,
and St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it. He
is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine in this
passage--namely that we are justified by faith in Christ without
any works of the Law. In fact, he rejects all works so completely
as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and
word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an
example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works
that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over
and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in
justification. Instead, Abraham was justified without
circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in
Chapter 4: "If Abraham is justified by works, he may boast, but
not before God." However, when all works are so completely
rejected--which must mean faith alone justifies--whoever would
speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works would have
to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself
and the nature of language necessitates it.

"Yet", they say, "it has such an offensive tone that people infer
from it that they need not do any good works." Dear, what are we to
say? IS it not more offensive for St. Paul himself to not use the
term "faith alone" but spell it even more clearly, putting the
finishing touches on it by saying "Without the works of the Law?"
Gal. 1 [2.16] says that "not by works of the law" (as well as in
many other places) for the phrase "without the works of the law"
is so ever offensive, and scandalous that no amount of revision
can help it. How much more might people learn from "that they
need not do any good works", when all they hear is preaching
about the works themselves, stated in such a clear strong way:
"No works", "without works", "not by works"! If it is not
offensive to preach "without works", "not by works", "no works",
why is it offensive to preach "by faith alone"?

Still more offensive is that St. Paul does not reject just
ordinary works, but works of the law! It follows that one could
take offense at that all the more and say that the law is
condemned and cursed before God and one ought only do what is
contrary to the law as it is said in Rom. 3: "Why not do evil so
that there might be more good?" which is what that one divisive
spirit of our time was doing. Should one reject St. Paul's word
because of such 'offense' or refrain from speaking freely about
faith? Gracious, St. Pau