The passage asserts that if works or obedience to the law were the measures of righteousness, then faith would be useless. Because "law brings wrath," or punishment, salvation and/or redemption though works and the law is truly salvation through fear, and this another things this passage sets itself against that might perhaps resonate more with modern readers. This reading of the passage suggests that the route to redemption should not be viewed as a narrow and restrictive path, but that a faith in God is all that is truly necessary for justification. The debate over the source of justification has been quite prominent at certain points in the development of Christian theology. The Puritans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had similar beliefs about justification; this passage was key to the concept of the covenant of grace, where Jesus Christ's sacrifice was enough to bring redemption to all of the saved. This led to what is known as the Antimonian Contrversy, where all works were deemed effectively worthless. It was feared that this view could lead to lawlessness -- and indeed, such an interpretation is supported by the wording of this passage -- and its advocates were actually cast out of their community in Massachusetts. Obviously, the political and theological implications of rendering the law useless need to be given careful consideration in reading this passage.

Lawlessness is not explicitly advocated in this passage; rather, it is simply stated that following laws is not necessary for redemption. The faith in God and his works that is a requirement, however, suggests that there is a path to righteousness that involves our actions here on Earth. Though it is not a requirement of redemption or justification, it makes sense -- and is suggested in this...

"Walking in the footsteps" of faith implies a more active role in living righteously than simply having faith, it means living in a way that shows evidence of that faith. This could certainly be interpreted as suggesting that certain works and behaviors that are generally considered godly and righteous, though not a way of earning redemption or justification, is a way of showing one's justification.
This passage was written during a time of great political tension; Roman rule was becoming increasingly restrictive and hostile towards Jews and early Christians alike, and this was a powerful dissuasive force away from Christianity and the outward display of religion. Certain interpretations of this passage address this issue on several levels. First and perhaps most importantly, this passage suggests that stringent and restricted ways of living are not necessary to earn justification and redemption. Secondarily, this means that one can be saved through faith without making a large show of their religious beliefs, which added a great practical benefit to the practice of Christianity in the politically restrictive times of the New Testament's writing. Then far more than now, theology and politics went hand in hand; this passage allowed for a separation of the two.