Of that concerning which there is no law, with the sanction of a punishment annexed, there can be no transgression, incurring wrath or punishment.” Thus it may be rendered, if we read the original word , with an aspiration, as some do: but whether it be taken to signify where or whereof, the sense will be the same; for the Greek word here, to make St. Paul’s argument of force, must signify such a transgression as draws upon the transgressor wrath and punishment by the force and sanction of a law; and so the Apostle’s proposition is made good,that it is the law alone which exposes us to wrath, and that it is all which the law in this sense can do, for it gives us no power to perform. Locke.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 4:15 . On the connection see above. The assigning of a reason ( ) has reference to the previous . . . ., which are closely connected (see Rom 4:16 ), and not merely to the . (Chrysostom, Fritzsche, Mehring, and others). The law produces wrath . It is the divine wrath that is meant, not any sort of human wrath (against the judgment of God, as Melancthon thought). Unpropitiated, it issues forth on the day of judgment, Rom 2:5 ff., Rom 3:5 , Rom 9:22 ; Eph 2:3 ; Eph 5:6 ; Col 3:6 al [1038] ; Ritschl, de ira Dei , p. 16; Weber, vom Zorne Gottes , p. 326 f.
. . [1039] ] Proof of the proposition that the law worketh wrath: for where the law is not, there is not even ( ) transgression , namely, which excites the wrath of God (the Lawgiver). This short, terse and striking proof which is not, any more than the three previous propositions introduced by , to be reduced to a “justifying explanation ” (Hofmann), or to be weakened by taking to mean “ just as little ” (Hofmann) proceeds a causa ad effectum; where the cause is wanting (namely, ), there can be no mention of the effect ( ). This negative form of the probative proposition includes in accordance with the doctrine of the Apostle elsewhere regarding the relation of the law to the human (Rom 7:7 ff.; 1Co 15:56 ; Gal 3:19 al [1040] ), which is kindled on occasion of the law by the power of sin which exists in man the positive counterpart, that, where the law is, there is also transgression . Paul however expresses himself negatively , because in his mind the negative thought that the fulfilment of the promise is not dependent on the law still preponderates; and he will not enter into closer analysis of the positive side of it viz., that faith is the condition until the sequel, Rom 4:16 ff. Observe moreover that he has not written , which he could not assert (Rom 4:13 ), but , as the specific designation of the in relation to the law , which was the precise point here in question. Comp Rom 2:23 ; Rom 2:25 ; Rom 2:27 , Rom 5:14 ; Gal 2:18 ; Gal 3:19 . Sins without positive law (Rom 4:13 ) are likewise, and indeed on account of the natural law, Rom 2:14 , objects of the divine wrath (see Rom 1:18 ff.; Eph 2:3 ); but sins against a given law are, in virtue of their thereby definite quality of transgression , so specifically and specially provocative of wrath in God, that Paul could relatively even deny the imputation of sin when the law was non-existent. See on Rom 4:13 .
[1038] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1039] . . . .
[1040] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Ver. 15. No transgression ] sc. Is imputed by men where there is no law written. See Rom 5:13 .
The law worketh wrath ] That is, manifesteth it, and so seemeth to work it, as likewise affliction doth corruption in God’s children; stir the puddle with a stick, and the mud will soon be on the top of the water. Rub the brand, and sparkles will fly abroad.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
15. ] For the law works (brings about, gives occasion to) wrath (which from its very nature, excludes promise , which is an act of grace , and faith , which is an attribute of confidence ); but where (or, for where ; but I should regard as introduced to suit the idea of the second clause rendering a reason for the first) there is no law (lit. ‘ where the law is not ’), neither (is there) transgression . ‘We should rather expect (says De W.) the affirmative clause, “And where the law is, there is transgression:” but the negative refers to the time before the Mosaic law, when there was no transgression and therefore also no wrath.’ Yes ; but not because there was no transgression then; the purpose of the Apostle here is not to deny the existence of the law of God written in the heart (which itself brings in the knowledge of sin) before Moses, but to shew that no promise of inheritance can be by the law, because the property of the law is, the more it is promulgated, to reveal transgression more, not to unfold grace . So that comparatively (see notes on ch. 7) there was no transgression before the law of Moses; and if we conceive a state in which the law whether written or unwritten should be altogether absent (as in the brute creation), there would be no transgression whatever .
But observe (see ch. Rom 5:12-14 ) that this reasoning does not touch the doctrine of the original taint of our nature in Adam, only referring to the discrimination of acts, words, and thoughts by the conscience in the light of the law: for is not natural corruption , but an act of transgression : nor does the Apostle here deny the former, even in the imaginable total absence of the law of God.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 4:15 . : wrath, i.e. , the wrath of God. See on Rom 1:18 . Under a legal dispensation sin is stimulated, and brought into clear consciousness: men come under the wrath of God, and know that they do. This is the whole and sole result of “the law,” and hence law cannot be the means through which God administers His grace, and makes man the heir of all things. On the contrary, to attain this inheritance man must live under a regime of faith, : is the true reading (see critical note), not : but where law is not, neither is there . It would not have been true to say , for Paul in chap. 2 recognises the existence and guilt of sin even where men live ; but in comparison with the deliberate and conscious transgression of those who live , such sin is comparatively insignificant and venial, and is here left out of account. The alternative systems are reduced to two, Law and Grace (or Promise).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
worketh. See Rom 1:27.
for. The texts read “but”.
no = not. App-105.
no = neither. Greek. oude.
transgression. See Rom 2:23.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
15.] For the law works (brings about, gives occasion to) wrath (which from its very nature, excludes promise, which is an act of grace,-and faith, which is an attribute of confidence);-but where (or, for where; but I should regard as introduced to suit the idea of the second clause rendering a reason for the first) there is no law (lit. where the law is not), neither (is there) transgression. We should rather expect (says De W.) the affirmative clause, And where the law is, there is transgression: but the negative refers to the time before the Mosaic law, when there was no transgression and therefore also no wrath. Yes; but not because there was no transgression then; the purpose of the Apostle here is not to deny the existence of the law of God written in the heart (which itself brings in the knowledge of sin) before Moses, but to shew that no promise of inheritance can be by the law, because the property of the law is, the more it is promulgated, to reveal transgression more,-not to unfold grace. So that comparatively (see notes on ch. 7) there was no transgression before the law of Moses; and if we conceive a state in which the law whether written or unwritten should be altogether absent (as in the brute creation), there would be no transgression whatever.
But observe (see ch. Rom 5:12-14) that this reasoning does not touch the doctrine of the original taint of our nature in Adam,-only referring to the discrimination of acts, words, and thoughts by the conscience in the light of the law: for is not natural corruption, but an act of transgression: nor does the Apostle here deny the former, even in the imaginable total absence of the law of God.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 4:15. , the law) It occurs twice in this verse; first, with the article, definitely; next, indefinitely.-, wrath) not grace, see the next verse. Hence the law is not of promise and of faith.- , there is not even transgression) He does not say, not even sin, comp. ch. Rom 5:13, Rom 2:12; offence, ch. Rom 5:20, and transgression have a more express referece to the law which is violated. Transgression rouses wrath.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 4:15
Rom 4:15
for the law worketh wrath;-The law forbids mans doing what he desires, so calls out or shows the spirit of disobedience in him. If a parent never interferes with the will of a child, the spirit of obedience is not tested in him; but when the parent forbids his doing what he desires, the spirit of obedience is tested and shown. The disobedience brings the penalties of the law. So the law that restrains brings wrath upon man.
but where there is no law, neither is there transgression.-This clearly sets forth that where no law is given, there is no stepping outside of, going beyond, or setting aside the law. If God never had given to man a law, he could not transgress it; but as God had given him law, he did transgress the law, and the transgression brought wrath upon him.
This passage is often misapplied. It is interpreted to mean that where God has not given a specific command prohibiting a thing, that thing may be done in religious service; that man is authorized to do anything in the service of God not specially prohibited in the Scriptures. This principle directly contradicts the whole teaching of the Bible. Moses said: Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes; for ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee. (Deu 12:8-9). At this time the law was not in force. They were left to do whatsoever seemed right in their own eyes. Some general truths had been taught them, and they were left to show their love to God in their own way. But when the law was given, he said: What thing soever I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deu 12:32). They were now no longer left to do what was right in their own eyes, but must conform to the will of God. To go outside of it was to sin and call down Gods wrath upon them. God now has a law of service given through Jesus Christ, and whosoever oversteps, sets aside, adds to, or takes from that law transgresses the law and incurs the wrath of God. If the principle be true now that man is at liberty to add whatever is not specifically condemned, then man devises the way of salvation, not God. The principle destroys the authority of the Bible and makes mans own wishes his supreme law. It dethrones God and enthrones man.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
transgression
Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Because: Rom 1:17, Rom 2:5, Rom 2:6, Rom 3:19, Rom 3:20, Rom 5:13, Rom 5:20, Rom 5:21, Rom 7:7-11, Num 32:14, Deu 29:20-28, 2Ki 22:13, Jer 4:8, Lam 2:22, Eze 7:19, Zep 1:18, Joh 3:36, Joh 15:22, Act 17:30, Act 17:31, 1Co 15:56, 2Co 3:7-9, Gal 3:10, Gal 3:19, Eph 5:6, Col 3:6, 1Jo 3:4, Rev 6:16, Rev 6:17, Rev 19:15
where: Rom 2:12, Rom 2:13, Rom 5:13
Reciprocal: Exo 19:24 – lest 2Ch 34:21 – great Act 13:39 – from which Rom 1:18 – the wrath Rom 7:5 – which Rom 7:8 – sin Rom 9:31 – hath 2Co 3:6 – for Gal 2:19 – through
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
:15
Rom 4:15. Transgression means going beyond a law, therefore where there is no law there could be no transgression, though there could be other forms of sin.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 4:15. For. The statement that faith and the promise would be ignored, if the inheritance is through the law, must be true, for this reason.
The law, the Mosaic law, as in the entire discussion.
Worketh wrath. The wrath of God is meant, else the next clause would have little pertinence; moreover, wrath, in the New Testament, in the vast majority of cases refers to Gods wrath against sin. The law does, indeed, stir up the wrath of man against God, as is set forth in chap. Rom 7:5, etc., but the train of thought in that chapter is distinct from that found here. Because the law brings about wrath, it cannot be the ground of promise (Rom 4:13).
But where there is no law, neither is there transgression. For was substituted by the early transcribers, to bring out the connection of thought. Strictly speaking, this part of the verse is a general negative statement, implying the positive truth, that where there is a law, there is transgression of it, thus producing a more pronounced form of sin, upon which Gods wrath is visited; thus the law works wrath. The negative form is probably due to the character of the main thought, the promise was independent of law (Rom 4:13). Transgression, the infraction of known law, is one form of sin, but does not include all sin. Sins without positive law (chap. Rom 5:13), are likewise, and, indeed, on account of the natural law (chap. Rom 2:14), objects of the divine wrath (see Rom 1:18; Eph 2:3); but sins against a given law are, in virtue of their thereby definite quality of transgression, so specifically and specially provocative of wrath in God, that Paul could relatively, even, deny the imputation of sin when the law was non-existent. See on chap. Rom 5:13 (Meyer).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here the apostle suggests another reason, why no justification can be executed by the law, because it condemns, rather than justifies. The law worketh wrath: that is, it discovers the wrath of God due to our transgression, and then pronounces condemnation upon the transgressor; for were there no law, either natural or revealed, there would be no transgression, and, consequently, no condemnation.
Here observe, 1. The use of the law; it discovers sin, it convinces of sin, it condemns for sin, it denounces the wrath of God due unto sin.
And note, 2. The apostle’s arguments for the use of the law; he infers an utter impossibility of being justified by the law. That which condemns, cannot justify; but the law of God condemns the sinner for his transgression, therefore, it can never be the instrument and means of his justification.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 15, 16. For the law worketh wrath: and, indeed, where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but also to that which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all;
Faith deprived of its object, the promise made void for those who are under the law, why all this? Simply because the law, when not fulfilled, brings on man God’s disapprobation, wrath, which renders it impossible on His part to fulfil the promise. This passage, like so many others already quoted, is incompatible with the idea which Ritschl forms of divine wrath. This critic, as we know (see on Rom 1:18), applies the term wrath, in the Old Testament only, to the sudden punishment with death of exceptional malefactors, who by their crime compromised the existence of the covenant itself. But in these words the apostle evidently starts from the idea that whatever is under the law is ipso facto the object of wrath, which applies to the entire people, and not to a few individuals only. Melanchthon applied the term wrath in this verse to the irritation felt by condemned man against the judgment of God. He forgot that the loss of the divine inheritance results to the sinner, not from his own wrath, but from that of the judge.
The article , the, before the word law, proves that the subject here is the law properly so called, the Mosaic law.
It would be improper to translate: for it is the law which produces wrath, as if wrath could not exist beyond the jurisdiction of the law. Chap. 1 proves the contrary. But the law produces it inevitably where it has been given. The preponderance of egoism in the human heart once granted, the barrier of the law is certain to be overpassed, and transgression is sure to make wrath burst forth.
T. R., with the Byzs., the Greco-Latins, and the oldest versions, connects the second part of this verse with the first by , for. This reading appears at the first glance easier than that of the Alex.: (now, or but). But this very circumstance is not in its favor. The three , which have preceded, may have also led the copyists to write the same particle again. The context, carefully consulted, demands a rather than a . For what says the second member? That without a law transgression is not possible. Now this idea does not logically prove that the law necessarily produces wrath. This second proposition of Rom 4:15 is not therefore a proof, but a simple observation in support of the first; and this connection is exactly marked by the , which is the particle here not of opposition (but), but of gradation (now), and which may be rendered by and indeed. This second proposition is therefore a sort of parenthesis intended to strengthen the bearing of the fact indicated in the first (15a): In general, a law cannot be the means fitted to gain for us the favor of God; on the contrary, the manifestations of sin, of the evil nature, acquire a much graver character through the law, that of transgression, of positive, deliberate violation of the divine will, and so increase wrath. , transgression, from , to overpass. A barrier cannot be crossed except in so far as it exists. So without law there is no sin in the form of transgression.
The article is wanting here before , law. And rightly so; for this saying is a general maxim which does not apply specially to the Jews and the Jewish law (as 15a). The Gentiles have also a law (Rom 2:14-15), which they can observe or violate. In the latter case, they become objects of wrath (chap. 1) as well as the Jews, though in a less degree.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
for the law worketh wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there transgression. [Abraham had, by reason of his human nature, to be justified by his faith. If justification had to be earned, and men had to seek it by the works of the law, then faith–all the things which we hope for and believe in–would be made void.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
15. For the law worketh out wrath; for where is no law, there is no transgression. While the law is perfectly pure and holy, yet it is utterly incapable of love and mercy. All it can do is to condemn the criminal. Hence the silly nonsense of salvation by obedience, which could only turn over the whole human race to endless punishment. The law is the exponent of the penalty, and must be prefinite to all transgression.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 15
The law worketh wrath; by demanding the punishment of transgression.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
4:15 {13} Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.
(13) A reason of the first confirmation, why the promise cannot be apprehended by the law: because the law does not reconcile God and us, but rather proclaims his anger against us, because no man can fully keep it.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Rather than bringing blessing, which God promised Abraham, the Law brings wrath because no one can keep the Law perfectly. Whenever there is failure, wrath follows. However without law there can be no violation and therefore no wrath. Moo explained Paul’s logic as follows.
"Violation of law turns ’sin’ into the more serious offense of ’transgression,’ meriting God’s wrath
God gave the law to the Jews
The Jews have transgressed the law (cf. Rom 2:1-29; Rom 3:9-19)
The law brought wrath to the Jews . . .
"Paul, then, is not claiming that there is no ’sin’ where there is no law, but, in almost a ’truism,’ that there is no deliberate disobedience of positive commands where there is no positive command to disobey." [Note: Ibid., pp. 276, 277.]