Romans 4

Romans 4

Romans 4

2. Justification Proved from Abraham, 4:1–25

It is central to Paul’s position that the way of salvation he has just been outlining, the way of salvation by God’s grace, is no innovation. He is not prepared to jettison the Old Testament or the Judaism in which he had been raised. He holds that the true understanding of the Old Testament is that which sees it as pointing forward to what God would do in Christ. The true Jew is not the one who conforms to the outward regulations of contemporary Judaism but the one who is a Jew inwardly (2:28–29). Such a Jew recognizes that Jesus is the Messiah and responds to what God is doing in Christ. Paul has made it clear that he sees God as saving by grace. Now he proceeds to show that this was true of Abraham, the great progenitor of the race. If God had acted in grace towards Abraham, if Abraham had been justified by faith, then Paul’s point is established; whereas if Abraham had been accepted on the ground of his works, Paul’s point that God had always acted in grace would not stand. Abraham is critically important.

a. God’s way is grace, 4:1–8

¹What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? ²If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. ³What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”^a

⁴Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. ⁵However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. ⁶David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

⁷“Blessed are they

whose transgressions are forgiven,

whose sins are covered.

⁸Blessed is the man

whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”^b

Paul begins by showing that according to Scripture Abraham’s righteousness before God was due to his faith, not his works. The Jews as a whole would probably have regarded faith as a work,¹ but Paul has a different idea. He sees the grace of God as active, and Abraham’s faith as simply Abraham trusting God. So Paul contrasts grace and works or obligation, and goes on to find his doctrine in David as well as in Abraham.

1. Typically Paul opens with a question,² and his then links what he is saying with the previous argument. If it is true that he is establishing the law with his doctrine of salvation in Christ, then something must be said about Abraham. There are textual problems in this verse: some MSS omit the verb translated discovered and the words are in varying order.³ But it seems that the verb should be read. It is surprising to find the word discovered (or “found”) used in this way, though we should bear in mind that it is sometimes used of intellectual discovery as well as physical (and that it is used specifically of Abraham in Gen. 18:3; cf. Michel). It seems to refer here to Abraham’s finding the way to God (though some think it is the reward he found from God). Forefather is an unusual word in the New Testament, found only here in fact. It points to kinship with this great man of the remote past, the words “according to the flesh”⁴ describing him as the physical progenitor of the Jewish race. It is possible, however, to take this phrase with discovered to give the meaning “What shall we say that Abraham discovered according to the flesh?” that is, from a human point of view, by his human efforts. Godet argues that the context requires a reference to the way in which Abraham became righteous, not the nature of his paternity (which comes later), but Cranfield rejects this view since it does not suit the sequel. TH remarks that no modern translation accepts this understanding of the words.

2. Paul looks at the supposition that Abraham was justified by works. This is not a view he can accept, but it was widely held by Jewish teachers. They saw Abraham as an outstanding person who had kept the provisions of the law before the law was in fact laid down: “we find that Abraham our father had performed the whole Law before it was given” (Kidd. 4:14); “Abraham was perfect in all his deeds with the Lord” (Jub. 23:10).⁵ If this view is right, then Paul is very, very wrong. But if Paul can show that Abraham was justified freely by God’s grace, the apostle will have gone a long way towards establishing his position. He begins⁶ by assuming for the moment that Abraham was justified in this way,⁷ and then asking what follows. In that case Abraham would have something to boast about.⁸ He would be able to take credit for having accomplished his justification before God by his own efforts. But Paul raises this possibility only to dismiss it. No man can boast before God. It is unthinkable that anyone, even Abraham, could have matter for boasting in God’s presence, so Paul exclaims, but⁹ not before God. His language is highly compressed, and these words are exclamatory, giving emphasis to an utter impossibility. Paul is not implying (as some hold) that Abraham had something to boast about before men; such a contrast with God does not seem to be in mind here. He is saying emphatically, as part of his argument, that Abraham had nothing to boast of before God. He will go on to point out that Scripture makes this clear and that the consequence is that no one is justified by his works (if Abraham was not, who could be?).

3. Characteristically Paul turns from human suppositions to the teaching of Scripture. He employs an argumentative conjunction which NIV omits but which is important.¹⁰ Paul’s argument proceeds along the lines “Does Abraham really have matter for boasting before God? Not at all, for Scripture says….” For Paul’s use of Scripture see the note on 1:2. He usually employs the singular, as here, for an individual passage (cf. 9:17; 10:11; 11:2).¹¹ He seems to use the word of the Old Testament almost as an independent entity expressing itself through the passage he is dealing with, as when he says that the Scripture speaks to Pharaoh (9:17). It may be too much to press the use of the present tense here, but it fits in with the vital role Paul assigns to Scripture. It still speaks. His quotation is from Genesis 15:6 (and agrees substantially with both the Hebrew and LXX).¹² The Jews interpreted the passage of a meritorious work. Thus we read: “The faith with which your father Abraham believed in Me merits that I should divide the sea…”; or again, “our father Abraham became the heir of this and of the coming world simply by the merit of the faith with which he believed in the LORD…”¹³ (both passages go on to quote Gen. 15:6). Notice that both these passages (like many others) explicitly speak of Abraham’s faith as a merit. But for Paul faith is not a good work; it is trust in God. The construction with the verb believed (the simple dative) strictly means “believe to be true”, “accept what is said as correct”. But really to believe what God says means to trust him, and Paul makes this clear as he develops his argument throughout this chapter. Abraham did not perform some great work of merit, but simply trusted God.¹⁴ The verb credited¹⁵ is used in the keeping of accounts. It was set down to Abraham’s account¹⁶ that he was righteous. Righteousness¹⁷ here clearly points to status. Nothing is said about Abraham’s deeds or the like. And a righteousness that is reckoned must be a right standing (an ethical virtue cannot be “reckoned”; it must be acquired by upright living). Harrison points out that to say that faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness “means that faith itself is not righteousness” (so Käsemann, “one may not infer from the ‘reckon’ that God treats faith as though it were righteousness”, p. 111; Hunter is not correct in saying that the passage “equates faith with righteousness”). Paul is not saying that, because sinners could not produce the good works necessary to merit salvation (i.e., righteousness), God allowed them to substitute faith as an easier option. He is saying that God gives salvation freely and that faith is the means whereby we receive the gift (cf. 10:10, “with the heart one believes unto righteousness”).

4. Paul proceeds¹⁸ to contrast the way of works with the way of grace. When anyone works, his wage is his as a right; it belongs to him. It is not reckoned as a gift. Paul actually says his way is not “according to grace”. While one cannot cavil at NIV’s rendering, it is important to notice that the word for it is grace, the same grace Paul has in mind throughout this section. To say that Abraham exercised faith would not necessarily get his point over, for the Jews often held that faith was a good work (as we have seen). They saw it as implying obedience to God’s commands. But to say that he was saved not by works, but by grace, was another matter. There was no way of misinterpreting that. The reference to grace is important and should not be overlooked. But grace is not the way for the person who relies on works. For the one who works the wage is an obligation; it is what is due, what is owing to him (cf. F. Hauck, TDNT, V, p. 565). It might fairly be said that Genesis does not speak of God as owing anything to Abraham or of Abraham as meriting anything from God, so that it was not works that saved the patriarch. But Paul does not stop to point this out. He moves on to the next stage of his contrast between the two principles.

5. There is a slight shift of meaning in the word work. In v. 4 it was quite general, as Paul drew his principle from ordinary secular life where work and wages are linked. Here he is referring more specifically to matters religious; he is speaking of the person who does not perform law-works, works he sees as building up merit for him in the sight of God. The contrast¹⁹ is not between the worker and the nonworker (Paul is not canonizing laziness), but between the one who trusts in his works and the one who trusts in God. The trusting person does not stand before God in the capacity of a paid laborer, receiving his due for work done, but as a believer. He has no good works to plead. None. A single article governs the two participles, making the point that it is one individual who does not work but believes (not one who does not work and another who believes).²⁰ His trust is in God,²¹ who justifies the wicked—“acquits the guilty”, as we might say (GNB has “declares the guilty to be innocent”). The word rendered wicked²² is a strong term. Paul is speaking of the justified as completely without merit. God’s saving activity does not operate solely on the most promising material. He justifies the impious, even those actively opposed to him. This is all the more striking in that the Old Testament says that God does not justify the wicked (Exod. 23:7; LXX has “Thou shalt not justify the ungodly”, making it a command); it forbids people from doing it (Prov. 17:15; 24:24; Isa. 5:23). Paul is not enunciating a religious commonplace, but giving expression to a resounding paradox.²³ He is pointing to a unique divine work. The believer’s faith is credited as righteousness. This is not to regard it as a meritorious work; it is the very absence of all work, of all claim on God. Whereas systems of justification by works all look to the worshipper to produce the desired righteousness, Paul is speaking of a system that requires him to produce nothing. All he does is to reach out in faith for God’s good gift.

6. Paul finds this²⁴ in David²⁵ as well as in Abraham.²⁶ David “pronounces a blessing” (RSV)²⁷ on the saved person, the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works. The Psalm speaks of sins being forgiven, not being “counted against” the sinner, and Paul takes this as the crediting of righteousness. They are the two sides of the same coin. The example of David is significant for Paul, for in his case there is no question of salvation by works. The blessing is not concerned with someone who has good deeds to urge as meriting favor, but with one whose evil deeds are not imputed. Murray points out that the logic of Paul’s argument here demands that “ ‘to impute righteousness’ has the same force as ‘to justify’ ”.

7. The quotation is from Psalm 32:1–2, in a form agreeing with both the Hebrew and LXX. It does not refer to faith or to righteousness, so there is a difference from the case of Abraham, but it does use the verb “credit” with respect to God and this is apparently the connection.²⁸ It is a blessed thing when God forgives and does not “credit” a person with sin. And, of course, the passage refers to free forgiveness. The Psalmist is not speaking of a reward for good works, but of God’s grace towards sinners (cf. vv. 5, 7). He speaks of certain people as “blessed”,²⁹ using “the highest term which a Greek could use to describe a state of felicity” (SH, who note that Aristotle uses it of the gods). This is the state of those whose transgressions are forgiven. The word for transgressions³⁰ strictly means “lawlessnesses”. Here it is in a quotation and is parallel to sins, so the strict meaning can scarcely be insisted on; but the word certainly depicts evil as a lack of conformity to God’s law. Paul does not often speak of forgiveness.³¹ Perhaps he prefers positive imagery like justification or freedom from sin’s control. But the idea is more widespread than the use of the word, and he certainly makes the thought that Christ has dealt with our sins central. Parallel to this is the statement that the blessed have their sins covered.³² The imagery is different: the sins are not visible to God. But the basic thought is much the same: the transgression, the sins have been put away.

8. The Psalm moves to the singular, but this is surely no more than a stylistic device. The application is still quite general, and man³³ means anyone at all. For Lord see on 1:4; here it refers to Yahweh, as commonly in LXX. The quotation uses an emphatic negative;³⁴ God will certainly not count the sins in question against the man of whom the words are written.³⁵ In the previous verse we have the positive: the sins are “forgiven” or “covered”; here we have the corresponding negative: they are not counted. The change to the singular, sin, is probably stylistic, though of course the word sometimes refers to the principle rather than to individual evil acts. But this distinction does not appear to be in mind here.

b. Faith and circumcision, 4:9–12

⁹Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. ¹⁰Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! ¹¹And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. ¹²And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

The Jews put a good deal of emphasis on circumcision, that divinely ordained ceremony which formally admitted one to membership in the people of God. It was this that marked him off from other people and that was the seal of his place before God. No matter who a man’s parents were, if he was not circumcised he was not a Jew.³⁶ Those outside the people of God could be called simply “the uncircumcised” (1 Sam. 31:4; Isa. 52:1; Acts 11:3). The Jews could say explicitly, “ ‘uncircumcised’ is but used as a name for the gentiles” (Ned. 3:11). But Paul insisted that it is faith (and by implication not any outward ceremony) that brings salvation and makes people members of the people of God. Now he points out that Abraham was accepted by God before he was circumcised and shows some of the implications of this.

9. Paul rushes on (his sentence has no verb, though it is easy to understand one). He has cited Scripture to show that the blessing David pronounces comes not on those whose good works merit it, but on those whom God has forgiven. In the light of this³⁷ he now asks whether the blessing in question comes on the circumcised or those not circumcised (he uses the terms “circumcision” and “uncircumcision”, but clearly he is here referring to the people, not the act).³⁸ In view of his line of argument it is important to make the point that circumcision with its implied obligation to keep the whole law (cf. Gal. 5:3) is not God’s chosen way to save people. Paul’s emphasis on faith is not some new-fangled innovation. God has always saved people by the way of grace, as the case of Abraham shows. So now the apostle reverts to the words of Genesis 15:6 that he used in verse 3. The wording is identical (he has the noun faith instead of the verb “believed”), but the meaning is the same.

10. Paul asks two questions that do not seem to have occurred to the Jews of his day. Under what circumstances… ?³⁹ directs attention to Abraham’s condition⁴⁰ at the time of his acceptance with God, and Was it after he was circumcised? brings us explicitly to circumcision. He answers this question with a negative followed by a positive: “not in circumcision but in uncircumcision.” These are the only possibilities, and Paul is in no doubt as to which is right. Abraham’s circumcision was not commanded until long after he was accepted by God (Gen. 17:10–11), and was not performed until later still (Gen. 17:23–27). His acceptance on the grounds of his faith (Gen 15:6) was apparently before the birth (or even the conception) of Ishmael (Gen. 16), and Abraham was 86 years old when the child was born (Gen. 16:16). But he was not circumcised until he was 99 (Gen. 17:24).⁴¹ It is thus plain that God’s reckoning of Abraham as righteous took place years before there was any question of circumcision. It was not this rite that gave the patriarch standing before God.

11. But circumcision cannot be ignored. Every Jew knew that it had been commanded by God. If Abraham was accepted without it, then what did it mean? Why was it enjoined? In agreement with Genesis 17:11 Paul says that it was a sign. This is an important word, and Paul puts it in an emphatic position: “A sign he received….”⁴² It was not circumcision as such that was important, for in antiquity other nations than Israel were circumcised. (IDB cites the Egyptians, most of the ancient Semites, and the people adjacent to Israel except the Philistines); it was the circumcision given by God as a sign that mattered. This sign is further explained as a seal.⁴³ In antiquity a seal was often a mark of ownership, as when a man sealed property to show that it was his. But it was also a means of attestation, and it seems that this is the way we should take it here. God gave the sign of circumcision and by doing so set his seal⁴⁴ on the righteousness imputed to the patriarch. This righteousness was of faith (cf. Phil. 3:9).⁴⁵ It is important to see that the whole point of circumcision is its relation to righteousness and to faith, that faith which Abraham had while he was still uncircumcised. This is the point Paul is concerned to emphasize. Circumcision had nothing to do with Abraham’s acceptance by God (cf. Gal. 5:6). It was while he was still uncircumcised that God accepted him.

There is a divine purpose⁴⁶ behind this. God did this in order that Abraham might be the father of all believers, circumcised or uncircumcised, and Paul singles out for mention those who have not been circumcised. Even that ordinance which was most typically Jewish was for the purpose of embracing the Gentiles! The true children of Abraham are not those who took his circumcision as a model, but those who received God’s gift in faith as he did. Paul could be seen as a pattern of faith (1 Tim. 1:16), but Abraham was more; he was the spiritual father of all believers (cf. Gal. 3:7), the father of the household of faith. Fatherhood can, of course, be understood in more ways than one. We get light on the way Abraham was the father of uncircumcised believers by reflecting that Jabal was the father of tent-dwellers and breeders of livestock, while Jubal was the father of musicians (Gen. 4:20–21). In neither case was the paternity literal; it was concerned rather with the characteristics of the people in question. And it is characteristic of uncircumcised believers that they are like Abraham. Abraham was not the first to exercise faith (cf. Heb. 11:1–7), but he was the spiritual father of the community of faith.⁴⁷ It must have been startling to Jewish readers, who often referred with pride to “Father Abraham” (cf. Luke 3:8; 16:24, 30; John 8:39, 53, 56; Acts 7:2; Jas. 2:21), to hear Abraham described as the father of uncircumcised people.

A second construction of purpose (this time translated as in order that) brings out the truth that God intended to reckon righteousness to them. The emphasis on the divine purpose in this verse should not be overlooked. Paul sees it as God’s purpose that justification should be by grace, by faith, and he holds that the way God justified Abraham brings this out for all who have eyes to see.⁴⁸

12. Now comes the second aspect of Abraham’s fatherhood. He was also the father of the circumcised.⁴⁹ The construction expressing purpose which was applied to the uncircumcised in the previous verse carries over to the circumcised here. The same divine purpose is in action. But it is not the circumcised⁵⁰ as such⁵¹ who are in mind; it is circumcised believers (just as it was not the uncircumcised as such but uncircumcised believers who were said to be justified). They are those who⁵² also walk in the footsteps⁵³ of the faith that our father Abraham had. Paul is unwearied in his emphasis on faith. Circumcision or uncircumcision matters little, but faith is all-important. “To walk in the steps of” is a natural metaphor for close imitation. And what is singled out for imitation is Abraham’s faith (even though it means a rather curious metaphor—“walking in the steps of the faith…”). Even when dealing with the circumcised, Paul points to the faith that is to be imitated as that which Abraham had while uncircumcised.⁵⁴

c. Faith and law, 4:13–17

¹³It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. ¹⁴For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, ¹⁵because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

¹⁶Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. ¹⁷As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”^a He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

With these verses Paul turns to the law, which mattered so much to the Jews. He might have urged a historical argument similar to the one he has used with regard to circumcision, for the law was 430 years after Abraham’s acceptance with God (as he points out elsewhere, Gal. 3:17). Instead, he chooses to argue that law and grace (or promise) are incompatible. As the case of Abraham shows, God’s way is that of grace. Therefore law cannot be the way.

13. Paul now emphasizes that Abraham acted on the principle of faith, not law. His use of “For” (omitted in NIV, RSV, etc.) links this to the preceding. Abraham was the father of all the faithful, for he acted in the way he did, in conformity with faith, not law. Paul is still rushing on, and this sentence has no main verb. Not through law is quite general. Just as Abraham’s acceptance by faith was independent of circumcision, so it independent of the Mosaic law. It was not through that law that he received the promise; indeed, it was not through any law. On the contrary,⁵⁵ it was through “the righteousness of faith”. That is God’s chosen way.

The promise is important for Paul (he uses the word in exactly half of its New Testament occurrences; 26 out of 52). It forms part of his understanding of the way of grace. We may rely on this way, for it is the result of God’s promise. The promise is not only to Abraham, but also to his offspring (his “seed”). Paul quite often uses this expression for the descendants of Abraham and in one important passage for the Descendant, Christ (Gal. 3:16). Scholars like Käsemann, Michel, and Murray reject the messianic view here, but whichever way we take it, it has nothing to do with the law. The context of the promise is he would be heir of the world,⁵⁶ a form of expression that goes beyond the words of the Old Testament (Gen. 18:18; 22:17–18), though it may be held to agree in sense. Heir strictly means someone who secures possession after the death of the owner, but in the New Testament it is often used of secure possession without regard to the way the possession is obtained. Heir of the world is not a particularly easy expression. It could be understood as an enthusiastic description of great material prosperity, but we expect something in the way of spiritual blessing here. Perhaps material blessing is used as a symbol of spiritual blessing. It is possible to see the prosperity in terms of the family of faith that Abraham would beget, a worldwide family (Cranfield sees the best commentary on these words as 1 Cor. 3:21b-23).⁵⁷

14. Paul advances his argument by pointing out that the promise means that no way of law can be the way to God. If the way of law is correct, there is no place for promise (Paul has a similar argument in 11:6, that grace and works are mutually exclusive; cf. Gal. 3:18). He speaks of “those of law”, which means those characterized by law, those who live by law. Paul is not speaking of those who observe the law indeed, but whose center is elsewhere; he is speaking of legalists, people who regard law as central.⁵⁸ The Jews, of course, thought of Abraham as a man of law (“he kept the law of the Most High”, Sir. 44:20); Paul’s insistence on Abraham’s faith is a direct denial of this view. If those who rely on law be the heirs, then faith has been “made empty”;⁵⁹ there is nothing in it (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14). This of itself makes it impossible for Paul to hold it. For him it is plain that Scripture has said that faith is meaningful and anything that conflicts with Scripture is invalid. There is another consequence: the promise is worthless.⁶⁰ God’s promise was not made on condition of law-keeping. If now it is the legalists who are in the right, God’s promise to Abraham will not stand, and that is unthinkable. It would negate the very idea of promise, for that which comes as the due reward of work done is not a promise. A promise points to a gift given freely (of course, a promise may have conditions, but none was attached to the promise made to Abraham).

15. Now⁶¹ we come to the true function of law. It brings wrath. Hodge sees this as working out in two ways: (a) our imperfect obedience brings the law’s curse on us, and (b) law “excites and exasperates the evil passions of the heart”. The law has its place in the way God brings people salvation, but that place is not the provision of a means whereby people may so prove themselves virtuous that they receive salvation as a merited reward. Rather, law shows up our inadequacies and makes us see our need of a Savior. Paul adds that where⁶² there is no law there is no transgression (cf. 5:13). This is beautifully simple and quite compelling. Transgression⁶³ is the right word for overstepping a line, and thus for breaking a clearly defined commandment. If there is no transgression, there is no need of salvation. Law shows us where we stand, but it does not save us.

16. Again we have a verbless sentence; Paul’s argument is rushing on.⁶⁴ “On account of this”, he says (NIV, Therefore), but it is not easy to see what his “this” is. Perhaps it takes in the sense of the preceding—because of the impossibility of salvation by law.⁶⁵ “It is of faith”, Paul says, but he does not stop to say what is “of faith”. NIV supplies the promise; other suggestions include the inheritance, the divine plan, righteousness, and the way of salvation. Clearly Paul is referring to blessing in some form, but he does not stop to define it. He goes on to say that the purpose⁶⁶ of the promise was grace (see the note on 1:5).⁶⁷ A further construction indicating purpose⁶⁸ brings out the point that the grace was in order that the promise may be guaranteed⁶⁹ to all Abraham’s offspring. This last word (= “seed”) is perhaps unexpected, but the Jews put a good deal of emphasis on the fact that they were Abraham’s seed, and Paul is insisting that the true seed of Abraham are those who come by faith, not the physical descendants of the patriarch. He proceeds to bring out the meaning of “all the seed” with a combination of the negative and the positive. First, it is not only⁷⁰ those who are of the law. The reference to the law will point to Jews, but Paul is speaking of believing Jews, not of Jews who put their trust in the law. He has already negated that way, and he is not going back on what he said before. He is saying that some of those who treasured the law are people of faith and so true descendants of Abraham. The positive is “that which is of Abraham’s faith”. His but also is an unexpectedly strong antithesis;⁷¹ Paul is emphasizing that faith is the only way. Those who come by the way of law are not saved. He is saying to the saved Jews, “Those Gentiles who come by the way of faith are saved just as much as you are.” All who are saved are saved by grace, by God’s promise, a promise that is accepted in faith. There is no other way. Thus Abraham is the father of us all. The way of faith which he exemplified is the only way we may come to God. All is a significant word. There is no distinction.

17. Characteristically Paul proves his point with an appeal to Scripture. He applies Genesis 17:5 to the many nations from whom Abraham’s spiritual children would come. His quotation agrees exactly with LXX (whereas the Hebrew means “a multitude of nations”). There is a note of permanence about the perfect tense of the verb I have made; this is not a passing thought, but God’s final word (cf. Calvin, it “denotes the certainty of the divine counsel”). So Paul speaks of Abraham as our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed.⁷² He proceeds to characterize God in terms of his giving life to the dead.⁷³ Paul may have in mind the typical Jewish estimate of the spiritual state of the Gentiles; spiritually they may indeed be dead, but God is the God who gives life. There may also be a glance at Ezekiel 37, where God gives life to a great army of the dead. And a reference in the New Testament to God as giving life to the dead must always be understood against the background of the raising of Jesus. Paul goes on to speak of Abraham and Sarah in terms of death (v. 19), so they must be in mind, too. The dead is a general term and embraces both the physically dead and the spiritually dead. Consider death how you will, God is the life-giving God and he overcomes it. Calls is linked with gives life under the one article; God is the one who both gives life and calls. Both activities are characteristic of him. The verb calls can signify to name or to summon. But it can also signify to call into existence, and this is the meaning we find here.⁷⁴ When Paul uses the verb he usually has in mind the idea of effectual call. God’s purpose in calling is completely accomplished. Those who are called respond. Paul’s terminology differs from that of the Synoptic Gospels, where “many are called but few chosen”, but his thought is not essentially different. His “called” are much like the Synopticists’ “chosen”. Things that are not⁷⁵ points to the nonexistence of the called before the call came. Paul is speaking of God as creating something out of nothing by his call. This applies to the physical creation, though that does not seem to be particularly in mind here. It certainly applies to God’s calling of his people into existence, for Paul goes on to speak of both Abraham and Sarah in terms of being dead (v. 19). On the human level their potential for procreation was nil, but God called many nations into existence through them. Some see an application to Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice Isaac and, as it were, receiving his son back from the dead (Gen. 22; Heb. 11:17–19), but Paul does not seem to be thinking of this, for he makes no reference to it. There will certainly be an application to the countless host of believers through the centuries. They did not exist at the time God called Abraham, but in due course God called them as though they were. God’s own have no qualifications of their own to urge; they are things that are not. But as though they were indicates the very opposite. When they are called they are as those who lack nothing.

Käsemann sees here “the full radicalness of Paul’s doctrine of justification”, which is ”an anticipation of the resurrection of the dead, which as no other even deserves to be called a creation out of nothing and presents the eschatological repetition of the first creation” (p. 123). When people really accept the reality of justification by faith, “there is unavoidably linked with it a reduction to nothing which deeply shakes the righteous by associating them with the ungodly. No one has anything of his own to offer so that a new creation is both necessary and possible.” Whatever other allusion we may discern, surely this is primary. The justified bring nothing; they are as dead, as those who do not exist. But because of God’s creative call they are brought to newness of life.

d. Faith and Abraham, 4:18–25

¹⁸Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”^a ¹⁹ Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. ²⁰Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, ²¹being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. ²²This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” ²³The words ”it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, ²⁴but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. ²⁵He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Paul links Abraham’s faith with hope (an important concept for him) and brings out the truth that neither was a truism—Abraham and Sarah were as good as dead with respect to procreation when they received the promise of God. Abraham’s faith was profound and its being reckoned to him for righteousness has meaning for all subsequent believers.

18. Hope is a decidedly Pauline word, and a word found more often in Romans than in any other New Testament book.⁷⁶ The concept is often linked with faith (cf. 5:2; 15:13; Gal. 5:5; Eph. 1:18–19; Col. 1:23; 1 Tim. 4:10; Heb. 11:1; 1 Pet. 1:21). It is distinguished from secular optimism in that it is grounded in what God has done in Christ. In the light of Calvary believers may have confidence that God’s purpose will be worked out to the end.⁷⁷ Here Paul is saying that Abraham believed against all hope;⁷⁸ he believed when there was nothing from this world’s point of view to justify his faith or his hope.⁷⁹ Elsewhere we read of people who were “without hope and without God” (Eph. 2:12). For Paul the two went together. But Abraham was not without God and therefore he was not without hope. His hope was bound up with his faith in God and thus did not depend on human factors. Calvin puts it succinctly: “The meaning is that when he had no grounds for hope, Abraham still relied in hope on the promise of God”.⁸⁰ In the New Testament there is more of a note of certainty in hope than there is in the way we generally use the term. It is a looking forward to things not present indeed, but whose coming is certain. It is thus akin to faith, and it accords with this that in the present passage Abraham is said to have believed in hope. The result⁸¹ was that he became the father of many nations (cf. v. 17). This is backed up with a quotation from Scripture in the Pauline manner.⁸² The apostle quotes Genesis 15:5 in a form agreeing with both LXX and the Hebrew. The So⁸³ in the Genesis passage refers to the number of the stars and points to the great multitude of Abraham’s descendants.

19. In the face of the promise Abraham did not weaken⁸⁴ in his faith, unlikely as its fulfilment might be on purely human premises. There is textual uncertainty as to whether we should read “he considered his body as good as dead” or “he considered not his own body now dead” (KJV).⁸⁵ It is fascinating that these two readings, the one negating the other, are both well attested and each gives good sense. In the one case Abraham did not consider his body as dead, for God would work his will through it. In the other he took full account of the impotence of his body⁸⁶ and held that God would work his will through it. The second is both better attested and gives better sense. Faith does not close its eyes to reality. It is not limited by the best human estimates of what is possible, for it is faith in the God “who gives life to the dead” (v. 17). But it does not overlook the facts either; it recognizes that what is dead is dead and knows that only God can give life where there is no life. Another textual problem is whether or not we should read “already” (“now” in KJV).⁸⁷ Not much hangs on this question, but it does seem as though the word is not original, and it is not read in most modern translations. Obviously Abraham’s body was not dead, but as far as reproduction went it was in the as-good-as-dead category.⁸⁸ The patriarch could not expect a child at his age, about⁸⁹ a hundred (this last word is found here only in the New Testament). The participial expression (“being about a hundred”) explains why Abraham’s body was considered as good as dead.⁹⁰ With Abraham’s advanced years is linked “the deadness⁹¹ of Sarah’s womb”. There is a certain lack of life about both. In view of all this deadness it was not possible for the couple to have a child in the normal human fashion, and to believe God’s promise under those circumstances was more than a passive acquiescence in a conventional religious posture; it was the active exercise of a profound faith.

20. Yet⁹² Abraham did not waver⁹³ through unbelief. He had received God’s promise (cf. v. 13), and that preserved him from unbelief.⁹⁴ On the contrary, he was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God. The verb was strengthened is in the passive in the New Testament more often than in the active, which accords with the fact that the believer’s strength is derivative. I have reservations about translations like “his faith filled him with power” (GNB) or “he grew strong” (RSV). Paul is not saying that faith, so to speak, took a weak Abraham and put strength into him. He is saying that God took a weak Abraham and put strength into him. Abraham was made strong because of his faith indeed, but it was God, not faith, that provided the strength. Faith was no more than the means by which he received it. The Greek may be understood as “he was strengthened in his faith” (his faith grew stronger), or “he was strengthened through his faith”. Either way it was God who gave the strength. Throughout this passage Paul is concerned to emphasize the importance of faith. Abraham had nothing going for him except the promise of God. But for the man of faith that was enough. Paul adds that Abraham gave glory to God, which is not explicitly said in the Genesis narrative. Paul may be referring to Abraham’s general attitude, or to his acceptance of the covenant. At any rate, giving glory to God means ascribing to God what is due to him (in which Abraham stands in contrast to the sinners of 1:21).⁹⁵ It is, of course, impossible to increase God’s glory; “giving glory to God” means recognizing the glory he has and taking the place appropriate to the creature over against the Creator. In Abraham’s case perhaps we can say that we see this in his circumcising his household as a sign of the covenant God would establish with Isaac (Gen. 17:21).

21. A further participle carries on the construction, being fully persuaded.⁹⁶ The verb means “to fill completely” and thus “to convince fully” (see BAGD). A difficulty arises from the fact that Abraham does not seem to have been fully convinced when he was told that Sarah would bear a son, for he laughed at the suggestion and looked to Ishmael as the one through whom God’s promise would be fulfilled (Gen. 17:17–18). But this may be taken as part of the way Abraham evaluated the situation; on the human level the suggestion was laughable. Faith, for Abraham, was not automatic or easy. He had his problems just as the rest of us do. But, recognizing the difficulties as he did, Abraham came to a firm faith, as is shown by his circumcising all the males of his household before Isaac was conceived (Gen. 17:21–27). We must not overlook the fact that many years passed between the giving of the promise (Gen 15:5) and its fulfilment (Gen. 21:2). Abraham must have been sorely tried by the delay, as he saw Sarah and himself growing old and beyond the human capacity of producing a child. Paul is referring to the settled attitude that endured all this, not to Abraham’s initial reaction. The unbelief was momentary, the faith constant. Abraham was assured that God could and would do what he had promised.⁹⁷ This is the one example of the use of the verb “to promise” in Romans, and it is in the perfect tense (as is the one example in Galatians). There is an air of permanence about this tense that suits the divine promise.

22. It was this⁹⁸ constancy in faith that was the reason for Abraham’s being reckoned as righteous. Paul quotes once more from Genesis 15:6, a passage he has already quoted in verse 3.

23. The principle found in this verse matters a good deal to Paul. In 15:4 he says that whatever is written in Scripture is written for our instruction (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16), and in writing to the Corinthians he applies to Christian preachers an Old Testament command concerning oxen, rejecting the view that God has animals primarily in mind. He asks, “Is it about oxen that God is concerned?” and answers, “Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he?” (1 Cor. 9:9–10). He holds that things that happened during the wilderness wanderings “were written down as warnings for us” (1 Cor. 10:11). So here, while Abraham’s faith was obviously very important for the patriarch and his immediate circle, the words were not written for him alone. This means more than that what is written informs and edifies us. Paul is saying that the words laid down an important truth whose application was not limited to Abraham; it is relevant to all the saved. Righteousness will be reckoned to us in the same way it was to Abraham.

24. Paul explicitly applies the words also for us, to his contemporaries,⁹⁹—not, of course, to all, but to us who believe. To believers God will credit righteousness¹⁰⁰ just as he did to Abraham. The future points to the eschatological aspect of justification. In one sense believers are justified now; they have received right standing with God and this is their present possession. From another point of view the consummation waits till Judgment Day and thus may be referred to as still future. NIV is a trifle more full than Paul, who does not use the word righteousness here, but simply says “to whom it will be credited”; but NIV is simply bringing out the sense. This “crediting” is an activity exercised towards us who believe in him, where Paul has an unusual construction after the verb believe.¹⁰¹ Notice further that he speaks of faith in God the Father, not, as he more usually does, of faith in Christ. The Father is characterized by his raising Jesus from the dead (cf. 1 Cor. 6:14; 15:15; 2 Cor. 4:14; Gal. 1:1, etc.). Where Paul uses the verb “to raise” in this epistle he is almost invariably speaking of raising the dead (nine times out of ten). Since the resurrection of Jesus is of central importance, it is not surprising that Paul links it with faith in this way. We should also notice that about three out of four of Paul’s uses of the term “dead” refer to raising from the dead. His interest is in life even when he uses the terminology of death.

25. Jesus was delivered over¹⁰² (there is no to death in the Greek; it is the “handing over” of which Paul speaks, though, of course, Jesus’ death followed). The verb is not uncommon in Paul (19 times out of 120 in the New Testament), but it is more common elsewhere (Matthew, e.g., uses it 31 times). In the Gospels the word is used frequently of Judas’s “betraying” of Jesus, but this is scarcely the thought here. Paul is simply saying that Jesus was given over. He will expect his readers to understand “to death”, and it is the death rather than the betrayal that is in mind. Here Paul does not say who “delivered him over”, but in 8:32 he says that the Father did this.¹⁰³ There is a problem with the two occurrences of for¹⁰⁴ in this verse: for our sins and for our justification. If the two are taken in the same sense (as many argue, quite sensibly), the meaning might be “he was delivered up because we had sinned and raised because we had been justified” (NEB mg., “raised to life because we are now justified”), or “he was delivered up to atone for our sins and raised to secure our justification.” Cranfield argues that the two “for’s” need not have the same meaning, for one refers to what is regrettable (sins) and the other to what is desirable (justification).¹⁰⁵ He takes the first as causal, the second as final. Vincent Taylor maintains that the prospective meaning, “with a view to”, is rare; he finds it extremely rarely in the classics and not at all in LXX or in the papyri as reported by MM, while in the New Testament he finds but one possible exception apart from this passage; this should give us pause before we accept the future reference.¹⁰⁶ It is not wise to be dogmatic. We should certainly not take the second clause to mean that the resurrection was the sole cause of our justification. Paul can also say that we are “justified by his blood” (5:9). Perhaps we should go along with Godet: “Our sin had killed Him; our justification raised him again…. His resurrection was the proof of our justification only because it was the necessary effect of it.” Our best procedure is to see the two “for’s” as causal but not to try to pin them down too closely (cf. NIV).¹⁰⁷ Many see here a traditional formulation which Paul has taken up, and if this is indeed the case this is an added reason for not insisting too strongly on a rigid grammatical distinction. But clearly Paul is affirming strongly that it was for our sins¹⁰⁸ that Christ died and that he has perfectly accomplished our justification. His word for justification¹⁰⁹ is found only here and in 5:18 in the New Testament. Strictly it signifies the act of justifying, the process rather than the result, but it would be pedantic to insist on this. NIV gives us the meaning.

↑ Back to top